Re: [eia] two rules interpretation questions

[Michael Gorman <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 08:45 AM 7/28/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>    
> 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.)
>

        

I agree
with the post JJ already sent.  Requiring uninterrupted occupation
implies to me that there must be an occupying force there at all times
during the turn.


>    
> 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

        

My reading
of exact size and composition was that you should get a break down of the
forces involved by each corps and the strength of each corps. I didn't
much care if we combined the entire army and just gave a corps list and
total strength since it's pretty easy to rearrange forces between
corps.  But I would think that the individual countries should be
noted as separate force strengths.  I did find it odd when the
forces present at Amsterdam weren't broken down by nationality in both
the naval battle and the land battle.

Mike