Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

rule question

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> rule question Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
rule question - 1/10/2009 3:30:54 AM   
borner


Posts: 1486
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline
Seeing as combined movement is not part of the game, here is a question I have not figured out, as I have been told both possible answers by other players.

Au/Pr are at war with France. Austria loans one corps with Charles to Prussia, who then moves it north to stack with the Prussian army. The question being Charles would be the only leader with the army, but he is on loan to Prussia, does he still command the stack?
Post #: 1
RE: rule question - 1/10/2009 4:48:00 AM   
Mardonius


Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: London, UK
Status: offline
Yes.

(in reply to borner)
Post #: 2
RE: rule question - 1/10/2009 7:52:46 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
Mardonius is correct, of course. This was also true in the board game. The deciding factor is which component of the force has more corps AND a leader present. If two leaders are present, then the force with the most corps decides which leader is in command (in the board game). But, if only one leader is present, he's in charge. I do not know what happens in EiANW if two leaders are present from different nations (whether the best leader is in charge, or whether the one from the largest force is).

But, another thing to note that if all of the Austrian factors are lost in combat, Charles will be captured.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Mardonius)
Post #: 3
RE: rule question - 1/10/2009 7:58:13 PM   
ndrose

 

Posts: 612
Joined: 10/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Mardonius is correct, of course. This was also true in the board game. The deciding factor is which component of the force has more corps AND a leader present. If two leaders are present, then the force with the most corps decides which leader is in command (in the board game). But, if only one leader is present, he's in charge. I do not know what happens in EiANW if two leaders are present from different nations (whether the best leader is in charge, or whether the one from the largest force is).

But, another thing to note that if all of the Austrian factors are lost in combat, Charles will be captured.


This would be a good thing to know the answer to. My assumption was that the highest *ranking* leader would be in command, which might be neither the best nor the most heavily represented; but I don't know what the game actually does. Marshall?

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 4
RE: rule question - 1/11/2009 12:34:53 AM   
fvianello


Posts: 536
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Italy
Status: offline
According to the manual, the leader of a defensive force is always the one with the highest seniority:

Commanders For Allied Armies

When attacking, the leader commanding the whole army must be a leader of the phasing major power. The leader with the highest seniority rating commands the defending army and when there are ties, the leader with the highest combined tactical and strategic rating. If there are still ties, the program gives command to the leader that was last to enter the area.


_____________________________

H. Barca,
Surplus Consuls Dispatcher

(in reply to ndrose)
Post #: 5
RE: rule question - 1/11/2009 1:20:08 AM   
ndrose

 

Posts: 612
Joined: 10/13/2006
Status: offline
Aha, that's interesting. What does the part about the attacking force mean? All combined forces in an attack belong to the phasing player by definition, don't they?

That is, it surely can't mean that if Austria lends Prussia a stack of corps and Charles, and together they make an attack, Charles isn't in command (in which case it might revert to the Prussian intrinsic rating if there's no Prussian commander).

I would assume that if Charles is lent to Prussia, he's a Prussian leader for that turn, and (assuming he has seniority) he would lead the attack. But in that case, what's the distinction being drawn in the manual between the attacker and the defender?

(in reply to fvianello)
Post #: 6
RE: rule question - 1/11/2009 5:53:08 AM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
Actually, HanBarca, the text you quoted implies that the leader must be one from the phasing power. So, stacking Charles on a corps and loaning it to Prussia doesn't work. However, if the Prussian corps were all loaned to Austria, then Charles would be in charge.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to ndrose)
Post #: 7
RE: rule question - 1/11/2009 11:52:29 AM   
fvianello


Posts: 536
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Italy
Status: offline
Mmmhh no, the key phrase is:

The leader with the highest seniority rating commands the defending army and when there are ties, the leader with the highest combined tactical and strategic rating

_____________________________

H. Barca,
Surplus Consuls Dispatcher

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 8
RE: rule question - 1/11/2009 2:24:15 PM   
borner


Posts: 1486
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline
This is what I was afraid of. The problem is that if you are fighting away from Austria, Prussia cannot loan the units, suppluy would be close to impossible.


(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 9
RE: rule question - 1/11/2009 7:23:22 PM   
fvianello


Posts: 536
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Italy
Status: offline
Actually, I think it will work both in offense and defense.

If austria loans a corps with charles to prussia, they are both considered prussian under every aspect, and so charles is a commander of the phasing power for offense.

The rule phrasing probably wants to avoid the possibility that the phasing power moves his corps in an area where another allied power's leader is already present and try to use him as attacking commander.

_____________________________

H. Barca,
Surplus Consuls Dispatcher

(in reply to borner)
Post #: 10
RE: rule question - 1/11/2009 7:35:38 PM   
ndrose

 

Posts: 612
Joined: 10/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

The rule phrasing probably wants to avoid the possibility that the phasing power moves his corps in an area where another allied power's leader is already present and try to use him as attacking commander.


When would this come up? If your ally is in a given area during your phase, and is eligible to fight your enemy, your enemy must not be there, right? Unless it's a siege, I guess. But are leader modifiers used in sieges?

(in reply to fvianello)
Post #: 11
RE: rule question - 1/11/2009 7:38:43 PM   
ndrose

 

Posts: 612
Joined: 10/13/2006
Status: offline
Hmm, maybe if your ally is the one who's besieged, and you relieve the siege. But in that case, I'm not sure your ally's forces would be able to join the battle. They should be able to, in theory, I think, but I'm not sure the game's mechanics allow it.

If you relieve your own forces, you can move the besieged guys out of the city to join the battle, I think. But you wouldn't be able to so move your ally's forces, so I think they would stay unengaged inside the walls.

Maybe some testing is needed at this point....

(in reply to ndrose)
Post #: 12
RE: rule question - 1/11/2009 8:03:18 PM   
fvianello


Posts: 536
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ndrose

When would this come up? If your ally is in a given area during your phase, and is eligible to fight your enemy, your enemy must not be there, right? Unless it's a siege, I guess. But are leader modifiers used in sieges?


First turn of a war is the first situation that comes to my mind...

_____________________________

H. Barca,
Surplus Consuls Dispatcher

(in reply to ndrose)
Post #: 13
RE: rule question - 1/11/2009 8:30:14 PM   
borner


Posts: 1486
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline
Hopefully Marshall can read and clarify Monday. I would think the corps is considered Prussian at that point, and in the old game it would work that way... but...............

(in reply to fvianello)
Post #: 14
RE: rule question - 1/12/2009 1:50:19 AM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

Mmmhh no, the key phrase is:

The leader with the highest seniority rating commands the defending army and when there are ties, the leader with the highest combined tactical and strategic rating

Here is the rule as it exists in the current EIANW rulebook:

13.8.6 Choosing Or Determining A Commander
If there is only one leader present on a side during combat, that leader automatically commands. Otherwise, the commander is determined as follows:
Commanders For Allied Armies
The leader commanding the whole army must be a leader of the phasing Major Power.
Commanders Among Other Leaders
If there are several leaders from the one major power, the leader with the highest seniority rating is chosen. “A” is a senior rating to “B” is a senior rating to “C” is a senior rating to “D” If there is more than one leader of the same highest seniority rating then program will choose which leader to use.
Reinforcing Leaders Taking Command
If a reinforcing leader arrives during a combat, it takes command only if he has a higher seniority rating or if there is currently no leader.

I'm not really sure where you got your quote from, but I think this is the current manual I'm quoting. It's very confusing, because there's no mention of defending forces. This came from 13.8. Where did the quote you quoted come from?

< Message edited by Jimmer -- 1/12/2009 1:52:54 AM >


_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to fvianello)
Post #: 15
RE: rule question - 1/12/2009 2:11:11 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
Borner:

Charles should be seen as Prussian and should be able to lead in attack and defense. This was a post release fix so there could be games where this would not be the case (I think this was a 1.03 - 1.04 add???).



_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 16
RE: rule question - 1/12/2009 5:30:01 PM   
fvianello


Posts: 536
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

I'm not really sure where you got your quote from, but I think this is the current manual I'm quoting. It's very confusing, because there's no mention of defending forces. This came from 13.8. Where did the quote you quoted come from?


It's from the EIANWHELP.HLP file (manual in windows help version). I've noticed that this one is updated almost at every release, while the .pdf equivalent is not.

_____________________________

H. Barca,
Surplus Consuls Dispatcher

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 17
RE: rule question - 1/12/2009 6:09:20 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
Ahhhh, OK, that helps. I'll check that one tonight. Mine was from the PDF version.

In that case, I suspect your reasoning is correct: It only has a choice to make on defensive multi-national stacks.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to fvianello)
Post #: 18
RE: rule question - 1/13/2009 3:29:56 AM   
borner


Posts: 1486
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline
Thanks Marshall

I knew I had run into this issue before, glad to see it's fixed.

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 19
RE: rule question - 1/13/2009 1:00:12 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HanBarca


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

I'm not really sure where you got your quote from, but I think this is the current manual I'm quoting. It's very confusing, because there's no mention of defending forces. This came from 13.8. Where did the quote you quoted come from?


It's from the EIANWHELP.HLP file (manual in windows help version). I've noticed that this one is updated almost at every release, while the .pdf equivalent is not.


We're going to try an update the PDF manual in 1.06




_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to fvianello)
Post #: 20
RE: rule question - 1/13/2009 1:45:36 PM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
There are a few changes coming in 1.06, any timing for its release, or even the 1.05.02 that what discussed?

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 21
RE: rule question - 1/14/2009 1:39:21 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
I believe 1.05.03 is the current BETA release and will probably be the actual 1.05 release. 1.06 BETA will come right after the 1.05 release (I actually have 1.06 in the testers' hands as we speak).


_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Dancing Bear)
Post #: 22
RE: rule question - 1/14/2009 3:29:32 PM   
iamspamus

 

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline
Great work. Keep it up.

BTW: when you ask for these guys, do you say:

"Testers. Testers. 1. 2. 3. Uh. Huh-huh."

Quote? Slightly skewed, but...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I believe 1.05.03 is the current BETA release and will probably be the actual 1.05 release. 1.06 BETA will come right after the 1.05 release (I actually have 1.06 in the testers' hands as we speak).



(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 23
RE: rule question - 1/15/2009 1:02:06 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
How did you know?
LOL!



_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to iamspamus)
Post #: 24
RE: rule question - 1/15/2009 1:34:15 PM   
iamspamus

 

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline
That's original Beavis and Butthead...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

How did you know?
LOL!




(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 25
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> rule question Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.215