Joseph Miranda - Oct 23, 2005 8:45 pm (#55 Total: 104) Catherine the Great Errata 23 October 2005: MAP: The "Austria" region (part of the Austrian Power) should be called the "Vienna” region. Ufa is a Cossack area. On the Coalition Cards, "Russian Controlled" is the same as "Empire Controlled". Swedish Objective of "Baltic" should be "Pre-Baltic" COUNTERS Abbreviations on Russian units: GC = Gatchina Corps (this is the unit referred to in rule [5.4]) PT = Potemkin; RM = Rumyantsev; SV = Suvarov (these are for historical purposes only and have no impact on the game) RULES [4.0] Sequence of Play (clarification): Event markers are returned to the Pool at the end of the phase in which they are picked. [12.7] Fleets (clarification): a fleet may be placed in a sea region which contains an enemy fleet. However, there must be at least one friendly controlled port region adjacent to that sea region. joserizal - Oct 24, 2005 5:09 pm (#58 Total: 104) Joe(Miranda) I have a few questions on Catherine the Great: 1. when event markers are picked and implemented, are they put back into the cup? 2. If for example, the Swedish(coalition controlled) reinforcements come in and its baltic fleets come as reinforcements but the baltic sea region is occupied by Russian fleets, can they still come as reinforcements in their alloted area? Anyways, an nice interesting game, I found that it may look easy for the Russians to win, its not the case, I found that I had to balance the BOP and get in my VPs(by colonization). Lowering and raising the BOP is essential for Russian victory, if it goes too high(above +10) or too low(below -10) then you lose. I found that implementing policies or deliberately failing policies to be the way to go with balancing the BOP. Also if you do too good in combat then you run the risk of losing the game(you could raise the BOP level by getting certain combat results). In my first game, I lost as the Russians even though I brought Prussia to my side and the coalition had the Khanate, Ottomans and Sweden on his side. The main reason I lost is that I did too good in combat thereby raising the BOP level above +10. So while the Russians may win many coalition military attacks, if he raises the BOP level above or less than +10 or -10 respectively then the coalition wins the game with the worst Russian defeat possible. As for historicity: Joe: How would you explain the Russians deliberately failing policies in order to balance the BOP Paul Aceto - Oct 24, 2005 5:38 pm (#59 Total: 104) CtG rules question Joe -- looks like a great game. Got it set up on my table and am into turn 1. 1. I'm still confused about combat with mutliple powers in the same region. Rule 9.3 ("units from different allied powers may not participate together in the same attack") is contradicted by rules 15.2 (covering Empire attacks; "all Russian and Russian-allied units in each such disputed region must take part in the same attack in that region") and 15.3 (covering Coalition attacks; "Coalition allied forces within a given disputed region must be combined into a single attack"). Should we just ignore rule 9.3? 2. Are BOP gained in the Admin phase as individual regions are taken (per rule 5.1) or only as a summed total when all regions for a given policy have been taken (per rule 8.41.3)? 3. Are Russian reinforcements associated with a policy granted once, or each turn the policy is in effect? 4. Just be sure, if a rebellion breaks out in an empty province, then two rebel units will be placed that turn (one for the event, one in the immediately following reinforcement phase)? Ty Bomba - Oct 25, 2005 9:04 am (#60 Total: 104) "What is only complex is mistaken (a not unusual error) for what is profound" -- Edgar Allan Poe, 'Murders in the Rue Morgue.' I'll let designer Miranda answer the questions above after number one, but be patient; he's on the road attending some computer-gaming conference until the 3rd of November. As to the discrepency between rules 9.3 and 15.2/15.3 -- I can tell you to do it as given in the latter two rules cases. We had arguments about that aspect of things all through playtesting. JM felt doing it the original way (as in 9.3) was more historific but, as I kept pointing out, playtesting showed that when you broke up the Coalition attacks in that way, that 'side' could seldom, if ever, muster the force to do any serious damage to the Russians in the field. I therefore argued for a broader view of the combat procedure, which then finally convinced JM to go with the one-combined attack approach of 15.2/15.3. I thought I had gone through the manuscript and cleaned it of all references to the earlier approach. Apparently, that's not the case though. Paul Aceto - Oct 26, 2005 5:19 am (#61 Total: 104) Thanks Ty. I confess I do not know this era well, but what is so ahistoric about having anti-Russian powers join together in combat? Were the distances too great to do it effectively, or was coordination amongst them a major problem. Ty Bomba - Oct 26, 2005 11:00 am (#62 Total: 104) What is only complex is mistaken (a not unusual error) for what is profound" -- Edgar Allan Poe, 'Murders in the Rue Morgue.' From my lengthy discussions with JM about this, given the long turn lengths used in this design, I'd say there really is nothing 'right' or 'wrong' about going either way with Coalition attacks. Certainly, down at 'ground level,' the various armies making up such allied forces would be, given the era, operating more or less independently. So, to emphasize that, a designer could present the rules, as JM originally did, calling for individual attacks. On the other hand, given the multi-year game turns, it's also easy simply to say we're going to present the final results of all the efforts of the various allied armies as one general outcome. That's something not unheard of in upper-strategic-level games such as this one. The decision as to which approach to take finally hinged on what worked best in terms of helping to produce a generally balanced military contest between the two 'sides.' In that regard, playtesting showed the unified-attack approach was definitely better in terms of helping the Coalition get some attack-momentum going against the Russian juggernaut. Again, I thought I had the earlier approach entirely expunged from the rules (with JM's blessing). We shouldn't even have to be discussing this now. Somehow, I believe some of our last-day proofing may have gotten left out of the published version of the rules. I'll wait, though, until JM gets back on-line here to confirm all this before making appropriate eRules changes. Who knows -- maybe he had some last minute counter-revelation. Joseph Miranda - Oct 27, 2005 10:10 pm (#73 Total: 104) >1. I'm still confused about combat with mutliple powers in the same region. Rule 9.3 ("units from different allied powers may not participate together in the same attack") is contradicted by rules 15.2 (covering Empire attacks; "all Russian and Russian-allied units in each such disputed region must take part in the same attack in that region") and 15.3 (covering Coalition attacks; "Coalition allied forces within a given disputed region must be combined into a single attack"). Should we just ignore rule 9.3? Combine all into a single force. >2. Are BOP gained in the Admin phase as individual regions are taken (per rule 5.1) or only as a summed total when all regions for a given policy have been taken (per rule 8.41.3)? The former. >3. Are Russian reinforcements associated with a policy granted once, or each turn the policy is in effect? Each turn. But if you "win" the policy then you can not gain the reinforcements anymore. >4. Just be sure, if a rebellion breaks out in an empty province, then two rebel units will be placed that turn (one for the event, one in the immediately following reinforcement phase)? Yes. Follow the sequence of play. Joseph Miranda - Oct 27, 2005 10:15 pm (#74 Total: 104) >1. when event markers are picked and implemented, are they put back into the cup? At the end of the phase. >2. If for example, the Swedish(coalition controlled) reinforcements come in and its baltic fleets come as reinforcements but the baltic sea region is occupied by Russian fleets, can they still come as reinforcements in their alloted area? Placed in the Baltic as long as an adjoining port regin is friendly controlled. >Anyways, an nice interesting game, I found that it may look easy for the Russians to win, its not the case, I found that I had to balance the BOP and get in my VPs(by colonization). Yes, the player has to balance various things. >How would you explain the Russians deliberately failing policies in order to balance the BOP This happened several times, such as when the Russians stopped their advance on Constantinople when they had the Turks dead to rights owing to the pressures the European powers were placing on St Petersburg. Catherine did not want to risk a general European war, so she withdrew from the Balkans. joserizal - Oct 29, 2005 10:47 pm (#79 Total: 104) Joe(Miranda) Few more questions: 1. If either France or the UK are picked as allies by either side. Does the other side get either France or the UK owing that the one who allies with France get the UK and vice versa? 2. In the question above. Does the other non phasing player roll on the French/UK intervention table as well? 3. What happens if the coalition or the Russians pick the both the French and British activation chits? Interesting solitaire game so far. Lost in the second game due to my BOP going to +11 in the last turn. Funny thing is that I balanced the BOP at 0 for most of the game but constant attacks by the Austrians since turn 1, the Persians and Ottomans since turn 2 raised the BOP steadilly since the invading forces litterally destroyed themselves attacking my forces. Poland became my ally from turn 1 because of the Austrian activation on the Coalition side(so did the Caucasus because of the coalition activation of Persia which activated the Caucasus on my side activating the Ottomans for the coalition in turn. joserizal - Oct 30, 2005 8:49 am (#81 Total: 104) Joe(Miranda) One more question: 1. If a belligerent or allied country becomes neutral, does the country in its activation also become neutral? Joseph Miranda - Nov 4, 2005 10:36 am (#93 Total: 104) Questions and Answers >If either France or the UK are picked as allies by either side. Does the other side get either France or the UK owing that the one who allies with France get the UK and vice versa? No. Britain and France activate the German States as per their cards. >In the question above. Does the other non phasing player roll on the French/UK intervention table as well? No. >What happens if the coalition or the Russians pick the both the French and British activation chits? The first one they pick switches to the Coalition side and the Russians gain control of the second one. See rule [6.3]. >If a belligerent or allied country becomes neutral, does the country in its activation also become neutral? No. >Also I have a question about the example of Coalition Fleet movement in 22.2 Case 2. It says that if Sweden was activated, since it's first objective is the Prebaltic, it moves into the Eastern Baltic. However, since the Central Baltic also borders the Prebaltic, wouldn't it just remain there? It's already adjacent to its first objective so why move it? Then on the next turn, if St. Pete became the primary objective, then move it to the Eastern Baltic.... If there is more than one applicable sea area, then choose one at random. Julian Barker - Nov 4, 2005 2:32 pm (#95 Total: 104) I am a bit confused about rivers and supply. The rules are writen as if rivers always run through areas, but the rules say, as has been pointed out, that the Volga forms the boundary between two areas. If that is the case, is the river considered to run through both, or neither river for supply purposes? I presume the other rivers operate as if they are in one region or the other, even when they are drawn alongside the border, so for example, the Nieman does not run through East Prussia or Warsaw and that Dneistr does not run through Moldavia. How does this apply to supply drawn through Kazan and Voronezh? Ty Bomba - Nov 5, 2005 2:07 pm (#96 Total: 104) "What is only complex is mistaken (a not unusual error) for what is profound" -- Edgar Allan Poe, 'Murders in the Rue Morgue.' >The rules are writen as if rivers always run through areas, but the rules say, as has been pointed out, that the Volga forms the boundary between two areas. If that is the case, is the river considered to run through both, or neither river for supply purposes? I believe JM is off to another convention, so I'll venture to answer. That is, consider the Volga to run through both regions equally and simultaneously for all game purposes. Units in both those regions are allowed to treat the Volga as if it 'ran through' that region. (After all, we're talking about the 'father' of all European waters here.) >I presume the other rivers operate as if they are in one region or the other, even when they are drawn alongside the border, so for example, the Nieman does not run through East Prussia or Warsaw and that Dneistr does not run through Moldavia. Right. >How does this apply to supply drawn through Kazan and Voronezh? See the first answer above.