Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
20 Posts

Perikles» Forums » Rules

Subject: Ambiguities regarding force commitment and location capture rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Wilhelm Fitzpatrick
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In reviewing the rules after our first game, I came across the following ambiguities and I thought I'd mention them here to see what folks opinions are.

1) In the rules of force commitment, it specifically states that if the forces of two cities are on opposite sides of location, the cities are at war, and future placements in the current turn cannot have those two cities defending or attacking together.

The question then is: does that also imply that if the forces of two cities are placed on the same side of a location, such that they are allied, does that prevent the forces of those cities being place on opposites of another battle in later placements. That is, once two cities allied in a turn, can they no longer go to war in that turn?

I'd say yes.

2) Disposition of captured location tiles: the rules simply say that the winner of the final round of a battle takes the tile. But there is a tantalizing hint in the example, where it says "As he [the Spartan player] successfully defended it, he must keep it face up."

Was there supposed to be a rule that successfully attacked tiles are placed face down, and successfully defended tiles are placed face up? This would certainly be a helpful bit of bookkeeping. We were getting so excited about the battles that we kept forgetting to place defeat markers on cities (very important!) and we'd have to go back after the fact and work it out. If you used the "face up/face down" system to determine how location tiles came into your possession, you'd have an easy end of game check on how many defeats each city had suffered.

Thoughts?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
john davidson
Scotland
Edinburgh
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Re: Ambiguities regarding force commitment and location capt
1) I don't think it is as clear cut as that. A city is at war with another city if it attacks a location tile belonging to that city but it is not necessarily at war with the allies of that city.

Say Athens attacks a location tile owned by Thebes.
Athens can't then defend another Theban location or help Thebes win a different battle.
There is nothing to say that if Sparta choses to defend the 1st Theban location that Athens and Sparta are at war.

So Athens can attack location A (Thebes)
Which is defended by a Spartan army (Sparta doesn't want Athens to get the points))
And Athens can help Sparta defend Location B (Spartan owned) from an attack by Corinth (Athens doesn't want the VPs for being Spartan leader to be less valuable at the end of the game).
However if Location B was being defended by a Theban army (before athens decided to pitch in) then Athens would not be able to join in on the same side as Thebes.

Confused ?
I know I am.

2) Not sure why one would do this unless it is to remind the players to chalk up casualty markers against the cities after the combats are complete. Although a successful defense gives the main player influence points in that city so again it might be handy. However, if you are so excited that you forget to put down markers...what makes you think you'd rememebr which way up to keep your tokens?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Cote
United States
Maine
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Ambiguities regarding force commitment and location capt
wjohnd wrote:
Although a successful defense gives the main player influence points in that city...


If the defender sends at least one unit OF ANY KIND and the attacker does not send a unit of the final battle type, then the defender gets 2 cubes. Otherwise, the victor of the final battle gets the tile (VP's).

See the file I uploaded here for a complete results matrix for a Hoplite/Trireme battle:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/file/20963/perikles_battles_v2....
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Curt Carpenter
United States
Kirkland
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dipdragon wrote:
Where it gets complicated is the sheet that ekted refers to about all the possibilities of who gets the tile and when it gets discarded.
I thought Martin's answer in this thread cleared it up: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/149062. Specifically:
Martin wrote:
A player can never be forced into an alliance, the player who want to ally with another player must always ask permission before doing so.
The reason you need to ask permission is that it enters into an alliance. Otherwise, there would be absolutely no reason for requiring permission. Note that the context of that question was specifically asking about allying on attacking, which is not mentioned in the rules at all.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wilhelm Fitzpatrick
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Ambiguities regarding force commitment and location capt
Thanks for clarifying the circumstances under which cities are "at war" (I had got that wrong), but the main gist of my question is still this: If Sparta joins with Thebes in attacking or defending a location, then does that preclude Sparta from attacking a Theban location later in the same turn?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Curt Carpenter
United States
Kirkland
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
john davidson
Scotland
Edinburgh
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Re: Ambiguities regarding force commitment and location capt
ekted wrote:
wjohnd wrote:
Although a successful defense gives the main player influence points in that city...


If the defender sends at least one unit OF ANY KIND and the attacker does not send a unit of the final battle type, then the defender gets 2 cubes. Otherwise, the victor of the final battle gets the tile (VP's).

quite right .sorry about that
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mario Aguila
Chile
Puerto Montt
Chile
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Ambiguities regarding force commitment and location capt
ekted wrote:
wjohnd wrote:
Although a successful defense gives the main player influence points in that city...


If the defender sends at least one unit OF ANY KIND and the attacker does not send a unit of the final battle type, then the defender gets 2 cubes. Otherwise, the victor of the final battle gets the tile (VP's).



Why do you consider that there was not attack if there is not second battle?

The rules says:
If a location is not attacked then it is not claimed by the defender.
It is placed face up on display by the side of the map. The main defender must now place two of his cubes in the city of the same colour as the tile.


I understand "is not attacked" at all.
Therefore if the attacker only puts forces in the first battle, this rule is not applied. If the attacker doesn't put units for the second battle, I agree, he will lose it, but nobody can deny that the attack took place.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Cote
United States
Maine
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Ambiguities regarding force commitment and location capt
My comment (and battle chart) is based on official replies from James Hamilton and Martin Wallace in other threads.

In a Hoplite/Trireme battle, attacker and defender each send a single Hoplite. The Hoplite battle is fought, but only for the casuality. Regardless of the outcome, the defender gets 2 cubes, since the Trireme battle is not fought.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mario Aguila
Chile
Puerto Montt
Chile
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Ambiguities regarding force commitment and location capt
I don't know where are those replies, but to me the rules are so clear that don't admit another interpretation.
If the designer wants to change that rule, OK (like he did with the new permission to be an allied attacker), and we'll suppose it would be the best option.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Cote
United States
Maine
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Ambiguities regarding force commitment and location capt
The first post in this thread was updated to reflect the answers by James and Martin:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/130884
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mario Aguila
Chile
Puerto Montt
Chile
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Ambiguities regarding force commitment and location capt
I read another thing.

In a Trireme-Hoplite battle...M. Wallace said:

Quote:
4) Attacker trireme and Defender trireme
Fight one round and winner gets tile

NO - DEFENDER WINS THE TILES ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE ATTACKER IS UNABLE TO OCCUPY THE TERRITORY. TRIREME BATTLE SHOULD STILL BE FOUGHT.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Cote
United States
Maine
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Ambiguities regarding force commitment and location capt
I believe that response was later modified. The first was was updated to reflect the final agreements.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mario Aguila
Chile
Puerto Montt
Chile
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Ambiguities regarding force commitment and location capt
You are right...I need from the designer more arguments; not only the argument of authority, because to me the rules are crystal in this respect.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Curt Carpenter
United States
Kirkland
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Are you arguing for the sake of argument? You have the rules, you have the designer's opinion. You are free to play how you like. It seems like an inconsequential point, however, since it is foolish to commit units only to the first round of combat. Doing so (under your understanding of the rules) just gives points away without regard to the value of the units. I think that is the point of what Martin was trying to convey in the rules (but failed to do so clearly): if there is no attack [with a non-zero chance of success], then you get cubes instead of the tile. You are correct that the rules don't say that. If playing strictly by what the ink on the paper in the box tell you, then I'm not sure what the point of debating it here is. I think a more interesting discussion would be which is better, but again, I think it is completely inconsequential, as it hinges on an extremely poor play.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mario Aguila
Chile
Puerto Montt
Chile
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Ambiguities regarding force commitment and location capt
It can be that your you are right in something. I like to discuss with arguments (I am a lawyer).
But in this case the situation in where the attacker does not appear in the second battle could perfectly be prepared by the defender.

Scene 1: the attacker had to send long before that the defender all his forces. For a moment he did not know if there would be battle because there was no defense (no defense, no tile with VP). The defender had special precaution to obtain more Influence tiles with just 1 shard and to play last… and when the attacker finished his turn, then appeared in the battlefield.

Scene 2: the defender attacked the attacker in another location that was much more important for this one (he defended statues and a battle with more points of victory). The attacker began his attack over a location with a value of 3 or 4 and when seeing that the defender attacked him in a more delicate location, he decides to break off the battle. Merit for the defender. so why don't give the tile and the complete triumph to the defender?

In fact, in my first and only game another player had to win Corinth in the last round of the game, because he already had two statues with a value of 9 each one. If he lost the battle he lost the 5 points for the tile plus 4 points in statues (9 to 7 each one).
So I attacked him in Corinth and he had to abandon other minor battle.
It was not exactly the case, but it is perfectly possible to make a maneuver so that an attacker must leave a battle, relatively less important to him but more interesting for the defender.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Curt Carpenter
United States
Kirkland
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
marioaguila wrote:
so why don't give the tile and the complete triumph to the defender?
It sounds like you're asking for an opinion. Mine is that the battle was incomplete (which requires an attacker in the last round), and victory tiles are only awarded for complete battles.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Cote
United States
Maine
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Ambiguities regarding force commitment and location capt
I guess since we are just discussing the issue now, I'll offer an opinion. I think the combat system would have been much more elegant if the rules were thus:

- If there is no attack, or the attack fails, the defender (or owner of the defending city if there is no defender) gets the tile. Cubes are never won.
- Eliminate inherent units from the battle tiles.

These two things simplify the combat process immensely.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mario Aguila
Chile
Puerto Montt
Chile
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Ambiguities regarding force commitment and location capt
I don't agree with the first part: if there is no attack, it must not have prize with tile. It is very probable that the lack of attack has been an express maneuver of the other players, when being faced a force that could be very superior. And because the attack didn't exist, the defender has been able to send troops to other locations.
On the other hand, receive two cubes is equivalent to 2 VP, with the advantage that they can be used in the following round to obtain more VP. It is not bad prize for a defender who did not receive any attack.
------------
The second part it is contemplated clearly in the present rules (if there was an attak, without ulterior adjective, the defender receive the tile), but in some form have been changed by the opinion of the designer in the forum already mentioned. It would be sufficient that the designer again endorsed the express text of the rules, to eliminate the created doubts.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.