From caraher@pn32.petnet.med.umich.edu Wed Jan 26 19:52 GMT 1994 Return-Path: Received: from agate.lut.ac.uk by hpc.lut.ac.uk (15.11/SMI-4.1) id AA14100; Wed, 26 Jan 94 19:52:52 gmt Received: from pn32.petnet.med.umich.edu by agate.lut.ac.uk with SMTP (PP) id <00942-0@agate.lut.ac.uk>; Wed, 26 Jan 1994 19:51:52 +0000 Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 14:46:04 -0500 From: caraher@pn32.petnet.med.umich.edu To: a.poulter@lut.ac.uk, dvc@eagle.hr.att.com, kanderso@notc.forestry.ca, rshipley@illuminati.io.com, wlw@hpeswlw.fc.hp.com, tividar@home.interaccess.com Subject: EMA unofficial errata X-Vms-To: @[-]EMA Status: RO Here's the unofficial errata compiled by Elliot Wilen: From: MX%"mprunx@violet.berkeley.edu" 24-OCT-1992 01:36:42.09 To: CARAHER CC: Subj: Empires of the Middle Ages Return-Path: Received: from violet.berkeley.edu by PN83.PETNET.MED.UMICH.EDU (MX V3.0) with SMTP; Sat, 24 Oct 1992 01:36:35 EDT Received: by violet.berkeley.edu (5.67/1.32) id AA22467; Fri, 23 Oct 92 22:34:56 -0700 Date: Fri, 23 Oct 92 22:34:56 -0700 From: mprunx@violet.berkeley.edu Message-ID: <9210240534.AA22467@violet.berkeley.edu> To: SEPJL@cc.newcastle.edu.au, bsrae@csv.warwick.ac.uk, bss@math.ufl.edu, capitol!house@uunet.UU.NET, caraher@pn83.petnet.med.umich.edu, fishkin@xerox.com, hooverb@cs.wvu.wvnet.edu, jle@world.std.com, kschroe2@ub.d.umn.edu, webber@gbm.ocunix.on.ca Subject: Empires of the Middle Ages From: Elliot Wilen ***************************************************************** This account uses an automated mail delivery system. To ensure delivery, please begin mail to this user with the following line: Attn: Elliot Wilen ***************************************************************** Empires of the Middle Ages Errata Well, I never got a solid lead on any official errata for EotMA. Joe M Leonard (jle@world.std.com) said he thought there was an errata sheet from SPI which included some new rules, such as assassination, but that's as far as I got. I do know that some articles have been published in MOVES and elsewhere. MOVES 52 has rules for play-by-mail, and number 58 offers rules for having non-player empires which are controlled by the game system. (I have these two; the latter article needs work, IMHO.) S&T 80 has a strictly historical article related to the game. Looking through the "Comprehensive Article Index" in MOVES 71, I also found these references: R. Land. "Player's Notes." In _Fire & Movement_ 23. Charles Vasey. "MOVES in English." In _MOVES_ 54. Hatton. "Medieval Imperialism." In _Wargamer_, volume 1, number 14. If anyone can summarize these articles, I'd appreciate it. Since there's no official errata forthcoming, here are my personal suggestions, corrections, etc. (In some cases I've questioned some rules which, although stated fairly unambiguously, can have absurd effects in certain circumstances.) I make no claim to authority beyond the sources (in the rules and elsewhere) which I cite. (Some of my judgments were influenced by my reading of SPI's Sword and the Stars, a science fiction game based on the EotMA system.) I welcome any comments, corrections, or opinions you might offer. I've noted a number of "Amplifications", which are rules which I feel are easily overlooked, even though they're clearly stated. I've included these partly because of John Willoughby's game Medieval Empires, an adaptation of EotMA for the Macintosh. (It's no longer in distribution because TSR threatened Mr. Willoughby with legal action.) Medieval Empires is reasonably fun, but a number of rules have been misinterpreted or ignored. My amplifications point to some--but not all--of the discrepancies. 6.0 (Amplification) Note that Event Cards are only reshuffled once per Game Turn, not each Round. This means, for example, that a given group of areas can only suffer one Famine per 25-year Game Turn. 7.16 (Amplification) Note that the Social State Level of an Area is subtracted from the Effectiveness of Diplomacy Endeavors directed against it. 7.17 (Clarification and Amplification) What this rule is trying to say is that the absolute value of an Area's Social State is subtracted from a Player's Leader Stature when the Player undertakes a Ruling Endeavor in that Area. 7.51 (Amplification) Note that a player cannot tax or conduct an Endeavor in an Area which is isolated from the rest of his Empire. 9.5 (Amplification) Note that Sea Areas increase the cost and/or reduce a Leader's Effectiveness rating for all Endeavors except Diplomacy. 10.33 (Clarification) Going by the strict letter of the rules, it may be inferred that a Player's Effectiveness Rating will be reduced if he attempts a Defense Endeavor in a partially-conquered Area. This seems logical. 10.38 (Amplification) Note that as a result of this rule, two players may not share C results so as to "gang up" on a Area--nor can a player "steal" an Area by making the "final conquest" after another player has partially conquered it. 12.3 (Question) Can a Player voluntarily reduce a C result from a Diplomacy Endeavor to a T? (Answer) No, except if the Target Area is already part of the Player's Empire. [This is a rather loose interpretation of the rules, in an effort to avoid the patent absurdity of a Player spending gold to ensure a Tie with one of his own Areas, only to blow it by getting a T/C result. For Areas outside the Player's Empire, this result is at least marginally imaginable.] 16.12 (Addendum) In order for an Area to be taxed it must be connected to its owner's Court Area. (See 7.51.) 17.0 (Amplification) Note that an Area will automatically go into Unrest if the line of communications between it and its owner's Court Area is broken. 17.22 Rebellion Value Summary (Correction and Addendum) It should be -2 (not -1) if the owning Player has a Diplomatic Tie to the Area. Also, the table should note a +2 if a Player other than the owner has a Diplomatic Tie to the area. (Exception: a Player may waive the effects of his Tie--see 12.42.) 18.0 (Clarification) The Procedure section in this rule should be read carefully. The instructions on the "Recognition of Claim" Event Cards are a bit confusing. 18.0 (Question) If a player conquers an area to which he has a Tie but no Claim, may he immediately obtain or attempt to obtain a Claim subject to the provisions of (2) and (3) under Procedure? Also, if a player possesses an Area to which he has a Tie, but he hasn't been able to obtain a Claim because another Player has a Claim to that Area, may he immediately establish a Claim should the other Player's Leader die heirless? (Answer) Not completely clear, but a "yes" in both cases seems reasonable. 19.0 (Clarification) Under Outbreak of Heresy, the rules state that Heresy may not spread to a Player's Court Area. It seems reasonable to assume also that Heresy may not break out in a Court Area, although this isn't stated explicitly. 19.0 (Clarification) When a Player uses a Dynastic Inheritance Card on a group of Areas, each Area in the group must be connected to at least one other area in the group. [Following the strict wording of the rules, a Player could apply the effects of this Card to a scattered group of Areas adjoining his Empire.] 19.0 (Clarification) When a Player uses a Dynastic Inheritance Card on a group of Areas, and an opposing Player wishes to contest the inheritance, the Diplomatic Parley's decision must determine the outcome of the entire inheritance one way or the other in a single vote. [The wording of rule 20.52 strongly implies that a parley concerning a group of Areas must be decided by a single vote. Perhaps the most reasonable approach would be to say that the vote applies only to those areas which are contested by a given player. In other words, if an inheritance is made up of three subgroups, Areas owned by Player A, Areas owned by Player B, and Independent Areas, then the status of the first two groups would be decided by one vote each, while the third group would be inherited no matter what.] 20.1 & 18.11 (Question) May a Player trade his Claim to an Area to a Player who already has a Claim to that Area? (Answer) Yes, but the two Claims are then consolidated into a single Claim. [This is just a guess, but it makes some amount of sense.] 20.3 (Clarification) If interpreted too liberally, this rule would allow the Players to summarily excommunicate any Player who has previously entered into a binding agreement. Attention must be paid to the clause "If a Player whose Leader is Christian reneges on the agreement...." In other words, it is *not* up to the Parley to judge whether an agreement has been broken--the terms should be clearly stated and in the case of disputes, fairly judged by all. Once it has been determined that a Player has reneged, the Parley simply decides whether to sanction the Player--as in 18.2, not on the basis of any merit but purely out of self-interest. 21.3 Item 4 makes no sense to me as written. I would rewrite it as: "If the Magnate Matrix calls for a Magnate to appear in an Area of the exact same Language and Religion as an exiled Leader, then the exile automatically acquires that Area (and no Magnate appears)." 22.3 Conversion Rating Chart (Addendum) Some Pagan Areas are neither Germanic, Baltic, nor Slavic. Treat these areas the same as Germanic Pagan. 23.2 Schism Table (Clarification and Addendum) The lines on the Schism Table aren't mutually exclusive, nor do they cover all possible situations. In order to sort this out, we'll establish some general principles to cover most cases, then discuss the cases that still remain. First, we'll assume that the rules are more accurate than the table. This means that the bottom line of the Schism Table should be used whenever Rome is owned by a Player other than the Byzantine Player--regardless of Ties. Second, players should use the highest line on the table that applies. In particular, this means that line 3 takes precedence over line 5 when both the Byzantine Player and another Player have Ties to Rome. Finally, we have to consider what happens if the Byzantine Player possesses Rome but doesn't have a Tie to that Area. On a pretty arbitrary guess, I would say that line 2 should be used if no one has a Tie to Rome, while line 3 should be used if a non-Byzantine Player has a Tie to Rome. 23.32 & 23.33 (Clarification) Crusader States are considered Roman Catholic-controlled for the purposes of rule 23.33. (They should not be considered Roman Catholic for other purposes--unless they were already Roman Catholic, of course.) 24.0 (Clarification) Areas conquered and controlled by Magnates do not go into Unrest, do not rebel, and do not give rise to new Magnates. 24.5 (Addendum & Clarification) A Magnate's Diplomatic Stature is considered to be 5 for the purpose of resolving Diplomacy Endeavors against Areas controlled by the Magnate. Also, Diplomacy Endeavors may not be carried out against a Magnate's Court Area. 24.51 (Clarification) By using the term "directly linked", the rules imply that Magnates do not attack across Sea Areas. (See 3.13.) This certainly makes things much simpler. (Optional suggestion) On the other hand, if the Players agree before the game, it appears reasonable to allow a Magnate to attack across Sea Areas, with the usual reductions if attacking across two Sea Areas. The Magnate should also suffer an additional -1 penalty per Sea Area in his chain of communications. (Since Magnates don't pay for their Endeavors, this mechanic represents the difficulty of attacking across the sea. Of course, if a Seafaring Area is in the chain of communications, the effects of Sea Areas would be mitigated in the normal fashion.) 24.54 (Addendum) If a Magnate's Court Area is conquered, the Magnate will move his Court to another Area of the same Language and Religion which he controls. If no such Area exists then the Magnate immediately ceases to be active. If there is more than one such Area, he will move his Court to the one which has the highest Social State. 24.7 & 24.8 (Amplification) Note that Syrian and Mongol Magnates are never affected by religious or linguistic factors. 26.0 (Amplification) The rule can be read to imply that a Player gets three points for owning an area to which he has a Claim, regardless of whether that area is connected to his Court Area. I don't know if this is right or not, but it is clear that in order for a Player to receive the basic "Social State plus three" victory points for an Area he owns, that area must be connected to the rest of his Empire. The Scenarios For the purpose of authenticating the scenarios, I've drawn mainly from Colin McEvedy's _Penguin_Atlas_of_Medieval_History_ (Penguin Books, 1961). 27.21 The region represented by "Macedonia" on the game map is hard to pin down. If it includes Albania, then it's reasonable for Byzantium to own it, since the Byzantines did control the Adriatic coast at this time. If it primarily represents modern Macedonia in Greece and/or the area occupied by the ex-Yugoslav republic of Macedonia, then it should be Independent in 771. 27.22 Byzantium probably should have a claim to Anatolia at this time (see below). Since Macedonia is Pagan in this scenario, Byzantium cannot have a Claim to it. 27.5 Bulgaria, Wallachia, and Hungary should be Pagan. Leon (the Kingdom of Galicia) had already been reconquered by Roman Catholics by 771. Anatolia was still Orthodox Christian (so there's no reason Byzantium wouldn't have a Claim to it). 27.6 Anatolia should probably be considered Hellenic in this scenario, although it's hard to say for sure. The area had been under Greco-Roman control since the first century A.D. 28.0 Just a note. This scenario has virtually no chance of representing one of the major phenomena of the 11th century, namely the Normans, who practically came out of nowhere to establish two of the most important kingdoms of Medieval Europe: England and Sicily. Fortunately, these two realms "pop into existence" in the next scenario. 28.21 Brittany should be Independent, although France probably should still have a Claim to the Area. Given the Russian setup, Novgorod should be in Unrest, like the other north Russian Areas, because it's cut off from the court in Kiev. However, a fair argument could be made for either including Lithuania (Unrest) in the empire, or else creating a land connection from Kiev to Smolensk. It's hard to imagine what barriers have created the huge ring of Smolensk-Lithuania-Kiev-Steppes-Ryazan with no internal connections. (The Unrest in Russia, incidentally, is because of the confusian following the death of Prince Sviatoslav. See George Vernadsky, _Kievan_Russia_, pp. 56ff. Also, the Kievan Rus didn't convert to Christianity until 989--another detail that's been glossed over for simplicity, apparently--there's no provision for handling a Pagan Leader's desire to convert himself and his nation.) 28.5 At this time, Sicily should be Moslem (possibly treated as Iberian Moslem). Apulia was still Greek-controlled and should be Orthodox. (For this scenario and the prevous one, an argument could be made for the creation of an "Italian Orthodox" category, treated pretty much the same as "Iberian Moslem".) As for Anatolia, the same argument applies as in the previous scenario. (But if for some reason you decide Anatolia *isn't* Christian, then Byzantium shouldn't have a Claim to it.) If you like special rules, you might say that Anatolia--possibly any Area--will become Moslem if it's ever conquered by a Syrian Magnate. That's what happened in 1071 after the Battle of Manzikert. 28.6 Again, Anatolia should still be Hellenic. 29.21 & 29.22 Corsica and Sardinia were both under occupation by the Italian city of Pisa in 1077; it's a toss-up whether this means that the German Empire (of which Pisa was nominally a part) should own the two islands. It's a bit odd that none of England's Areas are in Unrest, since 1135 marked King Stephen's ascension to the throne after Henry I died heirless. Furthermore, the English claims to Aquitaine and Anjou actually represent those of Henry Plantagenet, Stephen's archrival and eventual successor. Once again, the details are probably just too complex to fit the broad framework of the game system. Byzantium had conquered Serbia by 1135, although whether it would merit a Claim as well as ownership is debatable. 30.21 Byzantium should still own and have a Claim to Trebizond. 31.5 The Balts should be Catholic by now.