Home Casino The Europa Series ground unit replacement limits

This topic contains 9 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  John M. Astell 5 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #8417

    moonParticipant

    Thought I would kick off this fine forum by registering a question to the team/crowd:

    * when you play Europa games with replacement limits (e.g. certain number of engineer unit REs replaced per month), how do you interpret RAW? by using >fixed calendar windows< where “per month” is adjudicated as the first player turn of the I turn through the end of the second player turn of the II turn each month, or using >rolling periodic windows< where “per month” is adjudicated to mean 4 player turns from whenever you first reached the given replacement limit?

    * not trying to cause any Guru/Rules Guy disputes, it’s just that I recently learned that some believe RAW to be the latter >rolling< of the above, with the former >fixed< being considered a common house rule

  • #8418

    chef

    Hi Moon,
    very much welcome to the Forums!
    So far I´ve played it by “per month” as in “fixed calendar window”. However, I can also see the common sense in “rolling window” because having a limited capability should mean you cannot use a capability in two consecutive turns just because the month is over, rather, a certain time span should pass before you can use it again.
    Regads!
    Wolf

  • #8425

    moonParticipant

    BOC and I had a discussion about that just yesterday, wherein both of us agreed that the “bursty” nature of (at least US) government funding (especially on an emergency basis in support of a contingency operation) can be reasonably well seen in the game pattern whereby someone reaches their limit at the end of a fixed calendar period (month or quarter) and then immediately taps that full limit again after the start of the next fixed period. If there is a wartime need, people and their funding/manpower systems very often find a way to meet that need, though often at the expense of mid-long term resiliency of the system.

    It was BOC who mentioned that the rolling window is the RAW interpretation (I had no idea), whereas both he and I prefer to play with the house interpretation of fixed window. I don’t want that to guide discussion though. I would like to hear how others both 1) interpret the RAW, and 2) what house rule (if any) they choose to play by.

    V/R,

    Moon

    • This reply was modified 6 months, 2 weeks ago by  moon.
  • #8427

    watsonParticipant

    Wow, a rolling window is RAW? That’s really surprising to me. A month in Europa seems to me to be clearly defined on the Game Calendar as two specific turns. The month of August is AUG I and AUG II, there is no month of AUG II and SEP I — that’s just two consecutive turns.

    (I don’t really care one way or another, logically a rolling window makes more sense to me, but I would have just given good odds that it was a calendar month.)

  • #8431

    Greg BartelsParticipant

    To the best of my memory, in the Scorched Earth and Fire in the East games played in the 20th century down here in Austin that I was acquainted with, we played the “monthly” replacement point (RP) spending limit as meaning by SE & FitE RAW a “calendar month” schedule (eg., Jan., Feb., Mar., and so on), rather than as a two-turn rolling schedule. This was because the term “monthly” was used in the said Europa rules texts rather than the phrase “two turn,” so the interpretation seemed obvious to us, I think. Nor was there any feeling of injustice if one side did a limited replacement on the II turn of a month and then also on the next I turn of the following month turn, as both sides had the same ability.

  • #8436

    Jim BroshotParticipant

    I have always played it with the fixed window, both solitaire and FTF and PBEM play. I have never seen it done any other way in SF or in any other Europa game

  • #8437

    Ken NewallParticipant

    In my For Whom The Bell Tolls game AAR running on this site currently I pondered this and came to the conclusion it was a “rolling month”.
    It seems to me that the restriction represents the training and equipment needed to re-deploy replacements in the particular specialist role and that this would be commenced as needed (indeed continually to some level). RAW 40B 3 a uses the phrase “per month” but nowhere is “a month” defined. Looking at Rule 4 Sequence of Play, this states that “The game is played in a series of player turns each representing one-half month. This suggests the actual dates are not an intrinsic component of “a month” but a player turn is. Therefore 2 player turns however they fall in the calendar constitute “a month”. Using a calendar month means that a unit killed at the beginning of a calendar month would take longer to train than one killed at then end of a calendar month whereas a “rolling month separating builds by 2 half month turns avoids this artefact.

  • #8438

    Ralph SunleyParticipant

    I can see the logic in using a rolling month and it makes perfect sense – but to be honest, it is extra book keeping to keep track of when these rolling periods begin so I prefer the fixed month in general play.

  • #8445

    chef

    this!@Ralph. Why add more bookkeeping to a game easily infested with spreadsheets? ;)

    • #8879

      John M. AstellParticipant

      Just on a rules basis, the rules state “per month” and the Turn Record Chart divides the year into the traditional 12 months of the Gregorian calendar that all major combatant powers in Europa used. I see no rules language that would support another interpretation. Indeed, the players would have to create extra rules language for another interpretation, which is exactly what this thread had to do to explain what a “rolling month” was. So, I don’t this rolling month is supported by the rules.

      However, I don’t see any harm if players want to play rolling months.

      Some games have replacement limits that last longer than a month, such as only being able to replace 1 airborne RE “per 3-month (six-turn) period”. The “six-turn” requirement makes this, per the “rolling month” terminology, a “rolling quarter year”. The rules do not used “quarters” nor does the Turn Record Chart group months into quarters, so this works differently than “per month”, which clearly does not use the language, “per 1-month (two-turn) period”.

      Would it be better if “per month” and “per 3-month (six-turn) period” work the same? Off hand, simpler seems better. However, my inclination would be to have the Turn Record Chart formally show quarter years and then the rules just use “per quarter” like they do for “per month”. See the attachment for an illustration of how I would do it.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.