[eia] casualty assignments + issues regarding New Political Combos

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    According to the Proportional Land Losses rule (12.3.6), 6 of the
Spanish side's casualties must be Swedish and the remaining 6 must be
Spanish.  Danny, when you have assigned these losses, please update us
regarding the current strengths of the 2 Swedish corps at Damietta.
    I would have thought that 2 of the Turkish side's 8 casualties must be
Syrian, 2 must be Egyptian, and 4 must be Turkish.  This would have left the
Syrian corps at 4 inf/ 4 cav and the Egyptian corps at 8 inf/ 4 cav.  But
apparently Joel is thinking that the Ottoman Empire is one "nation" now, so
there is no difference between Syria and Egypt.  Hence, he can choose to
assign all of the Ottoman casualties to Egypt.
    I'm not sure what to think about this.  Maybe Joel's is the right
approach.  But this brings up a couple thorny questions about how to treat
New Political Combinations.  I think it would be best to resolve these
questions sooner rather than later.

    ISSUE #1:  nationality.  (This is the issue discussed above.)  Do
different minor countries which are components of a New Political
Combination count as separate nationalities for the purpose of proportional
losses?

    ISSUE #2:  garrisons.  Recently, the I Egypt corps left a number of
small garrisons in the Balkans, and the Syria corps left 2 garrisons in the
Caucasus region.  Are those Egyptian and Syrian garrisons respectively, or
are they all Ottoman garrisons?  Here's why it would matter.  If they are
Egyptian and Syrian garrisons, then they would disappear if Egypt and/or
Syria were to be conquered.  For the purposes of argument, suppose Spain
captures Egypt.  Would those Balkan garrisons survive?
    Here's a related hypothetical.  Suppose France creates the Confederation
of the Rhine.  France begins placing garrisons in all of the German states
that do not have corps.  Later on, Hanover is captured by the British.  Do
all of the garrisons that were placed in Germany disappear (because the
garrisons are Hanoverian)?  Or do they remain because although the garrisons
are produced *as if* they were Hanoverian (i.e. with a morale of 2), they
are actually "Confederation of the Rhine" garrisons?

    I don't really care which option we go with for either issue.  I just
want to make sure that everyone knows what rules we are using and that those
rules are applied consistently.

kdh

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Uckelman" <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 1:30 AM
Subject: [eia] Third Battle of Damietta, February 1807


> 1. Spain: 10% * 48 = 5 casualties, -1.1 morale
>    Turkey: 5% * 29 = 2 casualties, -0.4 morale
>
> 2. Spain: 10% * 46 = 5 casualties, -1.1 morale
>    Turkey: 15% * 24 = 4 casualties, -1.6 morale
>
> 3. Spain: 5% * 42 = 2 casualties, -0.4 morale
>    Turkey: 10% *19 = 2 casualties, -1.6 morale
>
> Turkey breaks.
>
> Pursuit: Three rounds, -2.6 morale is a pursuit class of 2. A roll of 2 at
> class 2 has no effect.
>
> Total casualties: 12 for Spain, 8 including 1 cavalry for Turkey.
>
> +3 PP for Spain, -3 PP for Turkey.
>
> II Egypt is now 6I, 4C.
>
> --
> 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