Re: [eia] casualty assignments + issues regarding New Political Combos

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

2.)  I think that if a player is able to create a new political combination,
this is worthy of more benefit than just the +1 or +2 PP you get; so I say,
let the garrisons stand, as long as the marker for the political combination
remains on the board.

1.)  So yes, I think that in terms of nationality, all the components of a
political combination belong to the same country.  After all, new garrisons
which are placed after the combination's formation have no "nationality"
other than this.

Back to 2.)
But what happens if the conditions are met for the political combination to
disappear (its marker is removed from the map) ?  This happens only when the
last component with a corps is conquered or ceded.  So it seems simple to
say that when the political combination no longer exists, all of its
garrisons, everywhere, are removed at that time.

So in the example of the Kingdom of Westphalia, any of its garrisons outside
Hesse are considered Hanoverian (2 morale).  If Hanover was conquered but
Hesse remains (and so the KoW remains), then any garrisons in, say,
Magdeburg would still remain.  But if both Hesse and Hanover are lost, the
KoW disappears, along with all of its garrison factors, in Magdeburg or
elsewhere, even in places still under the KoW founder's control.

That's how I think we should handle it.  But it's not a point clearly
defined in the rules, and I could certainly understand someone seeing the
issue a different way.

-JJY

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 9:37 AM
Subject: [eia] casualty assignments + issues regarding New Political Combos


>     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
>
>


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