F&M 7 CRIMEA ERRATA The following questions arose during the course of the game played by Ralph Vickers - the replies are those of Designer Frank Chadwick and may be considered official rulings. 1. Please clarify Rule 23. This is a good example of an implied rule. In all land/sea games I know, naval units may sail in partial sea hexes. Not so in CRIMEA - apparently. Navigable sea hexes are listed: any full sea hex, any partial sea hex which is the mouth of a river, any partial sea hex containing a city or village (a harbor), and any harbor channel hex (indicated by a large black dot). I'll wager that many wargamers, accustomed to the norm, would not even notice the omission from this list of ordinary partial sea hexes. Why didn't you come right out and say they were excluded, GDW? Or are they? I scrupulously avoided the shoals of partial sea hexes until one day I re-read Rule 23-K in the errata which states in part: Destruction of ships by enemy ground units: If ships are in a harbor hex occupied solely by enemy ground units, they are eliminated; they must retreat one hex if they are in a channel, river mouth or partial sea hex. You are correct - Naval units may not enter partial sea hexes. The reference to partial sea hexes in Rule 23-K is included for the benefit of gunboats, which may occupy a partial sea hex (Rule 23-J). 2. The supply rules of the Basic Game are unsatisfactory. Rule 18 says a supply line is six strategic movement points. But it also says, 'For the Allies, a source of supply is either the road to Evpatoria or any friendly port. GDW, do you really mean the road to Evpatoria? That's what the rules says, But Rule 13 says that Russian new units not designated to appear at Sevastopol may appear either on the road to Simferopol or the road to Evpatoria. If we interpret this rule literally it means we can develop an unrealistic situation where the Russians cut the road to Evpatoria behind the Allied lines, but the Allies for the rest of the game continue to draw supply from the road. As Russian supply is drawn from either Sevastopol or the road to Simferopol, any Russian troops that arrive on the board on the Evpatoria road are presumably out of supply. Was this also your intention, GDW? (it's too bad that once doubts set in about some rules, one begins to doubt everything.) Regardless of their supply status, this Russian potential is devastating to the Allies. Without warning Russians can appear behind the Allied lines. 1 could maybe live with this except for these unanswered doubts. Even if you interpret road to Evpatoria to mean the Evpatoria road entry hex, one is still plagued with doubts. It would mean the Russians can appear at will on the Allied 'supply base'. Coupled with this, Rule 13 says that if one of the road entry hexes from either Evpatoria or Simferopol is blocked by enemy units or their ZOCs, '(Russian) units may enter from any board edge hex between these two roads.' In other words, the Allies have a choice of guarding one hex or 23. This is the sort of rule that sets my teeth gnashing. I call this not uncommon class of rule the 'legal eagle's delight', because it presents a loophole which can be legally exploited to set up an unrealistic situation. There are 23 hexes between the two road entry points, so no sane Allied commander would block that Evpatoria hex. He'll set up a ring of steel around that hex, careful not to touch it with his ZOCs. The Russian commander can see this trap, but the rules forbid him to avoid it. He must charge in. Unrealistic, isn't it? And what happens when the Allies counterattack from their ring of steel and drive the Russians off the board? Are the Russians eliminated? The rules don't say. (I'm talking about the Basic Game, remember.; Or can they whizz around to the Simferopol entry hex at no movement point cost? Or what? For me, all this rather undermined the structure of the Basic Game. The rule shoud read, 'The Evpatoria entry hex.' The Russian potential ability to cut Allied supply is absolute, but I would hardly say devastating. All the rule really does is force the Allies to draw supply from a friendly port. This, of course, will be impossible on turn one or two, unless the Russian cowers in Sevastopol. However, if a successful battle is fought by the Allies in the Alma, the ports of Balaklava and Kamiesch can be opened during turn two and supplies drawn on turn three. Since the Russians cannot prevent the Allies from being in supply on turn one, this leaves only turn two when the Russians might be able to cut Allied supply. The one turn of attrition this results in will approximate the Allied attrition on the flank march from the Alma to the harbors. As to Russian troops being out of supply in the north, this makes no difference if the Russian Player uses Cossacks (the most logical candidates for this sort of action) as Cossacks are immune to supply problems. Historically, it was the Cossacks who rendered the Evpatoria supply lineuntenable, thus mandating the opening of the harbors and the siege from the southern approaches of the city, rather than the northern approaches. Units driven off of the board are eliminated. The 'ring of steel' syndrome is admittedly somewhat unrealistic, but consider the alternatives: (1) A much more complex and dirt-ridden appearance rule which is more accurate, but adds little to the play; (2) The present rule, which allows a Cossack regiment to enter and remain In Its entry hex to block supply for that turn. The Allied Player blows it away In his turn, but takes supply attrition nonetheless. The Russians can trade Cossacks for Allies (for an awfully long time), and love every minute of it. 3. On several occasions during action segments, Allied fire drove Russian defenders out of fortified hexes. But before the Allies could advance to seize these prizes, they had to watch helplessly as the Russians, during the Disrupted Defender Movement Phase, reoccupied the forts. Maybe this is realistic, maybe it isn't. But rule 23-I of the errata prevents this happening in the case of naval bombardment of a port. GDW, was it also your intention to apply this rule to forts? No. 4. Was Vickerslobitch right when he built 2-point fortifications at Balaklava and Kamiesch during turn 0? No. See Rule 7 - Fortifications: 'Level two and three fortifications may only be built In a city hex.'
5. is it a correct interpretation of the rules that 2-point fortifications immunize ports from Allied naval bombardments' Yes, where they can be built. 6. Was Cholmondley-Vickers right when he maintained that there are no ZOC restrictions on strategic reserve movement? No. I really do think this is clear. The rule or strategic reserves says that they continue their strategic movement. It is strategic movement, and all rules pertaining to strategic movement apply, including the provision that when the reserve moves adjacent to an enemy unit, a new action segment begins (which is stated, not implied, In the Reserve Rule.) 7. In the Basic Game, do the Allies 'start' with full movement capacity? Yes, but they pay one movement point enter the Evpatoria entry hex. 8. Was I right to interpret the TEC to mean that you roll die to leave a river? Yes. 10. May friendly units fire on enemy units stacked in an adjacent hex with friendly units (as they would be, for example in a Continuing Melee)? No. 11. May units in a Continuing Melee fire during the Simultaneous Fire Phase? No. 12. If yes to above, may they fire only at enemy units stacked with them, or only at enemy units in an adjacent hex? Not applicable. 13. Is it obligatory to deploy HQ units on the map if they are not uniting units or serving as a supply base fo detachments? Yes. 14. May an enemy unit be fired on, or meleed against more than once during a single action segment phase? No. 15. Do HQ units have Z0Cs? Yes. 16. Can a fortification be built in an unoccupied hex? Yes. 17. Can a fortification be built in an enemy ZOC? Yes. 18. May a friendly fortification be used by enemy troops once it is captured? Yes. 19. Does an empty fortification hex have a ZOC? No. 20. Does the Star Fort have a ZOC? No. 21. May units fire at two adjacent hexes simultaneously? No. 22. May units retreat into an enemy ZOC? Yes. 23. Does 'routed' mean exclusively 'retreated due to morale die roll'? No, since a disrupted unit which is fired on is automatically routed (see Rule 12-B-1, last paragraph). 24. Are there any stacking restrictions in the LOCs? No. 25. There is no sequence of play given for the strategic movement phase so I assumed 'anything goes'. Accordingly, in one turn I moved a couple of regiments into a LOC and attacked enemy cavalry. The attack failed, so I moved up another regiment of cavalry and attacked again. (Vickerslobitch complained like hell about this.) But Cholmondley-Vickers maintained it was legal. However, Vickerslobitch pointed out a sentence in Rule 22: 'If more losses are called for than there are cavalry steps available to the player, the excess number of steps are (sic) doubled and taken from infantry...' Vickerslobitch claimed that this sentence implied there was a definite sequence of phases in the Strategic Segment (i.e. movement, then combat) because if you could move piecemeal into LOCs as the Allies had done only a fool would commit his infantry to the LOC before the cavalry skirmishes were resolved. Who was right? There is no definite sequence of play; however, no unit may attack more than once per LOC. The Allied Player probably Is foolish to move his Infantry in with his cavalry if the cavalry is clearing the LOC. However, if the cavalry is merely forcing postage, it moves on and the Russian cavalry remains to block the passage of the Allied infantry. It Is therefore necessary for infantry artillery and cavalry forcing passage to move together. 26. Are there no limits to naval stacking, even in harbors? That is correct. 27. If you strip ships of their guns in a harbor, are the stacking limits for the resultant 12-2 artillery battalions waived, or may only two ships be stripped simultaneously in one harbor hex? The stacking limits are not waived. 28. If an Allied infantry and artillery units are stacked in a harbor hex with naval units, may the naval units take part in simultaneous fire with the ground units, or do the normal stacking rules apply here as though the naval units were ground units? All may fire, but see errata Rule 23-H. 29. If a division unified by an HQ unit is required to roll a die for some terrain movement feature, must each individual unit be rolled for or can the entire division get by with just one die roll? The entire division rolls once. However, units requiring different numbers may be affected differently. 30. May naval units move in ordinary partial sea hexes? No, as per answer to question #1. 31. Are Checked units which are forced to retreat automatically disrupted? No. 32. Do you roll for movement when moving from one slope hex to another? N o. 33. In the Basic Game (and Battle Scenarios) what is the fate of units forced to retreat off the map? They are eliminated. 34. May fleets move in partial sea hexes? No - except for channels, river mouths, and harbors. PLAY SEQUENCE CHART (Some of these sequences do not apply on the first game turn) New Units Remove Disruption Markers Fortification Construction Segment Supply Determination Supply Attrition Resolution Allied unit Buildup and Replacement Replace Destroyed HQ Units STRATEGIC MOVEMENT SEGMENT: (Cavalry charge.) Russian units buildup and replacement Attacker Strategic Reserve Designation ACTION SEGMENT: Remove Check Markers Simultaneous Fire Phase and hold fire Designation. (Morale) Siege Fire Committment Phase Allied Player Ammunition Phase Disrupted Defender Movement Phase Attacker Movement Phase. (Cavalry Charge.) (Morale.) Siege Fire Resolution Phase Fortification Repair Phase Defender Hold Fire Resolution Phase. (Morale) Attacker Melee Phase. (Morale) Defender Undisrupted Movement Phase. (Morale) Attacker Hold Fire Resolution Phase. (Morale) Defender Melee Phase. (Morale) Attacker Strategic Reserve Committment British Morale Tally (Repeat Action Segment) NB submitted by John Kula (firstname.lastname@example.org) on behalf of the Strategy Gaming Society (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/~sgs), originally collected by Andrew Webber (email@example.com)