Re: [eia] Turkish land phase, Jan 1805

["J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree that there should be only a "-1" for the number of corps present in
the area, but in the past we have interpreted the wording, "major power's
territory" to mean only territory in the major power's home nation.  You
might want to hear from Kyle on this, but I'm almost certain that the
correct forage roll should be a 5 for both corps.

-JJY

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Uckelman" <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] Turkish land phase, Jan 1805


> Thus spake Michael Gorman:
> >
> > >
> > >1C at Jerusalem => Jaffa (F/auto)
> > >2I at Jerusalem with Grand Vizier hold (F/auto)
> > >Syrians at Acre hold (F/auto)
> >          The two infantry at Jerusalem should forage at four.  3 base+3
for
> > remaining movement-2 for two extra corps in the same area
> >
> > Mike
>
> I get 3 (base) + 3 (movement) - 1 (1 other corps in the same area) + 1
(own territory) = 6.
>
> 7.4.1.2.1 says one is subtracted for "each other unbesieged corps", not
each corps. Though there are two corps at Jerusalem, when considering each
there is only one *other* corps at there. Otherwise, a lone corps would
suffer a -1 for being in the same space as itself!
>
> Secondly, I take "major power's territory" in 7.4.1.2.5 to mean the same
as "territory a major power controls". Had I moved into Georgia, e.g, I
would no longer be in my territory, but I Palestine I believe I am. Note
that it doesn't say "home territory" or somesuch.
>
>
> --
> J.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>
>


_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia