theo we need a reply here or I roll a dice at today at 16:00
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:53 PM, Makis Xiroyannis <
makis.xiroyannis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Theo, a reply here would also be nice.
On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 8:54 AM, Laertes Papaspyrou <
bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I will go for 3-3. Master of Lore to decide.
On 9 Mar 2018, at 22:26, NIKOLAOY DHMHTRIOS <nikolad1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Στις 2018-03-09 22:07, Makis Xiroyannis έγραψε:
Gentlemen, please vote to get this over with so that we can do our turns
During an attack by hostile forces the defender...
1 Can retreat corps into his cities as a single entity Makis Tiron DN
2
2 Can retreat individual factors from his corps as desired Dimitris P.
Yannis? 2
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 10:50 AM, Makis Xiroyannis <
makis.xiroyannis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
*Well, according to Makis points, maybe we should reconsider this! *
*For me is the same case. Moving from a depot into a city or retiring
factors are results of an attack declared upon those factors/corps. this
type of movement is allowed to be performed by a non phasing side as a
result of a movement performed by the phasing side, and shouldn't be
treated like a normal land movement.*
*i suppose it is useless to try to persuade anyone, i keep my view,
let's vote to move on.*
We actually agree on this, I never disputed that. Movement does take
place during combat as result of enemy actions.
The only thing I disagree is that it can take the form of partial factor
exchange between corps. You can retreat depot garrisons, you can retreat
full corps, but you cannot retreat some factors of a corps, but the rest
not retreating. Even before I found the rules I mentioned, it didn't feel
right.
In any case yes, lets all vote and be done with it. It is not a big deal
and does not hurt anyone, we are simply trying to find the most reasonable
way to play it.
Master of Lore, when you awake from your slumber you need to update our
"house" rules.
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:06 PM, Dimitris Stavr. <
poliorkitis@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
*Dimitris, factors may move inside the city if they are part of a depot
garrison.*
Well, according to Makis points, maybe we should reconsider this!
For me is the same case. Moving from a depot into a city or retiring
factors are results of an attack declared upon those factors/corps. this
type of movement is allowed to be performed by a non phasing side as a
result of a movement performed by the phasing side, and shouldn't be
treated like a normal land movement.
i suppose it is useless to try to persuade anyone, i keep my view,
let's vote to move on.
------------------------------
*From:* eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
on behalf of Yannis Sykamias <ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Thursday, March 8, 2018 22:57
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: dropping factors when attacked
Dimitris, factors may move inside the city if they are part of a depot
garrison. For corps it is clear there is no objection from anyone on this.
Makis, the rules you mentioned state exchange of factors which include
the element of two way action, the rule Dimitris refers states retirement
of portion of forces in the city which is a one way action. Also the
detachment prohibition is in the movement step so it refers to the phasing
player but the retirement rule refers to the defending non-phasing player.
I don't know I am confused!
_____________________________
From: Dimitris Stavr. <poliorkitis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 22:19
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: dropping factors when attacked
To: <eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
7.5.1.1 DEFENDER RETIREMENT INTO CITY: Any forces or portion o 1f
forces upon whom an attack is declared may immediately retire into any
friendly controlled or vacant, and unbesieged city in that area but not
so as
to exceed that city's garrison capacity
nowhere seen anything about moving, exchanging, detaching, absorbing
just retiring. to me it is different, and "retirement" is connected to
battle.
as i get it, this movement has nothing to do with 7.3 LAND MOVEMENT
STEP.
it is clearly a result of such a movement thus not necessary to be
treated the same way.
moreover,
7.5.1.1.4: A city must be able to hold all of the factors of entire
corps that
move in (plus any otherfactors that may be in or moved into the city).
it clearly mentions factors and corps.
I'm sorry, but i will insist on my view.
------------------------------
*From:* eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
on behalf of Makis Xiroyannis <makis.xiroyannis@xxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Thursday, March 8, 2018 21:44
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: dropping factors when attacked
Nope, I am afraid you are both wrong. I solved the riddle finally:
*5.2.3 TRANSFER OF ARMY FACTORS:During an Army Reinforcement*
*Step unbesieged corps in the same area may exchange factors as
desired,*
*capacity permitting. Corps of different nationalities (including
different*
*minors or a major power and a minor country) may not exchange factors.*
*This is the only time during a Turn that army factors may be exchanged*
*except to detach and absorb garrison factors (see 7.3.3).Army factors
may*
*also be exchanged with garrisons in the same area during this step,
the*
*same as in 7.3.3 and, if all factors are detached from a corps, the
corps*
*counter is removed (see 5.2.4). EXCEPTIONS: Feudal, insurrection and*
*artillery factors may not be exchanged.*
The above rule is on reinforcement, and rules out any other army
factor exchange,with the exception of detaching/absorbing garrison
factors in 7.3.3.
Fine so far, lets check 7.3.3
*7.3.3 MOVING INTO CITIES-DETACHING/ABSORBING FACTORSGARRISONS:*
*During a major power's Land Movement Step, any*
*non-artillery, non-feudal or non-insurrection corps may detach factors
as*
*garrisons at, or absorb army factors from, depots hnd/or unbesieged*
*friendly or vacant cities by reducing or increasing its strength, if
the*
*capacity is there. There is no movement point cost for doing this.*
So points here
A) 7.3.3 is on the Land *Movement* step. The rule Dimitris and Yannis
use is on 7.5 (Land*Combat*) Since 5.2.3 clearly mentions that only
reinforcement and 7.3.3 are the times to exchange factors, it means it
is not possible at any other time.
B) Furthermore 7.3.3 mentions this exception happens in a major's power
Land Movement step, meaning its during a phasing player turn.
And as if the above are not enough, here comes 7.3.3.1
*7.3.3.1 DETACHING/ABSORBING FACTORS RESTRICTIONS: Regular*
*infantry and/or militia factors may not be detached or absorbedin an
area*
*containing enemy corps outside a city.*
I believe the above prove 7.5.1.1 viewed in isolation is wrong. It is a
pitty we have to read several paragraphs of different sections in order to
understand something, but there it goes.
"Portion of forces" means whole corps.
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:17 PM, Yannis Sykamias <ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Yes, I agree Makis, this rule gives the defender the advantage of
deciding based on the force moving against him whether he intends to "give"
a pp in siege or not (provided the city does not have any flech). But as it
is written there is no reference to portion of army.
------------------------------
*From:*eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
on behalf of Makis Xiroyannis <makis.xiroyannis@xxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:*Thursday, March 8, 2018 8:59:17 PM
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: dropping factors when attacked
in any case I will check the rules again, but as I don't see anyone
else replying/caring I will not push the subject
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 8:57 PM, Makis Xiroyannis <
makis.xiroyannis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ok I see where you stand. But I think it refers to whole corps when it
speaks for "portion of forces".
Lets take an example: A French corps with 20 infantry is attacked in an
area where there is an empty city with four spires (but no fletch). As a
French player I do not like the odds of the attacking army, so I decide to
place 19 infantry inside the cityafter you move and declare the
attack. This way, even if you win the siege against 19 French infantry,
you will not even get a PP because the corps never retreated inside - it
didn't have to. And I did that after seeing what you had sent against me.
Can I do that?
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 8:03 PM, Yannis Sykamias <ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I agree with Dimitris, the rule allows for a portion of defender's
forces to retire in the city. Since there is no explicit definition of
portion of "something" I can accept that it allows for factors from a
corps to retire in the city while the corps remains outside.
------------------------------
*From:*eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
on behalf of Dimitris Stavr. <poliorkitis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Thursday, March 8, 2018 7:23:38 PM
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: dropping factors when attacked
in Lille i followed the rule
7.5.1.1 DEFENDER RETIREMENT INTO CITY: Any forces or portion o 1f
forces upon whom an attack is declared may immediately retire into any
friendly controlled or vacant, and unbesieged city in that area but not
so as
to exceed that city's garrison capacity
to me it was clear that as a defender i had this right.
if this should be interpreted in a different way, you have my opinion,
the stage is yours.
------------------------------
*From:*eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
on behalf of Makis Xiroyannis <makis.xiroyannis@xxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Thursday, March 8, 2018 19:15
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] dropping factors when attacked
Another question that I don't remember if we clarified or what we
decided
If a corps is attacked in an area with a city and wants to fight (as
opposed to retreat behind walls) can the defending corps still remove
factors from it and place them into the city?
I thought we could not since defender is not a phasing player, but I
saw Prussia doing that in Lille, shall we play it this way?
