jhelle on 28 Jul 2002 16:40:02 -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.)
>    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.
>Here are my opinions:
    1)  Yes, I think you have to maintain occupation to conquer a
country.  I dropped a garrison in lubeck in Feb. while moving
corps just for the purpose of maintaining occupation.
    2)  Even though JJ may disagree, I admit Kyle has a point
about telling armies apart on the battlefield.  I have personally
been there and know that each country has not only different
uniforms but different equipment also that is easily recognizable
with very little training.  My vote is that coalition forces
should be broken down by nationality.{sorry JJ}
>eia mailing list
eia mailing list