-
Hi to all.
I m new to post subject in this forum but not the EIA. We are currently in a campaing ( 1805 1815 ) and we are encountering more than a problem under a couple of uprising players who are not very likely to make negotiations on rules.
I searched far and near into the web to find out some e-mail group or EIA on line gaming that could help me but it seems all of them are now dead and not yet functionally.
So I m here to put under your judgment the flawness in the rules we found.
- first point, we successfully made an agreement here , so i will ask it just to make sure. What happen if, France ask for peace, accepting England demand for an unconditional one but other allies refuse to take napoleon?
1) Englamd is out of peace and could not call for peace conditions.
2) England can demand peace condition in order of "at war" status and then demanding napoleon condition (probably the last english call ) he can be thrown away from the peace. This will means condition taken by english were not been taken from other powers so not taken at all. 
- second point, after a weird situation of game, English and Russian troops are involved in Denmark's channels.
we are discussing about 12.2.1.2 danish swedish crossing arrows.
As written , having army on both side of these denmark's channels (sea arrow) avoid enemy ship channel's bloackade. How this work on supply depot chain? there is a rule on supply depot that talk about ships preventing supply depot through channel.
-third point, referring again at the same rule of
12.2.1.2 danish swedish crossing arrows.
The russian player is stating he can, during is turn as active player and considering the movement corps one corp by one , move a corp on one side of the channel even if contested by english troops and then use the channel with other corps from the other side. (eventually passing through the channel and attacking english troops with the corp he moved on them.
for istance:english schips are located in the sea zone surrounding Copenhagen, 3corps on malmo are english, 3corps on denmark capital are russian, one russian corp is located in sweden.
At the russian turn russian the corp from sweden go on malmo so the 3 corps from Copenhagen can pass trough the channel then a combat is resolved between 3 english corps and 4 russian corps.
Is this correct?
thanks to all who will reply with an advice.
-
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
-
mettolo wrote: I searched far and near into the web to find out some e-mail group or EIA on line gaming that could help me but it seems all of them are now dead and not yet functionally.
There's a Yahoo! group that's still active and full of folks that like to discuss the game.
Quote: 2) England can demand peace condition in order of "at war" status and then demanding napoleon condition (probably the last english call ) he can be thrown away from the peace. This will means condition taken by english were not been taken from other powers so not taken at all.
This is the way that we played in the groups I played with, but others ruled that before you went to select terms the other players either had to agree that England was in and take Napoleon or throw them out before terms were taken. It's a house rule to decided how to play this.
Quote: As written , having army on both side of these denmark's channels (sea arrow) avoid enemy ship channel's bloackade. How this work on supply depot chain? there is a rule on supply depot that talk about ships preventing supply depot through channel.
The rule doesn't specify, so I'd read "blocking" as being for all purposes. But I think you're missing a bit of the rule, here. Most of the rules in EiA are written as though a single power is affected. So it's not only enough that there's an "enemy force" on both sides of the channel, they'd actually have to be an "enemy" to the fleet owner and choose to make the rule work. Since it sounds like Russia and England are at war with each other, a French fleet (assuming France is at war with both) would halt movement because there's no reason the Russians and English would cooperate with each other to make the blockade fail.
Quote: The russian player is stating he can, during is turn as active player and considering the movement corps one corp by one , move a corp on one side of the channel even if contested by english troops and then use the channel with other corps from the other side. (eventually passing through the channel and attacking english troops with the corp he moved on them.
Not if there's a blocking fleet, he can't. Why would the English forces help the Russians clear the narrows so that they could be attacked?
-
-
first point clear.
Yes, english and russian are at war , you guessed right, was my fault to not specify.
second one. Are you assuming that a neutral power are not allow to pass through a channel if a neutral fleet is in the surrounding sea zone?
third one. Russian player is saying so cause the rule we are referring (i'm quoting straight away) says:
"12.2.1.2 DANISH/SWEDISH SEA CROSSING ARROWS: These areas are extremely narrow and could be dominated even by the guns of the period. A fleet in the sea area cannot block any of the sea crossing arrows in Denmark or the one connecting the Copenhagen and Malmo areas if enemy corps and/or garrisons are located in both land areas connected by the arrows"
he pointed that the movement is chit by chit in this game, so he can move one chit on one side, then fulfill the rule requirment i posted above, then make the sea arrow works.
Thanks for the quick reply ken. While i'm still trying to get into yahoo group you suggest me , may i asky you if noble knight or the australian group that reprinted the game make an official FAQ ?
I think we can't get anywhere without a referee of our friends'discussion.
-
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
-
mettolo wrote: second one. Are you assuming that a neutral power are not allow to pass through a channel if a neutral fleet is in the surrounding sea zone?
No, neutrals are unaffected by the presence of enemy forces under all but a very limited number of circumstances. I don't think I even referred to the movement of fleets at all.
Quote: he pointed that the movement is chit by chit in this game, so he can move one chit on one side, then fulfill the rule requirment i posted above, then make the sea arrow works.
Except that he has to have an "enemy force" on both sides of the crossing arrow in the first place for the first corps to use the crossing arrow. So whether the movement is corps by corps or not, the first corps cannot legally cross to create the situation where the rule would apply to him. If the Russians started with forces on both sides of the area (say they were besieging Copenhagen and wanted to bring in more forces located on the other side of the arrow), then he's correct. But since the first corps cannot legally move across the arrow with a fleet blocking him, none of the other corps can either. The rule is enforced at the moment movement is attempted, not checked in aggregate at some point during the turn.
I mean, if what's legal for movement isn't handled as individual corps move, you get quite a mess.
Quote: may i asky you if noble knight or the australian group that reprinted the game make an official FAQ ?
I don't believe anyone maintains an official FAQ at this point and ADG has decided not to reprint the game since the rights reverted to them. You can find various archives of the FAQ that did appear in the general running around, though. I believe they're in the files section for the game here and can be found on sites like Web Grognards.
Quote: I think we can't get anywhere without a referee of our friends'discussion.
That may not be the Yahoo group.  We can have some fairly heated exchanges due to some of the language choices that were made in the rules.
-
-
Thanks again. I was not able to clear the second point.
"
he pointed that the movement is chit by chit in this game, so he can move one chit on one side, then fulfill the rule requirment i posted above, then make the sea arrow works.
Except that he has to have an "enemy force" on both sides of the crossing arrow in the first place for the first corps to use the crossing arrow. So whether the movement is corps by corps or not, the first corps cannot legally cross to create the situation where the rule would apply to him. If the Russians started with forces on both sides of the area (say they were besieging Copenhagen and wanted to bring in more forces located on the other side of the arrow), then he's correct. But since the first corps cannot legally move across the arrow with a fleet blocking him, none of the other corps can either. The rule is enforced at the moment movement is attempted, not checked in aggregate at some point during the turn.
I mean, if what's legal for movement isn't handled as individual corps move, you get quite a mess.
"
make this assumption. English and russia at war. English fleet in the danish channel's sea zone. russian troops at Copenhagen and English troops in Malmo. one russian corp somwhere in sweden distant 3 movement from malmo ( i will named that corp kutozov's corp for clerance ).
Russian says: at my tunrn i will move kutuzov's corp from sweden to Malmo, then, because i have now on both side of the channel enemy corps ( enemy for english fleet of course ) i m able to pass through the channel, so i can move my other corps from Copenhagen to Malmo . At the last very thing i will fight.
Am i clear now? he pointed this is possible thanks to chit by chit way of play .
-
David Abel
United States
Portland
Oregon
-
mettolo wrote: english schips are located in the sea zone surrounding Copenhagen, 3corps on malmo are english, 3corps on denmark capital are russian, one russian corp is located in sweden. At the russian turn russian the corp from sweden go on malmo so the 3 corps from Copenhagen can pass trough the channel then a combat is resolved between 3 english corps and 4 russian corps.
Maybe I'm interpreting the situation incorrectly, but to my understanding the Russian has one corp in Sweden already and wants to march it over and onto Malmo. This would then satisfy the condition of have units on both sides of the arrow allowing his 3 corp in Copenhagen to now cross to Malmo as well. Correct? He's not sending a corp over the crossing arrow to satisfy the requirement of being on both sides, he's moving one that's already over there.
This seem correct to me. However, he would need to supply from the Swedish side or forage as the English ship would cut any supply coming from Denmark.
-
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
-
I'm going to make your list bullets to make sure that we're clear on things.
1. England and Russia are at war.
2. England has forces at Malmo.
3. England has a fleet in the sea zone with the crossing arrow between Malmo and Copenhagen.
4. Russia has a corps at Gothenburg (I just picked the city because we can find it on a map and it works).
5. Russia has other corps in Copenhagen.
Russia wants to move the force from Gothenburg to Malmo, then move the other corps from Copenhagen to Malmo because 12.2.1.2 is satisfied. The Russians may even choose to leave a garrison factor in Copenhagen so that they can move all of the corps across the arrow.
If so, then yes - the above satisfies the rules as written and the move is legal. Yes, this does take advantage of the sequential movement that occurs in the game, but then that happens for lots and lots of different things on the map during a player's turn.
-
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
-
drabel wrote: This seem correct to me. However, he would need to supply from the Swedish side or forage as the English ship would cut any supply coming from Denmark.
I'd actually argue that the phrasing of the rule either isn't precise enough to reach this conclusion or was purposefully selected to permit supply to flow across the arrow if the conditions were satisfied. The rule doesn't say "cannot block for movement," it just says that if forces are on both sides of the arrow it can't be blocked in general.
But since this is an optional rule, how it's applied could easily be chosen by each group.
-
David Abel
United States
Portland
Oregon
-
I see your point, 12.2.1.2 doesn't specify that it permits or denies movement but whether the fleet can block the arrow at all. So I if movement is possible, I guess supply is as well.
-
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
-
mettolo wrote: Can we conclude no one in yahoo group will argue about this interpretation and hopefully this is the most common way of playing the EIA , so that even without a referee the clear majority of EIA players could agree with us ? yes i know this is too much  . 
No, you really can't. I'm often amazed at what results in a disagreement on the group. I suspect they'd agree with what I wrote, but perhaps not.
Quote: Thanks again, amyway. Are you still reporting yours game? do you think i should report mine? someone could be interested?
It's been about 5 years since I've actually been in a game long-term, sadly. AARs are often appreciated by the group, though.
-
David Abel
United States
Portland
Oregon
-
mettolo wrote: Are you still reporting yours game? do you think i should report mine? someone could be interested?
Warren Bruhn has been doing a fantastic job at reporting the progress of our game here in Portland and always encourages other EiA games to chime in with theirs. We can always find something interesting in each other's reports: rules or tactics we haven't thought about (at least for a while) or just the obstacles of real life keeping us from the game itself.
-
-
AAR , axis and allies revised?
-
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
-
mettolo wrote: AAR , axis and allies revised?
After Action Report.
-
Warren Bruhn
United States
Portland
Oregon
-
mettolo wrote: AAR , axis and allies revised?
BGG calls them "sessions." The start of the Portland session is a long thread of 50 posts covering the action in 2010, located here:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/505256/aar-2010-portland
The sessions played in Portland in 2011 were broken up into 4 threads.
-
|
|
.
