Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

John Company» Forums » Rules

Subject: A couple questions regarding presidencies and provincial offices rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Dominick Duhamel
United States
Laramie
Wyoming
flag msg tools
badge
within cells interlinked
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I ran into a couple situations last night and I was hoping to get confirmation that we played them correctly.

Here's the situation:
(1) Hyderabad is open to the Bombay Presidency but sovereign.
(2) The Bombay President shipped all 3 orders to Hyderabad on his turn.
(3) The Governor of Madras, within the Madras Presidency, targets Hyderabad with its campaign action and succeeds, bringing Hyderabad into the Madras Presidency and creating a new provincial office.

Here are my questions about this situation:

(1) During the trade phase, who gets the presidential bonus for orders fulfilled in Hyderabad? It was the Bombay President who shipped them but Hyderabad is now located within the Madras Presidency.

(2) If events in India cause any region to try to conquer Hyderabad or cause Hyderabad to revolt, is the conquest or revolt automatically successful given that, when a region is company-dominated, its defense becomes zero and there is currently no senior officer in the provincial office to command the presidency's army and prevent it?

(3) If a campaign action like the one described above causes a presidency to lose its last region (which was the case), does that presidency close? Or does a presidency close exclusively as the result of a region conquering the last region open to a presidency? In the rulebook, the "Dissolution of Presidency" rules exist as a subsection of the Conquest rules but seem to apply more generally.

Thanks for your help!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geoff Speare
United States
Bedford
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
tee hee, that tickles!!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dduhamel1 wrote:
(1) During the trade phase, who gets the presidential bonus for orders fulfilled in Hyderabad? It was the Bombay President who shipped them but Hyderabad is now located within the Madras Presidency.


This has been asked previously, Madras gets the bonus. (This is also the literal reading of G2.) It's considered good form to say "sorry, old chap!" to the Bombay President.

Quote:
(2) If events in India cause any region to try to conquer Hyderabad or cause Hyderabad to revolt, is the conquest or revolt automatically successful given that, when a region is company-dominated, its defense becomes zero and there is currently no senior officer in the provincial office to command the presidency's army and prevent it?


The Conquest text notes that the President can defend if the provincial office is vacant.

Quote:
(3) If a campaign action like the one described above causes a presidency to lose its last region (which was the case), does that presidency close? Or does a presidency close exclusively as the result of a region conquering the last region open to a presidency? In the rulebook, the "Dissolution of Presidency" rules exist as a subsection of the Conquest rules but seem to apply more generally.


We play that it closes the Presidency, though I agree about confusion arising from where the dissolution rules are located.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dominick Duhamel
United States
Laramie
Wyoming
flag msg tools
badge
within cells interlinked
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
galfridus wrote:
dduhamel1 wrote:
(1) During the trade phase, who gets the presidential bonus for orders fulfilled in Hyderabad? It was the Bombay President who shipped them but Hyderabad is now located within the Madras Presidency.


This has been asked previously, Madras gets the bonus. (This is also the literal reading of G2.) It's considered good form to say "sorry, old chap!" to the Bombay President.

Quote:
(2) If events in India cause any region to try to conquer Hyderabad or cause Hyderabad to revolt, is the conquest or revolt automatically successful given that, when a region is company-dominated, its defense becomes zero and there is currently no senior officer in the provincial office to command the presidency's army and prevent it?


The Conquest text notes that the President can defend if the provincial office is vacant.

Quote:
(3) If a campaign action like the one described above causes a presidency to lose its last region (which was the case), does that presidency close? Or does a presidency close exclusively as the result of a region conquering the last region open to a presidency? In the rulebook, the "Dissolution of Presidency" rules exist as a subsection of the Conquest rules but seem to apply more generally.


We play that it closes the Presidency, though I agree about confusion arising from where the dissolution rules are located.


That's exactly how we played last night so I'm thankful for the confirmation!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Newell
United States
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Just to confirm, Police actions that cancel Revolts can ONLY be taken by Provincial Officers, right. The rules don’t say that Presidents can prevent them.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dominick Duhamel
United States
Laramie
Wyoming
flag msg tools
badge
within cells interlinked
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Triskelli wrote:
Just to confirm, Police actions that cancel Revolts can ONLY be taken by Provincial Officers, right. The rules don’t say that Presidents can prevent them.


I would probably play that presidents can perform police actions in lieu of a provincial officer but I'm fully aware that that's taking a degree of liberty with the rules.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Fenton
United States
Tomball
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
dduhamel1 wrote:
I would probably play that presidents can perform police actions in lieu of a provincial officer but I'm fully aware that that's taking a degree of liberty with the rules.

That's taking a very hard liberty with the rules and basically giving the president too many powers. Why would they want to fill provincial positions with other players?

Normally if you don't have a provincial officer (i.e. maybe there was not enough people to replace all officers), your province is vulnerable to unrest. This makes thematic sense, since a president living away from the province is counting on local officials to identify revolts and call for help. A province preparing for war (i.e Conquest) is a little more obvious at a higher level.

Unfortunately, putting that "man on the scene" and getting that security against revolts gives them the chance to skim taxes or take the province in their own direction (and may divert them from being placed in more / less useful role).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dominick Duhamel
United States
Laramie
Wyoming
flag msg tools
badge
within cells interlinked
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dsdhornet wrote:
dduhamel1 wrote:
I would probably play that presidents can perform police actions in lieu of a provincial officer but I'm fully aware that that's taking a degree of liberty with the rules.

That's taking a very hard liberty with the rules and basically giving the president too many powers. Why would they want to fill provincial positions with other players?

Normally if you don't have a provincial officer (i.e. maybe there was not enough people to replace all officers), your province is vulnerable to unrest. This makes thematic sense, since a president living away from the province is counting on local officials to identify revolts and call for help. A province preparing for war (i.e Conquest) is a little more obvious at a higher level.

Unfortunately, putting that "man on the scene" and getting that security against revolts gives them the chance to skim taxes or take the province in their own direction (and may divert them from being placed in more / less useful role).


You may be right. But I don't think it qualifies as a "very hard" liberty, as there are already open questions about which rules are conquest-specific and which may also be extended to revolt (e.g. the aforementioned question of whether the dissolution rules apply in the case of a revolt). Thematically, an oncoming conquest is a bit easier to spot than a oncoming revolt but I think one could make the argument that a remote president may be just as ill-equipped to respond to a conquest as they are a revolt and the game clearly allows for the former. It's also worth mentioning that this rulebook is obviously, obviously imperfect and that adhering dogmatically to the RAW is fairly problematic. It's not inconceivable that this might be an example of one such imperfection.

FWIW, I don't think allowing presidents to take police actions disincentivizes the president from filling the provincial office at all. First, the president is required to fill the provincial office, so they don't usually have a choice. Second, the president can use that promotion opportunity as leverage in negotiation, as provincial officers tend to gain a lot from those positions. Third, it's already the case that provincial officers don't do a hell of a lot for their respective presidents after being promoted other than investing--which they're only able to do once and which they'll probably do anyway, given that it usually improves their tax income.

Regardless, I wasn't arguing that this was the "right" way to play, only that I'd probably play that way in lieu of a more definitive answer. But I hardly think it breaks the game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Fenton
United States
Tomball
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
dduhamel1 wrote:
You may be right. But I don't think it qualifies as a "very hard" liberty, as there are already open questions about which rules are conquest-specific and which may also be extended to revolt (e.g. the aforementioned question of whether the dissolution rules apply in the case of a revolt).

Revolt specifically states who can do it (in all-cap text), and does NOT include the exception for when there is no provincial office.

I'm not sure where you're getting the "question of whether dissolution rules apply in the case of a revolt". Revolt specifically says "If a presidency loses its last region, the corresponding presidency is eliminated (see Dissolution of Presidency)". You can't get more clear than that.

The original question was whether Dissolution of Presidency is caused by a player-led CAMPAIGN, not a REVOLT EVENT. I admit that the results of a Campaign on an Open region is not 100% clear, but the Revolt event is quite specific.


dduhamel1 wrote:
FWIW, I don't think allowing presidents to take police actions disincentivizes the president from filling the provincial office at all. First, the president is required to fill the provincial office, so they don't usually have a choice.

I think it's more an issue of giving powers where none exists. As you say, provincial officers don't do much for presidents...hence controlling "police" being a key purpose.

If there aren't enough writers or officers, the president won't always be able to fill all Provincial offices. By requiring them for protection duty, the President has to choose which province they want to be able to protect.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dominick Duhamel
United States
Laramie
Wyoming
flag msg tools
badge
within cells interlinked
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dsdhornet wrote:
dduhamel1 wrote:
You may be right. But I don't think it qualifies as a "very hard" liberty, as there are already open questions about which rules are conquest-specific and which may also be extended to revolt (e.g. the aforementioned question of whether the dissolution rules apply in the case of a revolt).

Revolt specifically states who can do it (in all-cap text), and does NOT include the exception for when there is no provincial office.

I'm not sure where you're getting the "question of whether dissolution rules apply in the case of a revolt". Revolt specifically says "If a presidency loses its last region, the corresponding presidency is eliminated (see Dissolution of Presidency)". You can't get more clear than that.

The original question was whether Dissolution of Presidency is caused by a player-led CAMPAIGN, not a REVOLT EVENT. I admit that the results of a Campaign on an Open region is not 100% clear, but the Revolt event is quite specific.


dduhamel1 wrote:
FWIW, I don't think allowing presidents to take police actions disincentivizes the president from filling the provincial office at all. First, the president is required to fill the provincial office, so they don't usually have a choice.

I think it's more an issue of giving powers where none exists. As you say, provincial officers don't do much for presidents...hence controlling "police" being a key purpose.

If there aren't enough writers or officers, the president won't always be able to fill all Provincial offices. By requiring them for protection duty, the President has to choose which province they want to be able to protect.


Oh yeah, I guess I missed that line in the Revolt section. Oops.

So your reading is most likely right, then. I still don't think it breaks anything to play the way we've been playing (and I may continue to play that way with new players so that they're not quite so overwhelmed with rules exceptions).

Also, the possibility of there being no writers and no officers when it comes time for a president to promote someone to a provincial office that's at risk of revolting that turn is so small that, in my opinion, it really has no effect on the value of the office. In my plays thus far, we've never even come close to that being the case.
1 
 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.