DAAK Foren-Übersicht DAAK
Deutscher Axis and Allies Klub
 
 FAQFAQ   SuchenSuchen   MitgliederlisteMitgliederliste   BenutzergruppenBenutzergruppen   RegistrierenRegistrieren 
 ProfilProfil   Einloggen, um private Nachrichten zu lesenEinloggen, um private Nachrichten zu lesen   LoginLogin 

poll
Gehe zu Seite Zurück  1, 2
 
Neues Thema eröffnen   Neue Antwort erstellen    DAAK Foren-Übersicht -> English Forum
Vorheriges Thema anzeigen :: Nächstes Thema anzeigen  
Autor Nachricht
nemo97
Oberstabsgefreiter


Anmeldedatum: 04.02.2003
Beiträge: 55

BeitragVerfasst am: Do Jun 05, 2003 9:29 pm    Titel: Panther... Antworten mit Zitat

are you saying retreating to EEU in this scenario is legal?

nemo97
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden Website dieses Benutzers besuchen Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Curulin
Oberstabsfeldwebel


Anmeldedatum: 18.03.2003
Beiträge: 296
Wohnort: Göttingen

BeitragVerfasst am: Do Jun 05, 2003 9:34 pm    Titel: Re: Pretty clear rules in English (for a native English spea Antworten mit Zitat

Panther hat Folgendes geschrieben:
If any of the attacking units entered the battle from EEU, EEU is an legal space to retreat to. ANY Units mean also air units.


All right, let's agree then that an attacking unit entered the battle from EEU.
Now my question is: Is EEU friendly territory?
I don't think so.
_________________
Periissem ni per-iissem.
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden E-Mail senden Website dieses Benutzers besuchen
nemo97
Oberstabsgefreiter


Anmeldedatum: 04.02.2003
Beiträge: 55

BeitragVerfasst am: Do Jun 05, 2003 9:42 pm    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

Zitat:
If any of the attacking units entered the battle from EEU, EEU is an legal space to retreat to.



Okay, maybe what the German speakers are missing here is knowing the nuances of the English language (and I am not saying this condescendingly).

In the above quote there is a four letter word "from" that makes or breaks the arguement CWL is trying to make. No unit came "from" EEU as EEU was in British control in this scenario. Units came "from" Germany and Ukraine. Nothing more. Flying over EEU does not mean units came "from" EEU because they did not originate (come from) EEU. They only came from Germany and Ukraine in this given scenario. Therefore, knowing my language, as I think I do, units only came "from" Ukraine and Germany means Ukraine and Germany are the only territories in which units would have a chance to retreat to after a battle and because Germany is 2 spaces from LEN, then that is not an option due to another part of the retreating rules.

Does this shed any light as to why CWL and I do not think Panther's ruling is proper?

nemo97
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden Website dieses Benutzers besuchen Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Panther
General


Anmeldedatum: 05.06.2002
Beiträge: 6631
Wohnort: Ismaning, Bavaria

BeitragVerfasst am: Do Jun 05, 2003 9:51 pm    Titel: Re: Pretty clear rules in English (for a native English spea Antworten mit Zitat

Curulin hat Folgendes geschrieben:
Panther hat Folgendes geschrieben:
If any of the attacking units entered the battle from EEU, EEU is an legal space to retreat to. ANY Units mean also air units.


All right, let's agree then that an attacking unit entered the battle from EEU.
Now my question is: Is EEU friendly territory?
I don't think so.


Friendly means friendly at the time when the retreat is going to happen.
Analogous Szenario: If you blitz a space and enter a battle with this Armor the blitzed space is a legal retreat space, although it was not friendly before the combat.

In the original scenario if CWLs opponent had NOT have taken EEU it would NOT be a legal space to retreat of course.
_________________
Würfel sind nichts anderes als Foltergeräte in Miniaturausgabe, die von hinterhältigen Sadisten entwickelt wurden um Strategiespieler zu quälen!
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
nemo97
Oberstabsgefreiter


Anmeldedatum: 04.02.2003
Beiträge: 55

BeitragVerfasst am: Do Jun 05, 2003 10:19 pm    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

Another factor you seem to be missing is ALL battle are considered to happen at the same time (concurrently). If the battles (and retreats which are a part of battle since retreats occur during combat) all happen simultaniously, then EEU is still not a valid retreat point whether or not a plane flew over it because it is having a simultanious battle being fought.

How do you answer this?

nemo97
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden Website dieses Benutzers besuchen Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Curulin
Oberstabsfeldwebel


Anmeldedatum: 18.03.2003
Beiträge: 296
Wohnort: Göttingen

BeitragVerfasst am: Do Jun 05, 2003 10:27 pm    Titel: Ruling Antworten mit Zitat

Well, if Panther says that it is possible, I think we have to accept it.
I just think it's not logical.
Planes may not land in newly conquered territory, because it was not friendly at the beginning of the turn.
Ships may not retreat through the Suez- or Panama Canal, even if both adjacent territories are conquered in the same turn, but land units may retreat to a just conquered territory.
_________________
Periissem ni per-iissem.
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden E-Mail senden Website dieses Benutzers besuchen
CWL
Unteroffizier


Anmeldedatum: 05.05.2003
Beiträge: 78

BeitragVerfasst am: Do Jun 05, 2003 11:16 pm    Titel: final Antworten mit Zitat

My last comment's will be:
germany will reroll len as ftr was not declared.

So remember this rule so you dont get burned as i just did..

I still cant believe it Sad

CWL
AKA: canadain warlord
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden E-Mail senden AIM-Name
Zab
General


Anmeldedatum: 06.06.2002
Beiträge: 3307
Wohnort: Wedemark / Hannover

BeitragVerfasst am: Fr Jun 06, 2003 9:18 am    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

One thing.

If you blitz with 1 arm form eeu through UKR attacking LEN and als 3 inf 1 arm 1 FGt Attacking. It is allowed to retreat to UKR, isn+ it
_________________
Gruß

Zab
=========================
Es genügt nicht, keine Ideen zu haben, man muss auch unfähig sein, sie auszudrücken.
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden Website dieses Benutzers besuchen
achsenaxt
Brigadegeneral


Anmeldedatum: 04.12.2002
Beiträge: 768
Wohnort: Rostock

BeitragVerfasst am: Fr Jun 06, 2003 10:50 am    Titel: @CWL Antworten mit Zitat

Panther, Secretary of Defense, DAAK hat Folgendes geschrieben:
If any of the attacking units entered the battle from EEU, EEU is an legal space to retreat to. ANY Units mean also air units.

This is the OFFICIAL ruling of the "Verteidigungsministerium" and not under consideration.

CWL, I told you this ruling by mail even yesterday. I asked you to talk to your opponent to come to an agreement how to go on.
I dont understand why you are making a running game public now.

I think, this statement is pretty "official"...

@CWL:

Dear Dale,
why the fuss with all these board discussions and complaining mails to Panther? Right now, you got your official statement. It's time to reach an agreement, isn't it. I asked you to let me know your suggestions for a compromise. I'm waiting for your response.

So far, best regards

Achsenaxt
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden Website dieses Benutzers besuchen
achsenaxt
Brigadegeneral


Anmeldedatum: 04.12.2002
Beiträge: 768
Wohnort: Rostock

BeitragVerfasst am: Fr Jun 06, 2003 11:09 am    Titel: @Nemo97 Antworten mit Zitat

Dear John,

although your posts are not necessarily wrong, although you played hundred of pbms, and although everybody in an open board is invited to give a statement - I like you to keep one fact in mind:

You are COS at AAMC and not at DAAK!

By the way, Panther's decisions within DAAK are official and definite.

May be, you disagree, but DAAK's official are forced to reach conventions, even if not loved by all players. If AAMC has another convention - well, it's AAMC.

However, thank you for your post and your trying to find a proper solution.

Best regards
Achsenaxt
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden Website dieses Benutzers besuchen
CWL
Unteroffizier


Anmeldedatum: 05.05.2003
Beiträge: 78

BeitragVerfasst am: Fr Jun 06, 2003 2:31 pm    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

What more can I say. As told before Of course your opponent has to specify where his planes fly over if it does matter. If he does not you may demand a rerroll
If you want I send him a mail advising him to do so.
The reason I did not until now is simple. I think that would be to your disadvantage.
I believe it would be better for you to agree with your opponent for an redo of the Russian turn or even the last 5 turns or whatever you both find fair. But that is not something I may arrange, because the only thing that was incorrect was the combat declaration of that len Battle. So the only thing I can officially do is advising your opponent to redo this combat. (Of course you can change your OOL then). Shall I do that?

Best regards
Alex
So panther was emailing you with the reroll order. Because the ftr was not declared to fly over eeu and must be to amke it a retreat zone..

Let face it took 7 days for your turn ,and even you said you ask panther in advance . This makes me think not many people know this rule. (even in DAAK)

I have a feeling with this post , this rule will be used alot more. I recieved alot of email's on different ways it can be used.
in short yes i'm finishing the game . But you havent rerolled len battle yet,so its still your turn.

dale Cool
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden E-Mail senden AIM-Name
achsenaxt
Brigadegeneral


Anmeldedatum: 04.12.2002
Beiträge: 768
Wohnort: Rostock

BeitragVerfasst am: Fr Jun 06, 2003 7:07 pm    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

Battle of Len has been rerolled.

Achsenaxt
angel
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden Website dieses Benutzers besuchen
Panther
General


Anmeldedatum: 05.06.2002
Beiträge: 6631
Wohnort: Ismaning, Bavaria

BeitragVerfasst am: Sa Jun 07, 2003 12:24 am    Titel: IAAPA has the same interpretation as DAAK Antworten mit Zitat

I just looked on the IAAPA site to see whats their interpretation of the retreat rules.

And surprise, surprise IAAPA has EXACTLY the same interpretation of this retreat rules as DAAK has:

http://www.axisandallies.net/public/law/RULES_CLARIFICATIONS_RETREATS.html

But actually that is not so surprising. If you carefully study the MB rules (page 18/19, Combat; A. Special retreat) and clarifications you will necessarily come to this result.
_________________
Würfel sind nichts anderes als Foltergeräte in Miniaturausgabe, die von hinterhältigen Sadisten entwickelt wurden um Strategiespieler zu quälen!
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
CWL
Unteroffizier


Anmeldedatum: 05.05.2003
Beiträge: 78

BeitragVerfasst am: Mo Jun 09, 2003 3:09 am    Titel: retreats Antworten mit Zitat

This is Daak not AAMC but this is just why other clubs have changed the MB rules...as not all rules are clear....
I understand that DAAK has it own rule base and at DAAK this is the way it is played...

This just explains my thoughts on this, as daak use's ftr's for retreat path's. i will respect the rule...just thought i would post it to clear up why other dont use that rule>>>

with thanks to blackwatch and Gene for there thought's


BlackWatch
Vice JAG
(6/5/03 2:57 pm)
Reply
ezSupporter
Retreat rules discrepancy...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAMC prohibits this as a club interpretation (using an air unit in a flyover to establish a retreat zone). IAAPA does permit it, but the declaration in the example given is faulty in IAAPA rules - you must specify the flight path of the ftr in the combat declaration (which was not done).

Both sides of the argument have some merit and both have some flaws.

The printed rules make no distinction as to the point of origin of the piece that is being used to establish a retreat zone, nor do they make any restriction on the type of unit. AAMC allows an armor unit to blitz through either a friendly or empty enemy territory to establish a retreat zone. Naval units can be specified to go through a myriad of zones to cover all retreat options. There is no truly valid reason to limit aircraft to being immediately adjacent to the battle site, flying directly to the site.

On the other hand, prohibiting the type of move proposed in the example (even if properly declared) can be faulted as follows:

Suppose on Russia 1 Russia sends sub, 2 ftr to baltic and takes the sea zone with the sub.

On Germany 1, Germany can attack this sub with a solo ftr, and if it also attacks UK Sz with anything, the sub is an autokill as it cannot retreat to a zone where a battle is occurring, regardless of the order in which the battles are rolled. This is explicitly prohibited in the "rules clarification" sheet.

This would seem to indicate you should not be able to retreat to a zone that has an actual battle taking place.

Note that if a ship passes through a seazone on its way to a battle, that does not prevent that "passed through" zone to be used as a retreat location for defending subs. Nor are you allowed "interdiction" battles (attacking empty spaces to prevent a retreat).

To me then, air units should be able to be used to set up retreat zones if their flight path is specified, they take into account any and all AA guns enroute while they set up the retreat, they have a legitimate landing spot AND the following conditions are met with respect to the territory being used as a retreat zone:

1) It was already friendly, or

2) It is captured without contest on that turn by other attacking forces, or

3) It is a neutral, which the aircraft "captures" just before entering the combat area.

2 cents drops in...
BW, Vice JAG

GMillard
Registered User
(6/5/03 7:02 pm)
Reply Re: rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As BlackWatch points out this rule was unclear so each club made its own interpretation. Our JCS decided that using planes to fly over territories to create a retreat area should not be allowed.

I believe that one of the reasons was that you could actually retreat forward.

Say USSR takes Ukraine. leaving Caucasus empty.
Stacks in Karelia.

Germany could take Caucasus with 2 inf from SEu and fly an air unit over Caucasus on the way to Karelia, setting up a retreat route. Then hit Karelia with units from EEu, Fin, Germany and SEu. Fight one round and retreat to Caucasus.
Nice place to land a couple of Japanese fighters.

This is just an example of one of the reasons the JCS did not think that it should be allowed.


Gene
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden E-Mail senden AIM-Name
achsenaxt
Brigadegeneral


Anmeldedatum: 04.12.2002
Beiträge: 768
Wohnort: Rostock

BeitragVerfasst am: Do Jun 12, 2003 9:55 am    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

Dear members,

Panther's (a.k.a. Minister of Defence) decision is definite. So, I like you all - especially those, who use to play another way e.g. at AAMC - to keep this rule in mind.

The game within the problem occured (#3354) was rerolled. Both sides knew their opportunities before rolling the dice in this 2nd trial. That's why CWL's modified his OOL, again that forced me to take Karelia (instead of retreat to EEu).

By the way, DAAK's officials try to eliminate incongruities between DAAK's house rules (German) and English translation, to make sure that English speaking are able to be as prepared as German members are. We Work hard on it, but it will take some time.

Thanks for understanding

Achsenaxt
DAAK Minister
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden Website dieses Benutzers besuchen
Beiträge der letzten Zeit anzeigen:   
Neues Thema eröffnen   Neue Antwort erstellen    DAAK Foren-Übersicht -> English Forum Alle Zeiten sind GMT + 1 Stunde
Gehe zu Seite Zurück  1, 2
Seite 2 von 2

 
Gehe zu:  
Du kannst keine Beiträge in dieses Forum schreiben.
Du kannst auf Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht antworten.
Du kannst deine Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht bearbeiten.
Du kannst deine Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht löschen.
Du kannst an Umfragen in diesem Forum nicht teilnehmen.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Deutsche Übersetzung von phpBB.de