Re: [eia] two rules interpretation questions

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

I don't care that much if we report separate strengths for allied major
powers in the same battle; I just wanted us to reach consensus before I gave
Kyle the information, since this is the first time it has come up.

-JJY

----- Original Message -----
From: <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 3:41 PM
Subject: 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 (7.5.2.6.3) 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.
> >
> >kdh
> >
> >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@xxxxxxxxx
> >http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>
>


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