SO what are we voting on?? :)
From: Laertes Papaspyrou <bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <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>
To: "eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, 27 February 2018, 9:57
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: (No Thread-Index: AQHTr5/JIa9VD0cUJkKPAGmMwc89saO34SXi
#yiv6628875116 #yiv6628875116 -- P
{margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}#yiv6628875116 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 <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf
of Laertes Papaspyrou <bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 09:51
To: 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>
To: "eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <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 <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf
of Laertes Papaspyrou <bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 09:35
To: 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> wrote:
I am not sure i have understood what is the question here?
From:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of
Laertes Papaspyrou <bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 09:23
To: 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> 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 <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of
Laertes Papaspyrou <bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 09:11
To: 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> 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 <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of
Laertes Papaspyrou <bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 08:56
To: 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> 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 <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of
Laertes Papaspyrou <bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 08:49
To: 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> 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 <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of
Laertes Papaspyrou <bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 08:31
To: 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> wrote:
The rule is clear. The force has :
1) to move out to an adjacent area2) 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> 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 <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of
Laertes Papaspyrou <bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 08:19
To: 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> 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>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 07:35
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal ΙΙ
To: <eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
“If possible” is related to the supply source part.
On 27 Feb 2018, at 07:12, Yannis Sykamias <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
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 02:58
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal ΙΙ
To: <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> 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 <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > on behalf
of tiron <strategija@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 12:26:38 AM
To: 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> 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 <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > on behalf
of Tiron <strategija@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 7:40:53 PM
To: 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>
wrote:
How do you handle 7.3.8.4 though?
On 26 Feb 2018, at 18:42, Tiron <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> wrote:
Here's my lengthy reply:I totally agree with
Tyron!From:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > on
behalf of Tiron <strategija@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 26 February 2018 18:26:56
To: 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<eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > on behalf of
Tiron <strategija@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 3:15:11 PM
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal ΙΙ I
don't see what is the problem, the rule is clear about "moving to any adjacent
area".It can not be a withdrawal, you withdraw from battle.This is not a battle
situation.Moving can trigger Insurrection corps placement and everything goes
on just like if the Turkey moved from Belgrade to Peterwardein, stopping
movement and battle and all.
On 2018-02-26 14:10, Yannis Sykamias wrote:
Correct Tiron!
From:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > on behalf of
Tiron <strategija@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 14:49
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: Rules clarification, Insurrection & Withdrawal ΙΙ Are
we talking about this: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 to any adjacent
area that, if possible, is closer or at least as close to their source of
supply as the area they leave.
On 2018-02-26 12:09, Makis Xiroyannis wrote:
I can live with this interpretation as well. It was the result of the first
voting. But as Laertes said, little details allow for a continuation of the
argument.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Tiron <strategija@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Is this what we are voting on????????
1. Turks withdraw from battle and move into Insurrection province.2. The
withdrawal ends right there.3. After withdrawal, since the corps entered
province, Insurrection corps placement is triggered.4. Battle happens.I can
live with this interpretation.
On 2018-02-26 11:03, Makis Xiroyannis wrote:
new thread, previous one "broke" due to many messages
As already said you are mixing things that are not consistent.
Am I doing that?
I have already explained that this event could occur even if both me and Turley
have already played out turn, so you may not provide an interpretation of the
rules based on current condition but on any similar condition. So the fact that
i still have not played my turn is not relevant with what triggers the battle
which is the entrance of Turkish forces in Austrian border province.
I replied to that as well: Whenever is the next battle phase for one of the two
of you. If the game ends that turn, then never! But I am not interested to make
a rule for one in a million situation that (i believe) is unexplored ground and
not intended. Also your persistence to try to explain this one-off case for
every case imagined, in addition to your denial for every suggestion offered
(like naval move interpretation, move and not retreat etc, not even offered by
me as explanations, but I accepted them) is clearly blocking the whole effort
to move on with additional "what ifs" so that the discussion continues forever.
Until what, we grow bored and accept that your original explanation is the only
possible one?
Anyway, i see no point in recycling the same arguments,
To that, we are in agreement.
let's all cast a vote if this a move/ withdrawal and if it is a move who is the
attacker and who is the defender in order to allow me to decide how to play my
turn.
So you propose that we scrap the second voting (because you don't accept that
the phasing player will be the initiator of the battle emerging) and make a
new one with different questions, to see if it bears another result.
Alright, lets vote again. Don't want to be the one to block a voting, for
whatever reason.
Everyone, please vote so that we move on. It is the last time we vote on this
subject (at least for me). You can express your arguments, although you don't
have to, we heard enough of both sides at this point.
We take for granted the first voting (insurrections can spawn during any phase)
and replace the result of the second voting with the following 2 questions:
|
| Makis | Yannis | Dimitris (P) | Dimitris (R) | Laertis | Tiron | Theodore
|
| Is Turkey "moving out" or "withdrawing" when Prussian non-hostile troops
enter the area? | moving out | withdrawing | | | | | |
|
| Who is the attacker when the battle is initiated | phasing player | moving
player | | | | | |
