Everett E. Proctor on 28 Jul 2002 16:14:02 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [eia] two rules interpretation questions

>     Question 1:  uninterrupted occupation.  The rules for conquest of a minor country (7.7) say that conquest occurs "only if the capital of the minor country was occupied during the previous Turn and the conqueror has mantained uninterrupted and unbesieged occupation for the entire current Turn."  So, let's say that a corps had occupied a capital the month before, but this month it is to be relieved by a different corps.  Must the corps in relief show up *prior* to the departure of the occupying corps in order to maintain uninterrupted occupation?  Or can the conquering corps leave first and the relieving corps show up later in the same Land Phase?  (This matters because of foraging rolls.)

Hmmm . . . not sure. 

>     Question 2:  revealing forces.  The rules on exactly what information needs to be revealed at the beginning of a battle are unnecessarily vague.  The rule ( reads like this: "Both sides simultaneously reveal corps identities, the exact size and composition of their forces and their final moral levels."  That's the whole rule.  We get a bit more information from page 38 of the rulebook where they show a sample Field Combat Bulletin.  There the strengths reported are aggregate, broken down by type of troop.  (Notice, though, that on page 38, cavalry corps strengths are recorded separately.  I had never noticed that before, and it seems sort of strange.)  However, the example on page 38 does not involve allied forces.
>     So here's my question:  how do we report the forces of a coaltion like the one that fought recently at Amsterdam?  For example, are all infantry lumped together so that only the total number of infantry present at the battle are reported, regardless of nationality, or do the coalition forces have to report the number of British infantry present as well as the number of Prussian infantry?  I think it makes more intuitive sense if different nationalities are separated in the report because, after all, they wear *easily distinguishable* uniforms on the battlefield!  When my spotters see columns of infantry in red coats and columns of infantry in dark blue coats, they should be able to estimate the size of each nationality separately, don't you think?
>     Since France as well as the coalition members all have conflicts of interest regarding this matter, I am willing to abide by the judgements of Mike and Joel, who are better able to deliver independent judgements on this question than any of the rest of us.

I think the revealing forces rule is vague, because I think *by the
rules*, that corp strengths, i.e. the national cards, are supposed to
be public knowledge.  I think the only thing that isn't public knowledge
is which corp is where.

Read 2.4.2.     The fleet counters have designations on the front, "and
so its designation *and* exact strength should *always* be known to
*all* players. 

The only way makes sense is if every player's national card is public

So, if that is the spirit of the rules, I think money and loans would be
public information.

HOWEVER,  I sort of like the fog of war and would prefer to keep things
the way we've been doing them.


Everett E. Proctor <spiritmast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

eia mailing list