Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
10 Posts

Empires in Arms» Forums » Rules

Subject: Retreating In Turkey rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Andrew Shumway
msg tools
Spain and Britain are allied and are both at war with Turkey. Their stated objectives are to destroy the Turkish fleets (in the Bosporus sea area and in port in Constantinople) and to rack up political points through land and sea combats.

They have declared combined movement. They have six fleets stacked together with six corps (three of each country and the Castanos leader. They moved their fleets to the sea area between Smyrna and Salonika and landed all six corps in the land area adjacent to and southwest of Constantinople ("2" forage value, open terrain).

Turkey has the two Egyptian corps, Syrian corps, I Janissary and a depot with garrison in that area. Constantinople, Adrianople, Salonika and Sofia have garrisons, but no corps. There are Turkish corps in the open area between Adrianople and Philippopolis, but no troops in the wooded areas north across the river from the invasion area. During his land movement, Turkey moved a corps into each of the wooded areas and the Kahn leader into the threatened stack with the II Anatolia feudal cavalry corps.

The Spanish and British players then handed the attacker chits to the Turkish player who refused to accept them. They said that he had ended his turn "in contact" and so must declare an attack. Turkey stated that they should have waited for their land phase to land their corps and that he would be the defender if they chose to land where they had put their counters.

After a brief rules argument, it was agreed that Turkey had the rules correct. Spain and Britain conferred and then decided to leave their corps where they were and attack the Turkish and Ottoman forces.

The chits were echelon vs cordon with the combat using the "attackers disembarked" tables. Both sides broke in round three. Then the real rules argument ensued.

Turkey claims that the British and Spanish have to surrender because they have no retreat route. That’s why he put corps in the woods. He clearly took advantage of his opponents’ mistake in the sea movement phase, but on the other hand, those corps could have been in the fight, causing casualties.

The British and Spanish claim that Turkey didn’t win the combat (no political points), so they don’t have to surrender. The only depots on the map for either of them are in their home ports, or on the ships that brought them to Turkey. Note: we don’t play the house rule that corps that retreat after disembarking have to surrender. The Spanish and British players argue that if forced to retreat, their path of retreat is west across the river to the open area with a stack of Turkish corps, then into the mountains at Philippopolis because there is no corps there (but there is a 1 point garrison).

I believe the British and Spanish have to retreat. I think they have their route correct, but I’ve never liked the concept that you can retreat through an enemy stack. What other opinions are out there?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The retreat rules specify that if a force retreats into an area with enemy forces, it will continue retreating towards its closest depot or capital per 7.5.2.10.3.3. So they retreat one area to the location of the Turkish forces, cannot remain, and then continue their retreat until a clear area for the retreat is found.

The rules make it nearly impossible for a force to surrender and every group I've ever played with made it a requirement that if a path was available that would avoid a surrender, that was the path that had to be selected.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Johns
United States
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
perfalbion wrote:
The retreat rules specify that if a force retreats into an area with enemy forces, it will continue retreating towards its closest depot or capital per 7.5.2.10.3.3. So they retreat one area to the location of the Turkish forces, cannot remain, and then continue their retreat until a clear area for the retreat is found.

The rules make it nearly impossible for a force to surrender and every group I've ever played with made it a requirement that if a path was available that would avoid a surrender, that was the path that had to be selected.


Concur...
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Warren Bruhn
United States
Roseburg
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
iamspamus wrote:
perfalbion wrote:
The retreat rules specify that if a force retreats into an area with enemy forces, it will continue retreating towards its closest depot or capital per 7.5.2.10.3.3. So they retreat one area to the location of the Turkish forces, cannot remain, and then continue their retreat until a clear area for the retreat is found.

The rules make it nearly impossible for a force to surrender and every group I've ever played with made it a requirement that if a path was available that would avoid a surrender, that was the path that had to be selected.


Concur...


Ditto...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Shumway
msg tools
If that's the case, then how does a surrender occur? Based on your argument, it can only happen on an island, or when the corps are forced to retreat from their own capital with no depots on the map.

To take the argument to the point of absurdity, as long as enemy forces are in the retreat path, the corps have to continue to retreat towards their home capital – ten, twenty or thirty areas, no matter how far. All this way they would move without supply issues or requirements to account for movement effects of terrain.

I can’t say I really see that as realistic or desirable from a game standpoint.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oscar Oliver
Saint Lucia
Terrassa
Catalonia
flag msg tools
snafustore.com
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Surrender in battle can occur if the capital is enemy held and there are no friendly depots on map.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ashumway wrote:
If that's the case, then how does a surrender occur? Based on your argument, it can only happen on an island, or when the corps are forced to retreat from their own capital with no depots on the map.


Surrenders can occur, but either will involve an island, a crossing arrow, or an enemy that's done a huge amount of work to make it occur. And that's probably how it should be - armies surrendering during the Napoleonic wars were very rare (outside of Mack, I don't know of another major army that did).

Quote:
To take the argument to the point of absurdity, as long as enemy forces are in the retreat path, the corps have to continue to retreat towards their home capital – ten, twenty or thirty areas, no matter how far. All this way they would move without supply issues or requirements to account for movement effects of terrain.


This sounds absurd, but this is precisely what the rules say to do. But think of it this way - if this is the retreat that occurs, then the nations forced to retreat will be so far out of position that it's likely their home nation will be exposed enough that they'll be required to surrender, their minors will be exceptionally vulnerable, and they'll risk losing the army to forage rolls as they march back.

Quote:
I can’t say I really see that as realistic or desirable from a game standpoint.


Surrender of armies in the field wasn't common. Even after Austerlitz the Russian and Austrian armies didn't surrender - what was left retreated. The nations surrendered instead. I don't think it's at all unreasonable for the period.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Shumway
msg tools
Okay. I'm still not wild about it, but I can see the sense of it. I don't think it's going to make a lot of difference in the long run. Britian and Spain are going to lose the majority of their troops before they can run to Austrian territory. Turkey moves first and says he's got more than 150 factors to throw at their remaining 74 (4G, 5C 65I). It's going to be ugly.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ashumway wrote:
Okay. I'm still not wild about it, but I can see the sense of it. I don't think it's going to make a lot of difference in the long run. Britian and Spain are going to lose the majority of their troops before they can run to Austrian territory. Turkey moves first and says he's got more than 150 factors to throw at their remaining 74 (4G, 5C 65I). It's going to be ugly.


It's certainly possible, but any time chits land on the table things can happen. Particularly when you're discussing forces that could have such disparate morale figures. If the chits work out right, either side could suffer (particularly if the Turks get a good pursuit). Were I the British or Spanish player, I'd aim to capture Salonika and build a supply line rather than heading for Austria. If they're in the mountains, then the Turks would be somewhat suicidal to attack them there due to the modifiers.

But it should be fun either way.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hofrat Behrens
Germany
Hessen
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Note how this ties to my musings on Defending Turkey and the Ottoman Empire...to actually crack Constantinople, Spain/Britain need not only win one but several battles...and Turkey can always wait across the Dardanelles or in the mountains for counterattacks...even if Constasntinople should fall, keeping it is hugely more difficult for the naval powers!

Good luck to TU!
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.