Yes we voted but I believe Dimitris (Russia) vote was that insurrection corps
may not be placed in the area, not that they may be placed and remain there
without triggering a battle.
________________________________
From: eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf
of Makis Xiroyannis <makis.xiroyannis@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2018 7:43:17 PM
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal
(continued from trello)
Roll on what? We voted..
On 25 Feb 2018 7:40 pm, "Laertes Papaspyrou"
<bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
According to the rules if we can’t agree we roll a die. Please agree we can’t
agree and roll it
On 25 Feb 2018, at 19:37, Tiron
<strategija@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:strategija@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
It looks funny how the French block is NO and the anti-French is YES.
On 2018-02-25 15:34, Makis Xiroyannis wrote:
I think this is the final verdict, if someone disagrees please correct.
Otherwise lets get on with the turn, with those influenced by it allowed to
change their turn.
Spawning of Insurrection is possible during retreat Spawning an
insurrection forces the retreating force to retreat further
Makis NO NO
Yannis OUI OUI
Dimitris S. OUI OUI
Dimitris N. NO NO
Tiron OUI OUI
Laertis OUI NO
Theodore NO NO
final verdict OUI NO
On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 3:40 PM, T. B.
<scotland_above_all@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:scotland_above_all@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Trying to interpret the rules as objectively as possible, since the
insurrection corps is placed after the corps enters (an empty) area, I presume
that they do not have to continue their retreat.
As far as rule discussion and online game table manners are concerned, Tyron
has missed the golden era where we spent more time rule discussing than playing
xD
Imho pausing the game hurts us equally as taking a single interpretation for
granted. Did everyone "vote" on the matter?
________________________________
From: eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on behalf
of Dimitris Stavr. <poliorkitis@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:poliorkitis@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: 25 February 2018 12:02:40
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal
(continued from trello)
only love Makis, only love
<pastedImage.png>
________________________________
From: eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on behalf
of Makis Xiroyannis
<makis.xiroyannis@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:makis.xiroyannis@xxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2018 03:39
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal
(continued from trello)
3:30 in the morning, I have had a few drinks, and iam trying to comprehent
Dimitris email..? I think I d rather surrender
In any case, votes are 4 to 3 that Austria should be able to raise
insurrection, but 3 to 4 that when it is raised it stops movement and provokes
battle? (Instead of retreating indefinitely?)
Also 7 to 0 that turns can be adjusted?
I am not good with maths so someone tell me
On 24 Feb 2018 10:08 pm, "Tiron"
<strategija@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:strategija@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
There is a certain fear, sometime with good reason and sometimes not, that
arguing over rules will damage the playing atmosphere, poison the relations
between people and ruin the game emotionally.
As a consequence some people are guided by emotional satisfaction in a game,
make it is more important than other considerations and break any rule arguing
with "fun is more important than rules, so I accept your way, lets continue to
play"
Just some more philosophy :-)
On 2018-02-24 20:52, Yannis Sykamias wrote:
I am confused!!!
Which is the question here??????????????
________________________________
From: eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf
of Dimitris Stavr. <poliorkitis@xxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:poliorkitis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2018 9:31:40 PM
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal
(continued from trello)
would be a surprise if i was more expert in rules than you guys.
not that i haven't tried in the past but when come s to interpretation then
everyone can support HIS right.
I agree with Makis that the real issue is if insurrection corps appear in any
other type of movement than normal movement. it is obvious that the rule
doesn't forbid it. on the other hand it doesn't mention it, that's why we have
this dispute. we had the opportunity to discuss this in the previous turn when
happened the same. either because it was of lesser importance, or because we
were boring to discuss we ACCEPTED it. ALL of us either we liked it or not.
Even if it was against "common sense" we accepted it because nothing was
forbiding it.
having this as given we made a plan, which you should agree that it was smart.
cunning but smart. to overcome french might, neither MP or money are enough!
it wasn't based on intentions or "common sense" but on the fact that this
"trick" had been already played.
the last time i had written about "common sense" was when a retreating Russian
Corps travelled 2-3 times its normal movement, after losing a battle and during
winter, from Konigsberg to St. Petersburg, just because the rules were not
forbiding it. after that, i tried to stay on the rules. if it says so, then it
is.
do i agree with it? definatelly not, i still respect my "common sense".
should we place a house rule for the insurrection appear issue? if the way WE
play it is challenging "OUR sense" then yes i agree to place one, BUT only if
we are willing to deal with anything else that is not forbiden by the rules and
still challenges "OUR common sense".
till then, anything that is not forbiden by the rules, could be subject of
endless discussions.
In this case I completely agree with Yanni.
In addition, I agree also with Laertis that the "good atmosphere" should be
taken into consideration.
In my opinion, it should be the 1st priority for all of us. I have been sad and
dissappointed several times (my allies know that, Makis knows it - and that
time with the Russian retreat 😝) but never thought to blame anyone, or felt
that i have been deceived or anything else that could put in danger this
excellent group and all the fun (even when i suffer defeats and loses) it
offers to me.
So, since Laertis mentioned it, IF we think that something is wrong with the
atmosphere (i repeat not because i lost a battle, neither because i made a
silly mistake or a serious mistake, or because some other guy knows the rules
better than me or because is more capable or more experienced etc) THEN we
shall discuss this and not rules.
________________________________
From: eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf
of Yannis Sykamias <ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2018 20:33
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal
(continued from trello)
in order to avoid extensive discussion around the same arguments i will post
"compact" replies on the issues below and i hope all players post their opinion
in order to move on!
I have no objection of discussing the use of insurrection corps but i find it
uncomfortable to discuss this issue in the middle of the turn when a similar
event occurred the previous turn.
I explained why I did not argue last time. Also agreed that the rules do not
explicitly prohibit it but they don't explicitely mention it either.
If i recall correctly, Tiron posted the previous time somewhere that he also
found that insurrection corps were also placed during withdrawals. It would be
helpful if we have some feedback on it.
In any case should we decide differently Prussia should retain the right to
amend his turn if he wishes so.
He can, it is still his turn. Unlike us who cannot, as we did not expect a
spawn & further retreat situation. Not even Laertis who already asked, or
anyone else I believe. For sure not me or Turkey either.
ok!
Now, to the essence of the discussion, i do not understand how the term "abuse"
is derived?
The abuse (obviously not intended as a abuse by you but still an rule abuse to
me) is derived from the fact that 2 things are not used as (i believe) were
intended: the spawning of the insurrection, and the interference during the
withdrawal phase of a corps. Those two combined, result to unique and peculiar
situation that - as you say - is not expressedly forbidden, but - as I believe
- was not intended nor examined.
If the rules intended to forbid the placement of insurrection corps in any
other situation then they could be simply written as "during an enemy major
powers land phase" instead of "Immediately after...". The fact that it was not
written this way leads to the conclusion that it was intended to allow their
placement under all conditions.
The rules do not state that this should be during the land phase of the enemy
but any time he crosses the border provinces, so the rules are clear here (at
least to me).
Check the sentence you copied again, It does not say "at any time". If it was
saying "at any phase" or "at any time" then yes the argument would be in your
favour and I would not be having doubts it was unintended. Or they could at
least have clarified that with another sentense, that "spawning" can happen in
other phases as well. They do that for other issues in the same rulebook. For
example check the wars declarations, it is mentioned there that wars can be
declared in other phases as well, not just the political phase. They could have
elaborate here as well if that was intended.
Same argument as above, "Immediately after" is clear enough (for me at least)
that it applies to any event that triggers their placement regardless of their
"timing".
As soon as the first corps entered the insurrection corps was placed in that
area so the area was not free of corps during the withdrawal
Wrong, retreat is not like movement, the retreating forces do not move on one
on one basis (there is no issue of supply anyway) but altogether:
7.5.2.10.3.2: A retreating force may never be split up.
There is none in the area when the Turkish force arrives.
the result is the same either one corps or an army..
There is no other case in the game where you retreat into an open area, but
have to withdraw again.
Yes, but this does not prohibit the use of the "ability" of these corps as it
is a matter of certain conditions that they may be triggered. The conditions
are not secret so every player is aware of them and decides if he wants to
trigger the placement or not.
I mention it so that you see my case that this scenario is not intended. If it
was a weird exception of some kind, it would have been mentioned somewhere, as
it is an important one.
I cannot understand why it should be mentioned somewhere since it is already
written!
If we wanted to allow insurrection to spawn due to the retreat, then we should
have treated them as spawing to interrupt movement, which is their intended use.
I may not understand the term "intended use".
I mean that their intended use is clearly elaborated, by spawning before or
after a corps moves, and by stopping its movement and cutting supply. It does
not mention is can be spawn to force additional retreats. It believe that "if
it was intended", it would have been mentioned, as this is a particulary
special case, not forbidden, but not clearly laid out either. You chose to
interpreted as you did.
If this was not intended then it should be written otherwise i consider that
this was intended!
As said in the previous point, the triggering of insurrection corps is under
certain conditions which are known to all players, so if a player wishes to
trigger them it is under his knowledge. For example in our case, if Turkey
wanted to avoid the placement of insurrections corps it could have retreated
south to Gratz. I am sure that if the battles were not in the border of the
border provinces none would have given any attention to insurrection corps...
Yes none would bother but this could come up at some other time: For example if
Turkey is at a later date defeated, or wants to withdraw after 1 day of battle,
or the same thing with a non-hostile corps happens again say in Pest, then you
could force them to move out of Austria with this scenario, making them move 3
full moves (a full month of moving) regardless of where he retreated!!! Without
placing corps BEFORE battle, only by placing a corps wherever Turkey (or
anyone) retreats, when he retreats. Even placing multiple depots does not save
him, as you still chose to push him after he retreats.
If the battle is initiated inside the border province (Pest in your example)
then there is no triggering of insurrection corps. Triggering occurs only
during the entrance in the border province.
In our case yes he could have retreated differently, but apart from the fact
that your interpetation of the retreat was not understood by us during our
planning, this only oppened my eyes that this cant be right generally speaking.
You also didn't comment this, which I find another reason that this could not
be happening:
For me withdrawal is a case of everything "freezing" and deciding where the
troops go. There is no movement interruption, or battle, or reinforce, or
leaving/changing factors/corps, or any interaction of any kind. There shouldn't
be a spawing of insurrection corps either.
If there was something clearling stopping a general flow of events, I am
confident it would have been mentioned specifically. I play an Austria too, I
never use this interpretation as it is not intended as far as I am concerned.
Point taken, still as already written insurrection corps are a special case and
triggered under special events. So you should take them into account when you
make your planning!
I am not trying to steal you turn, you can replay everything, Britain as well,
if you think it was affected. I simply don't think this scenario is what was
intended, and I also don't think it is a proper game-wise way to play it. I
might argue it for a house rule even if it was specifically written like that,
and if you found it unfair I would be happy to play Austria and give you France.
ARE YOU CRAZY??? I am not selling my country!!!!!!!!!
On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 4:11 PM, Yannis Sykamias
<ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I have no objection of discussing the use of insurrection corps but i find it
uncomfortable to discuss this issue in the middle of the turn when a similar
event occurred the previous turn. In any case should we decide differently
Prussia should retain the right to amend his turn if he wishes so.
Now, to the essence of the discussion, i do not understand how the term "abuse"
is derived? Once again i will repeat the rule for placement of insurrection
corps
"10.1.4.1 PLACING INSURRECTION CORPS: Immediately after an enemy corps, cossack
or freikorps has entered certain Austrian border provinces, 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".
The rules do not state that this should be during the land phase of the enemy
but any time he crosses the border provinces, so the rules are clear here (at
least to me).
I also do not understand why the rules imply that they should only be placed as
a hindrance to movement or cut off invading supply? I do not believe that there
is a specific purpose/use corps in the game and the rules do not direct how the
player may use his corps.
Regarding the questions Makis raised, my replies in blue
...
