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

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thus spake "Kyle H":
>     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?

I was under the impression that Ottoman factors are interchangeable, e.g.,
that the Syrian corps could exchange factors with an Egyptian corps, or 
pick up factors dropped by an Egyptian corps. My understanding is that all 
of the factors are Ottoman, not of the nationality of the corps they're in.
In fact, I read that on some errata page last fall, which I can't find now.

>     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?

I believe so. I think the only factors which would be lost if Egypt were
conquered would be the ones actually in the two Egyptian corps.

>     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'd expect them to stay put.

-- 
J.


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