Gooooooooooooooooooodmorniiiiiiiiiing Vienna!
και στης Βιέννης την αυλή σφάζονται παλικάρια!
BEWARE the Prussian GURU is going to speak:
dear Gentlemen
it is obvious that this discussion will last as long as we can stand it.
hopefully we are not going to find how much we still can stand it, so PLEASE
ALL just TRY to read the following
1) Yannis' interprets this situation as withdrawal. it includes the movement
element that triggers insurrection and turkish movement as withdrawal. this way
EVERYTHING WORKS FINE. no bugs, no back and forth, no inconsistencies, NOTHING.
everything is ABSOLUTELY FINE.
ONLY IF the rules were saying:
7.3.8.4 STEP FOUR: All major powers not at war with the attacker (except
the attacker and his allies at war with the defender and factors in cities or
on depots) must now leave the area, (moving) withdrawing to any adjacent area
that, if
possible, is closer or at least as close to their source of supply as the area
they leave.
Nothing wrong if ottoman army moves out of Austria (still travels less far than
Russian), nothing wrong if Austria moves everywhere he likes, NOTHING wrong if
France fight alone NOTHING.
2) Makis initial thought (from last turn) about which movement triggers
insurrection corps was VALID. IF insurrection corps appear only as a result of
normal land movement then EVERYTHING WORKS FINE. Again, no bugs, no
inconsistencies, NOTHING. ONLY if the rules were saying:
10.1.4.1 PLACING INSURRECTION CORPS: Immediately after an enemy
corps, cossack or freikorps has entered certain Austrian border provinces
during movement phase ,
the triggers the possible placement of the insurrection corps and the
Austrian player may (if desired) place on-map either or both insurrection
corps anywhere within that province, at their current strength.
3) We are watching the last days a remarkable effort from both sides to raise
arguments, make interpretations etc. EVERYTHING was extremely USEFUL proving a
high level of knowledge, respect to each player and efforts to PERSUADE each
other. Since we are not persuaded after 4 days WE WILL NEVER DO.
4) Every attempt to find a solution showed GREAT WILL to somehow compromise the
situation and move forward. BUT UNFORTUNATELY IT IS OBVIOUS that anything
between 1) and 2) DOESN'T WORK.
therefore, to me the only dilemma should be
[A] Insurrection corps appear at any type of movement into Austrian territory
etc. AND ally forced movement out of the city follows withdrawal procedure
[B] Insurrection corps appear only during normal movement
and since Democracy doesn't have dilemmas lets vote on the above.
Democracy might also not produce always the right and just result, but at least
it is what the majority wants and the thing goes on.
thanks for your attendance.
You are dismissed and free to return back to your lines, grab your muskets and
LET's ROLL!!!!!
________________________________
From: eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:14
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: (No To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
there is no need to vote anymore, all I see is an argument between everyone and
Yannis, so lets move on.
I doubt anyone around the world has ever exhausted this subject as much as we
did.
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:06 AM, Laertes Papaspyrou
<bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
SO what are we voting on?? :)
________________________________
From: Laertes Papaspyrou
<bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
To: "eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
<eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Tuesday, 27 February 2018, 10:05
Subject:
No, the insurrection is not there though, so it is a special case.
________________________________
From: Yannis Sykamias <ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
To: "eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
<eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Tuesday, 27 February 2018, 9:57
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: (No Thread-Index: AQHTr5/JIa9VD0cUJkKPAGmMwc89saO34SXi
An invader who crosses a border province is aware of the triggering of
insurrection corps, consequently it is his decision if he wishes to activate it
or not and move elsewhere.
________________________________
From: eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on behalf
of Laertes Papaspyrou
<bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 09:51
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:
My question is very simple. You claim Insurrection corps pre-exists. Does this
mean that when someone invades an eligible Austrian province they can see the
corps in in there and therefore move elsewhere?
________________________________
From: Yannis Sykamias <ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
To: "eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
<eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Tuesday, 27 February 2018, 9:40
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal ΙΙ
As an "attacker" you mean Turkey in our example? In our case Turkey had 2
routes available for moving, one in south (Gratz) and one to the east
(Hungary). It is the choice of Turkey to decide where to move (similar as
withdrawal from battle). If there was not other alternative then, as already
wrote it should be treated as any other withdrawal and "retreat" further
towards the nearest supply source.
________________________________
From: eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on behalf
of Laertes Papaspyrou
<bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 09:35
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal ΙΙ
If insur pre-exists it means the attacker has the option to not enter the area.
On 27 Feb 2018, at 09:25, Yannis Sykamias
<ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I am not sure i have understood what is the question here?
________________________________
From: eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on behalf
of Laertes Papaspyrou
<bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 09:23
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal ΙΙ
So they can even change their move?
On 27 Feb 2018, at 09:19, Yannis Sykamias
<ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
To my understanding the insurrection corps is there at the moment the enemy
corps crosses the border and any treatment should be similar to what you
consider "pre"existing.
________________________________
From: eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on behalf
of Laertes Papaspyrou
<bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 09:11
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal ΙΙ
The insurrection is not there!
In normal movement , is it there? If so then does the attacker have the option
to go elsewhere?
On 27 Feb 2018, at 09:04, Yannis Sykamias
<ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
i still do not understand why you consider insurrection corps a "special case".
The moment an enemy force crosses the border, the corps is there.
As i said we may argue on the eligibility of placing the insurrection corps in
the area of retreat but assuming this is ok, then we should treat the presence
of the insurrection corps as the presence of any other "normal" corps.
In your example you apply withdrawal rules when there is a "normal corps" in
the area that the forces should "move" but you consider it a special case and
consider different scenarios if it is an insurrection corps. My view is that
there is no special case, since either we accept the presence of the
insurrection corps in the area and apply the procedure as we understand it for
"normal" corps or we do not accept the presence of insurrection corps in that
area and the story ends there! 😉
________________________________
From: eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on behalf
of Laertes Papaspyrou
<bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 08:56
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal ΙΙ
When the corps moves in there is no one.
And my proposal is that for this special case Austria is the phasing power,
therefore the attacker
On 27 Feb 2018, at 08:54, Yannis Sykamias
<ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
ok, now i am really confused. There is no consistency in what you are
proposing. On one hand you consider normal to move into an area with an
insurrection corps (which means you move into an area where there is an enemy
corps) but there is no battle initiated until one of the players plays his turn
and on the other hand you consider impossible to move into an area where an
enemy corps "pre"exists.
Is my understanding correct?
________________________________
From: eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on behalf
of Laertes Papaspyrou
<bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 08:49
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal ΙΙ
No, it can’t move there
On 27 Feb 2018, at 08:34, Yannis Sykamias
<ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
ok, what happens in this case? According to your understanding there is no
impact and the corps may move there without initiating a battle, correct?
________________________________
From: eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on behalf
of Laertes Papaspyrou
<bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 08:31
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal ΙΙ
Simple case. All adjacent areas closest to the source are occupied by enemies.
On 27 Feb 2018, at 08:28, Laertes Papaspyrou
<bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
The rule is clear. The force has :
1) to move out to an adjacent area
2) IF POSSIBLE this area has to be closest to the supply source.
Explain me how it affect what we are talking about
On 27 Feb 2018, at 08:23, Yannis Sykamias
<ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
To me it is of interest since it clearly implies the eligibility of the area
you may move your forces , but if you consider that this was added there for no
purpose then ignore it, cast your vote and move the game on!
________________________________
From: eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on behalf
of Laertes Papaspyrou
<bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 08:19
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal ΙΙ
“If possible” is right after “that” which is the start of the sentence for the
supply source. I don’t know what they mean but that’s not of interest right now.
On 27 Feb 2018, at 07:42, Yannis Sykamias
<ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
What do you mean by that? You always have a supply source (depot/capital) so
what is the meaning of possible there and what are the implications if not
possible?
_____________________________
From: Laertes Papaspyrou
<bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 07:35
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal ΙΙ
To: <eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
“If possible” is related to the supply source part.
On 27 Feb 2018, at 07:12, Yannis Sykamias
<ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Good morning,
7.3.8.4 also talks “if possible” which according to my understanding this is
intended to describe the withdrawal process.
_____________________________
From: eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 02:58
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal ΙΙ
To: <eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
7.3.8.4 talks about moving, not withdrawing.
It may be a more simple solution to calling it withdrawal but it it is not what
it says.
On Feb 27, 2018 01:09, "Yannis Sykamias"
<ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
My understanding is different, it is Prussia that “pushes” Turkey outside
Vienna so it is not the Turkish player choice to go there since he has to
retreat towards the nearest depot (in our case Theo has two routes but assume
it could be only one route towards the insurrection).
Also, bear in mind that the interpretation of this “move” as a normal move
applies to all cases not only to insurrection corps triggering. If for example
a similar situation was happening in Munich and Turkey had to “move” into an
area already containing an Austrian corps then we would be in the same
situation.
That’s why my understanding for this “move” is as a withdrawal from battle
since it is the most “sensible” (to me) treatment.
________________________________
From:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > on
behalf of tiron <strategija@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:strategija@xxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 12:26:38 AM
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal ΙΙ
Of all things stupid Windows 10 decided to upgrade tonight and completely
trashed my laptop, it is now stuck in boot loop.
On top of that I find out that my 32GB usb flash with original Windows backup
is empty.
Agrhhh....
I can not see the map but here is my take.
Turkey has to move out of the battle between Prussia and France, it is clear.
Turkey moves in Insurrection province and triggers corps placement, that is
also clear.
Now, if Austria has played and Turkey has played it looks like there is no
phasing player and we will have a situation where there is no battle. This can
not happen, two countries at war in the same area trigger a battle.
I would say Turkey is the attacker as Turkey is moving her troops, it is not
withdrawal, movement is not forced in direction but Turkey has a choice where
to move them. The rules say the troops have to move out, so they are free to
move in any direction they wish. If the move into Insurrection province, it
is their wish to face the chance to trigger Insurrection corps. If he is
moving, he is attacking.
On Feb 26, 2018 8:26 PM, "Yannis Sykamias"
<ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Tiron, assume the current situation where Austria has already played its moves
(not combined) and the map is as we see it now.
________________________________
From:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > on
behalf of Tiron <strategija@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:strategija@xxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 7:40:53 PM
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal ΙΙ
Like I said, give the the specific example and I will run it thorough the rules.
On 2018-02-26 17:52, Makis Xiroyannis wrote:
We can do the following
1. If there is a phasing player at a time when a battle is initiated, then the
phasing player is the attacker, as in our current situation.
2. In another scenario where there are no phasing players involved in the
battle at the time a move is implemented, then the next player to play, of
those involved in the battle, initiates the attack as the first phasing player.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 6:45 PM, Laertes Papaspyrou
<bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
How do you handle 7.3.8.4 though?
On 26 Feb 2018, at 18:42, Tiron
<strategija@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:strategija@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I do not see how it is possible for Prussia to force Turkey to move in your
case.
Turkey is not at war with Prussia.
Turkey has a corps at Vienna.
Prussia also moves to Vienna.
Not battle, no nothing, they occupy the same area and everyone goes about their
business.
On 2018-02-26 17:35, Laertes Papaspyrou wrote:
Ok but Yannis asks to also consider the scenario where there is no combined and
both turkey and Austria have already played their turn. Who is the phasing
power then?
On 26 Feb 2018, at 18:29, T. B. <scotland_above_all@xxxxxxxxxx
m<mailto:scotland_above_all@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Here's my lengthy reply:
I totally agree with Tyron!
________________________________
From:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > on
behalf of Tiron <strategija@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:strategija@xxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: 26 February 2018 18:26:56
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal ΙΙ
The rules look clear to me.
7.5.1 GENERAL RULES OF LAND COMBAT: The phasing side is the "attacker" and the
non-phasing side is the "defender".
The phasing player is always the attacker.
In this case Austria would be the attacker. It is combined
Austrian/British/Prussian turn and we are the phasing player. If Prussia or
Britain force Turkey to move into insurrection province and Austria places the
insurrection corps then Austria is the attacker.
In regular circumstances let's say Turkey is playing and it moves a corps from
Belgrade to Eszek, Austria places both Ins. corps. Turkey ahs to stop and
Turkey is the attacker as it is Turkey who is phasing player.
On 2018-02-26 15:36, Yannis Sykamias wrote:
Ok, so who you consider attacker and who defender under this interpretation?
________________________________
From:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Tiron<strategija@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:strategija@xxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Tiron<strategija@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:strategija@xxxxxxxxx>