Slitherine

Sorry I don't see these orders as relief but 'rather cover your bases'. (as evidenced by the fact that Ost/411/716 later moves to Cagny and is itself relieved?!).

"4.33 Relief Movements. A friendly BG can relieve a defending force by moving into a defended sector and then permitting the defender to exit."

"defending" being the operative term. The way it is worded above indicates that there is a force that is already actively defending. It is easy to see that we as the allies would interpret it this way. We didn't see it as a method to continually cover off a sector (which is what is being tried here).

I also assumed that a 'relief force' would be the only circumstance in which the Axis could temporarily assign 2 BG's to the same sector and technically solely for the purpose of relief. In this situation, it appears the Axis are bending the rule to constantly cover their bases…why wouldn't every move then be written as 'relief'.

I think the problem I have with this is that, again, it was assumed that 4.33 was strictly for the purpose of relieving an already beleaguered force not to create an rotating move so that there can now never be an element of surprise.

Rule 3.41 prevents any more than 1 Axis BG in a sector at any time (other than R sectors). However, using rule 4.33 can always circumvent this.

While we are on the subject, a 'relief' movement should technically be a BG swap. I've done reliefs in place…they are complicated moves…I would like to amend that rule to see the relieving BG and the relieved BG doing a sector swap and it should consume the entire move.

If not careful...this is going to end up just like old GJS....Too much arguing and not enough fighting. Remember people...This is not a perfect system and BA was never intended to be played like this. This is ground breaking and very fun/exciting...Please dont ruin this process with this stuff...
Jon is a very fair person and "Is" the one Managing this game. (That Granfali, Him and rest of us help get going)...Please just fight your battles...Allies, Ya'll are doing quite well no need for this. This is very minor stuff.

kingt wrote:Here's one more error. Because 857/346 is moving today, they will not defend Gold AFD (it doesn't really matters because they're heavily depleted) but it matters because of the following rules:

GJS'44 Rules & Regs wrote: 4.31 A BG that moves into a sector which an enemy BG is passing through or departing will fight an Attack vs Surprised Defence (ASD).
7.43 Attack vs Surprised Defence (ASD) - where an attacking BG moves into a sector that a defender is either passing through, or is attempting to depart, the attacker can select max.25 units, the defender can select max.20 units. Attacker deploys into the first 10 rows of a 40x40 map, defender deploys into back 20 rows. Attacker begins with 1 HQ flag. Defender starts with 3 rearmost flags. There is 1 neutral flag between the opposing forces (5 VP flags on the map). Defenders will be punished if they permit themselves to be surprised. )

So that means 9/3 fights ASD against 857/346 therefore having a +5 units advantage.

Thanks for pointing out "one more error". Yes, 857/346 issued an order so it is surprised on Gold. My mistake and apologies for it (rules 10.1 and 10.2 ).

Actually, my interpretation of the rules, as written, is Allies "can select max.25 units" while Germans "can select max.20 units". The German force pool is what it is, so the Allies will have rather more than +5 unit advantage... If I were the Germans, I'd pick one flag and fight like crazy to make sure I held it to the end, taking out anything that came close, to avoid dissolution...

Thanks Mike, I agree!

To address Malcolms point - a BG in a sector is by definition, by default, defending that sector ie much like a local Fire Station, Police Station or Border Post etc. No reason that another force etc cannot RELIEVE a sector 'force' for a number of reasons eg (but not limited to): training, liase faire attitudes, management decision, skill set etc and so on.

No disrespect to Jon, but the Rules as written do not define RELIEF CONDITIONS (as alluded to by the Allied side), thus, a general and real life rule must apply - such an interpretation was open to both parties.

Clearly the Allied side has issues with 3.31, 3.41 and 4.33 (below), as they are presently written.

Ok guys, let me explain the spirit of what was intended and please help me to rewrite (believe me, I know what I intended more than KingT does! ).

Sectors can have multiple BGs passing through them but can only hold one BG at the end of each turn, with the exception of landing beaches (which can have 2 Allies plus/minus 1 German) and Vimont & Villers-Bocage (which can have any number of Germans plus/minus 1 Allied). This is exactly the way it was in original GJS and is pretty standard across board wargaming. Passing through and relief movements (swapping places) are generally permitted.

To help visualise this, try to imagine two different scenarios...

1st scenario: An Allied BG in Buron wants to relieve an Allied BG in Lebisey. Neither BG has been fired on in the past turn. A German BG in Carpiquet attacks Lebisey via Abbaye, and by sheer fluke attacks after one BG has left and before the other BG has arrived, in order priority. Did the Germans just take Lebisey without a fight? Theoretically, yes, because the Allies should have executed it as one BG arriving, before the other BG left. And they should be allowed to do that.

2nd scenario: Five Allied BGs in Hillman, Perriers, Benouville, Buron and Bieville... The BG in Perriers wants to go to Lebisey... Is it permitted to pass through Bieville or Buron?... Under my interpretation the answer is yes; it is passing through... If a German commander wanted to hold the Allies to the precise text of 3.31, it could be argued that Bieville or Buron would be "holding" more than one BG while the travelling BG is passing through... So to get to Lebisey, that Allied BG would have to travel via Courseulles-Tailleville-Hermanville-Abbaye before getting to Lebisey. That's clearly nonsense, right? (And as a nod of respect to Leci, he has given no sign that he'd disrupt the campaign by trying to gain some advantage by holding me to that).

Ok, so under my interpretation, let's say that we permit that Allied BG to travel from Perriers to Lebisey, for the sake of argument (sigh!) let's say it routes via Bieville. Meanwhile, the German unit in Pegasus attacks Bieville. Is the attacking unit allowed to attack Bieville? Or should the GM just say, sorry mate, the rules don't let you attack there while another BG is in transit? Of course, the enemy are allowed to attack.

So who did the German BG in Pegasus attack? The original defending BG? Or the one passing through? I would say the original defender, unless the defender was exiting. If the defender was exiting, who attacks and who defends would depend on order priority.

Is this sort of making sense now?

My definition of "relief" is exactly as dictionary.com above. A commander can relieve what he likes, when he likes. But, if necessary, we can define it. Should relief mean that the BG being relieved must be under attack? Was it under attack last turn? During the previous two turns? More than two turns ago? Whose job will it be to track this for every BG on the map?

I admit that 3.31, 3.41 and 4.33 may not be perfectly written, so please help me to write them better, in order to cover the above scenarios to everyone's satisfaction.

I'm sure that we all agree that these unhappy, dramatic spats are not the way to fix things... Listening and constructive discussion will get us where we need to be... Fair?

GJS'44 Rulebook wrote:3.31 The Allies may land up to two BGs onto each of the landing beaches, but battles will be resolved as two MP games versus the Germans, one after the other. These are the only sectors which may hold more than one Allied BG.

3.41 For all turns from June 7th onwards, the German Commander may place new units into Vimont (southeast) or Villers Bocage (southwest) sectors. These are the only sectors which may hold more than one German BG.

4.33 Relief Movements. A friendly BG can relieve a defending force by moving into a defended sector and then permitting the defender to exit. For a relief to be successful, both the entry and the exit movements must be completed before an enemy attacks. If the relief is successful, subsequent attacks will take place as an Attack vs a Fortified Defence (AFD), as if the defender had already been in position. However, if an enemy attacks before the relieving force can enter, the current defender will face an Attack vs Surprised Defence (ASD). If an enemy attacks after the relieving force has entered but before the current defender has departed, the new defender will face a Meeting Engagement (ME).

I and my team do, sincerely, apprecriate all the hard work that goes into this - but where does all this 'stuff' leave us with regard to the published joint D2 Orders?

Legal arguments apart, there are people keen to play 'the actual game'!

GottaLove88s wrote:

kingt wrote:

GottaLove88s wrote:Ok guys, Here's my decision and rationale...

1. There's nothing in 4.33 or in the sentiment of being a relief force that says that a Commander cannot relieve a garrison before it has actually come under fire. Rule 4.33 stands.
2. Relief movement is designed to permit a BG to take control of a friendly sector while another BG is in place, without ever leaving the sector empty, which would obviously be foolish. Rule 4.33 stands.

It should, that's actually why it was created, to replicate a situation in real combat. Otherwise from now on we'll have a lot of such-fake relieve movements between BGs. Because of two, now rule 3.41 is obsolete. We'll be able to replicate a lot of relieve movements in future days to have two BGs in sectors that allow only one.

KingT, with respect, I wrote the rules, so I know what I intended more than you do. There should always be 2 BGs in a sector when it is relieved otherwise it would be down to pure dumb luck whether an attacker came in at the particular instant that it was empty. That was not my intention, and neither side should benefit from it.

I didn't mean to sound disrespectful, I'm just explaining how I, and maybe others, perceived the new rule (remember my complex battle situation questions?) Had it been clear that such moves can happen between BGs that aren't attacked I would have questioned that at the time as well because it sort of provides a loophole for the defending side depending on the progress of the war to that point.

kingt wrote:

GottaLove88s wrote:3. In this circumstance, the enemy commander could have structured his orders to take Ost/411/716 through Caen to Carpiquet, but he chose to "relieve" Caen instead. If Ost/411/716 had merely passed through, I would agree that Ost/642/716 had been surprised. Rule 4.33 stands.

Well the enemy commander choose the easier/more logical way to move those BGs, and because of that we're now into a fake 4.33 situation. If 4.33 wasn't there, there would still have been a conflict with previous rules. But 7.45 is the stronger one.

So, in addition to knowing exactly what was in my head when I wrote the rules, you're also claiming to know exactly what the enemy commander was thinking when he wrote his orders?

I'm just calling it like I see it, I'm not claiming anything, I should have worded that differently so it doesn't sound like anything else that I wanted it to say. I said that because the BGs reinforcing is exactly similar to the one moving to Caen. In case the reinforcing unit would have been a stronger one, then yes, it would have looked like the Germans are trying to reinforce. So under those circumstances the simplest explanation for me when looking at the German order of battle would be to move each of the Ost BGs one sector to the west.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relief?s=t wrote: re·lief1 [ri-leef] noun
release from a post of duty, as by the arrival of a substitute or replacement.

And I assume you're also going to do a trawl of multiple dictionary sites until you find one that cites that a military force can only be relieved when it is under actual attack?

I don't think it was necessary to explain what the word means, because I think we all know. If you want to go into personal attacks I can go further and say that was a very cheap shot.

But again, the rule isn't clear that BG units that haven't been in battle can also do such moves. Sure, it's not saying that it applies only to BGs that were involved in battle the previous day either, but since the rule came in at a point in time where such German BGs were in a position to be relieved, we, or rather I, so you don't say that I know what others are thinking, thought that 4.33 is related to BGs in battle.

kingt wrote:

GottaLove88s wrote:5. Have you considered the implication of me agreeing with you that you're right... That would mean that 6al/6 would fight an ASD vs 642/716... and then fight an ME vs 411/716 (both BGs arriving same turn)... and potentially then fight an ME vs 125/21Pz... That, to me, sounds like a good way to significantly wound a para BG, even if you won the first two battles... If you keep arguing, I might just decide to agree with you!

This isn't a way to communicate your decisions, my way or the highway. Yes, let's fight up to three battles on Caen.

Since you're being blunt, I should respond...

Mate, your approach isn't the most persuasive, if you want somebody to agree with you... Shouting from the playground gets people's backs up... If you want to give me evidence, do... Ask any of the guys who played original GJS. I'm quite deliberately engaging in discussions with all sides/players, to a much greater degree than we did first time out, in order to achieve fun and fairness for everyone, not just the side that shouts the loudest... Sometimes I will be wrong, and I will reconsider. Sometimes you will be wrong, and you must reconsider too...

If you genuinely believe that I am acting in a way that is deliberately blind or unfair to the Allies, then I'm happy to stand down.

These exchanges aren't good for GJS'44 or BA... Let's all take 24 hours downtime to cool things... Ok?

Where and how am I shouting? I am not doing that, in fact it's far from my intention of doing so.

I don't believe you're acting against the Allies, I'm just saying the 4.33 rule needs further revision and clarification and should not be stronger than other rules, especially 7.45.

But I also don't think you have to think in the best interest of a BG (like you did just above) as a GM or word your response as a three-battle threat/punishment. If I recall correctly, you also voiced your concerns regarding the GJS in the other battle, and you didn't appreciate the feedback received from the GM, who seemed to imply at one point that it's his battle, his rules, his way. Your " If you keep arguing..." sounds like that sort of an approach.

I think we have thought about the advantages and disadvantages of these Para BGs drops, and whatever comes of them it's our responsibility. But in these decisions we followed the rules, thinking that Para drops come with the ASD unit advantage even in sectors defended by Germans that would otherwise be attacked by Allies as AFDs.

I'm not arguing this because I play Allies, or because I want to win. I'd have the same opinion if I were to fight the battle from the other side. But I want the rules to be clear and used similarly by both sides.

For the record, I did say that the new rules should be applied starting June 9 exactly in order to prevent such unusual situations.

Lastly, and most importantly, I certainly appreciate what you and everyone else has done for this to happen, and everyone involved in this project. I'm looking forward to GJS challenges over regular MP BA games. But if you think my opinions are not welcomed or that I shouldn't be part of the game anymore I can certainly keep them to myself and/or leave the war and observe from the distance. In no way do I want to cause disruptions or animosity, but in my book it's ok to disagree.

I will try to refrain from making observations on the rules and instead let Brummbar handle things, but maybe for future such manyplayer multiplayer games, rules should not be changed during the game, but amended for the following season. I will not withdraw my objections on June 7, but like in any sport I will respect the final decision of the referee/GM.

leci wrote:6/6 dropping into Caen was hardly a surprise! But such a notion is a 'red herring'. The pre D2 German BG disposition was based on 'DEFENSE', the D2 Orders are about different or supporting remits and RELIEVING D1 BGs of their DI remits and adapting Orders and remits to D2 and beyond...... I really do not understand the problem.

I'm not talking about surprising you, but about the fact that Paras dropping causes an ASD according to the rules.

leci wrote:To challenge kingt's remarks. The Allies made a non historical move into VB and V - good stuff and yes, a surprise! The Allies using singular BGs on the beaches was a surprise but I doubt has provided Allied advantage except for attrition - an ongoing 'debate', the success of which will be demonstrated by outcomes (player abilities apart).

I am not saying that my Orders are in any way strategically of 'win' benefit, but clearly the ability to explore options (and seek compliance approval) was/is open to both sides.

I believe that Brummbar did say before June 6 fights that Germans didn't respect the historical order of battle for the bunkers either. We're more in a "what if?" thing here, because if we play it historically then we should have a clear script to follow. Even in such a case what would happen in case Germans would win battles that are supposed to be lost?

leci wrote:..I could have Ordered mixed Pz to MOVE to Tilly la Campagne and ATTACK Caen.... Two options. Both are within the rules.

I didn't challenge any other order.

No worries.

Thanks All,

Progress!

1. Let's improve the rules so that everyone understands "relief movements" or "pass throughs" or "swaps" or whatever we want to call them. I really don't want to have to track who attacked who and how long ago. Swaps, reliefs and pass throughs will be important to both sides as the campaign progresses... Whatever the rule becomes, we will apply it equally to both sides throughout the campaign... Sorted.

2. If we vote on rule changes, it is not helpful for players to subsequently question agreed votes (or to claim that they knew better). Please let's not do this. And if somebody would like to take responsibility for handling future votes, then I'd be v grateful for them to volunteer? Genuinely.

3. Guys, I examined Rules 4.33 vs 7.45, in depth, when this issue unexpectedly arose, after I received both sets of orders... This is why I deliberately flagged it for everyone to see, rather than trying to hide it... Nobody had pre-consulted on this issue before it happened (indeed, I've swapped most hypothetical emails with the Allies about what would and wouldn't be allowed under the rules)... I firmly believe that the spirit of the campaign means 4.33 should prevail (and if I had let 7.45 prevail then nobody would get any "swaps" or "passthroughs" for the entirety of the campaign, which would become really frustrating when we've got >20 BGs on the Strat Map)... Sometimes it's about playing the game everyone... Let's get back to it...

That said, I asked both Commanders if either side felt disadvantaged by one side misinterpreting any of the rules, as presently written. And if they did, would they like to resubmit their orders for June 7th.

Both sides have confirmed that they wish to continue with their orders as presently stated.

So, Hallelujah, we're GAME ON...

Frustratingly, I have something that I've got to do with what's left of this evening, so I'll try to get V & VB maps up tomorrow night, the remainder over the weekend... Happy hunting Gentlemen...

NB. I have corrected my error for the first battle on Gold to read 9/3 (AMR) ASD v 857/346 (P-)... So 9/3 may force select max.25 units versus 857/346's remaining 16... It's going to be a turkey shoot with the Germans doing their best to hold one flag...

Jon. You have the final word as far as I am concerned. Period.

k9mike wrote:Jon. You have the final word as far as I am concerned. Period.

Thanks Mike! You, my friend, are a model gamer...

Right! Sorted! All you other guys are invited to a German hosted BBQ - bring your tin cans!

leci wrote:Right! Sorted! All you other guys are invited to a German hosted BBQ - bring your tin cans!

I'm in, I could really use some neutral Guiness or Corona right now...

Have been quietly watching today, and wish everyone a safe and happy holiday
(well, if you are stateside. Do Brits celebrate Thanksgiving..?)

I think like any good role-playing game or simulation, you need a strong GM, and that is what we have. We also have some passionate players and strategic planners, which is great to see.

GottaLove88s wrote: 3. Guys, I examined Rules 4.33 vs 7.45, in depth, when this issue unexpectedly arose, after I received both sets of orders... This is why I deliberately flagged it for everyone to see, rather than trying to hide it... Nobody had pre-consulted on this issue before it happened (indeed, I've swapped most hypothetical emails with the Allies about what would and wouldn't be allowed under the rules)... I firmly believe that the spirit of the campaign means 4.33 should prevail

I'm good to proceed to June 7th with the above final decision, if it matters for anyone to know it... =)
My thanks to Jon as GM and also my respect to my fellow players on both sides that are fully immersed in what is sure to be a fun campaign!

I need the names of the Axis commanders with their BG's please.

Commanders/players,

Pls let Brummbar know which units you will be controlling for June 7th.

As a reminder, our battles for June 7th are...

GottaLove88s wrote:CONFIRMED BATTLES (bonuses/penalties in brackets)

Gold: 9/3 (AMR) ASD v 857/346 (P-)
Caen*: 6al/6 (AMR+) ME v Ost/411/716 (P-)
Vimont: II/22/21Pz (AP) AFD v 3/6ab (MR)
Hillman Battery: 69/50 (NMR) AFD v II/726/716 (AMRP-)
Villers-Bocage: I/22/21Pz AFD (AP) v 5al/6 (MR)

-indicates battle fought under “out of supply” morale penalty
+airlanding (vs airborne) brigade will suffer minimal scattering with most units together and some opportunity for redeployment

*In Caen, an unexpected conflict arose between rules 4.33 and 7.45... In this situation, the defender appears to be "anticipating trouble" from the air, hence the ordered relief effort, and a subsequent potential reinforcement, so it is fair to assume that 6al/6 did not catch the Caen garrison in total surprise... Consequently, an ME is justified (rule 4.33 prevails).

POTENTIAL SUBSEQUENT BATTLES (pending first results)

125/21Pz in Vimont or Caen
3/6ab (MR) in Vimont
6al/6 (AMR) in Caen
7/3cdn (N) in Hillman Battery
II/726/716 (AMRP-) in Hillman Battery
192/21Pz in Villers-Bocage
5al/6 (MR) in Villers-Bocage
8/3 in Gold

Further, I am going to clean up the apparent mess that's rule 4.33 as below... removing the contentious "defender" word, adding a vigilance rule, so there should never again be a rule vacuum to cover the few interactions with para BGs, and an explicit passthrough rule...

I assure all that neither 4.33 nor 4.35 favours one side over the other, that the original GJS implicitly included both, and that without them, GJS'44 will become unworkable once both sides have >10 units on our Strat Map. 4.34 is necessary to ensure that we have an explicit rule in place for this indication. I don't feel that these need a vote, but if anyone strongly objects please PM me and I promise to listen carefully.

Apologies for any confusion or misunderstanding if 4.33 wasn't clear enough before. To be frank, the only situation that could have caused such consternation was a para BG landing in a "relieved" sector right between one BG arriving and another BG leaving, and because of the infinitesimally low possibility of that scenario, it just hadn't entered my mind... until I received both sides' orders, lol...

4.33 NEW - Relief or Swaps. During the strategic movement phase, a BG may relieve or swap sectors with a friendly BG, by moving into that sector and then permitting the occupant to exit. For a swap/relief to be successful, both the entry and the exit movements must be completed before an enemy attacks. If the swap/relief is successful, subsequent attacks will take place as an Attack vs a Fortified Defence (AFD), as if the newcomer had already been in position. However, if an enemy attacks before the new force can enter, the current occupant will face an Attack vs Surprised Defence (ASD). If an enemy attacks after the new force has entered but before the current occupant has departed, the new entrant will face a Meeting Engagement (ME).

4.34 NEW - Vigilance. If a para BG lands in a sector that has either successfully completed a relief/swap movement, or where an enemy BG has newly arrived, that turn, the resulting battle will be an ME rather than an ASD. To be effective, vigilance requires high prioritisation, tying up multiple BGs and therefore comes at the cost of lowering the priority of orders for other BGs.

4.35 NEW - Passthrough. During the strategic movement phase, a BG may travel through the sector of a friendly BG, consuming moves in the normal way. However, it must end its movement in another sector. No sector may hold more than one BG from the same team at the end of the turn, except for the landing beaches (upto 2 Allies permitted), Vimont and Villers-Bocage (where there is no limit for the Germans).

GJS'44 Rulebook wrote:4.33 OLD - Relief Movements. A friendly BG can relieve a defending force by moving into a defended sector and then permitting the defender to exit. For a relief to be successful, both the entry and the exit movements must be completed before an enemy attacks. If the relief is successful, subsequent attacks will take place as an Attack vs a Fortified Defence (AFD), as if the defender had already been in position. However, if an enemy attacks before the relieving force can enter, the current defender will face an Attack vs Surprised Defence (ASD). If an enemy attacks after the relieving force has entered but before the current defender has departed, the new defender will face a Meeting Engagement (ME).

PS. If anyone can see any glaring "loopholes" in our tightened movement rules, please raise 'em now... And do not expect to have these treated favourably if you attempt to exploit 'em later!

Ok, map updated...everyone please have a look and let me know if anything looks out of place.

Gentlemen,

Vimont and Villers-Bocage battles are available for download...

How to download the GJS'44 maps into Battle Academy

GottaLove88s wrote:Ok guys,

1. Run BA on your Mac, PC or iPad
2. If you do not already have GJS'44 on your system, skip ahead to Step 8
3. Choose Multiplayer (at the bottom)
4. Log in to Multiplayer as usual
5. Choose the My Challenges tab (at the top) then press New Challenge
6. Select a GJS'44 Campaign scenario and then Delete Campaign (bottom right)
7. Press X until you get back to BA start screen
8. Choose Campaigns (at the bottom)
9. Choose Download Community Scenarios (at the top)
10. Choose Download a Campaign Package from the Internet (top right)
11. Type http://bit.ly/BA88gjs44 into the URL box
12. Click the green tick
13. Back at the campaigns list, select "GJS44 v1.2 - June 7th" and click Download the Selected Campaign (bottom centre)
14. This should download everything that you need
15. Press X until you get back to the BA start screen and choose Multiplayer
16. Log in to Multiplayer as usual
17. Either go to the My Challenges tab and click the New Challenge arrow. This list will now show the GJS'44 v1.2... Vimont and Villers-Bocage
18. Or go to the Accept Challenges tab and click the scenario that you're supposed to be fighting (if your opponent has already setup your game)

After all that, you can play GJS'44 on any platform... Phew!!