Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Supremacy] Occupying territorry

Expand Messages
  • jonnyvball@aol.com
    If you had 2 oils left, we always played that you may airlift in an army unit to occupy. Thanks, Jonny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Message 1 of 10 , Feb 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      If you had 2 oils left, we always played that you may airlift in an army unit
      to occupy.

      Thanks,

      Jonny


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Mold
      But how could you occupy a territory quicker than the residence or country that owns that territory? Realistically David Ferguson Located in the interior of
      Message 2 of 10 , Feb 2, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        But how could you occupy a territory quicker than the residence or country
        that owns that territory? Realistically

        David Ferguson
        Located in the interior of British Columbia, Canada
        Hang "N" there
        mailto:mold@...
        http://www3.telus.net/mold




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Scott David Orr
        ... unit ... This would technically be a reinforcement move, I think. But again, I m not sure, because it would have to be your territory before you could
        Message 3 of 10 , Feb 3, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          At 09:35 PM 2/2/2001 EST, jonnyvball@... wrote:
          >If you had 2 oils left, we always played that you may airlift in an army
          unit
          >to occupy.
          >
          This would technically be a reinforcement move, I think. But again, I'm
          not sure, because it would have to be your territory before you could
          reinforce; on the other hand, if it really were your territory, the enemy
          couldn't reinforce into it, so you'd be in no danger of losing.

          However, since you're not _required_ to occupy a territory, therefore it's
          captured until you occupy it, and so I'd be inclined to the interpretation
          that if none of the attacking unit can occupy it, it's still the property
          of the defender.

          Scott Orr
        • orr.74@pop.service.ohio-state.edu
          ... Er, it s _not_ capture until you occupy it.... Scott Orr
          Message 4 of 10 , Feb 3, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            >
            >However, since you're not _required_ to occupy a territory, therefore it's
            >captured until you occupy it, and so I'd be inclined to the interpretation

            Er, it's _not_ capture until you occupy it....

            Scott Orr
          • jonnyvball@aol.com
            In a message dated 2/3/01 12:08:43 AM Central Standard Time, mold@canada.com ... This would technically be a reinforcement move, I think.  But again, I m not
            Message 5 of 10 , Feb 15, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 2/3/01 12:08:43 AM Central Standard Time, mold@...
              writes:


              > But how could you occupy a territory quicker than the residence or country
              > that owns that territory? Realistically
              >
              > David Ferguson
              >

              This would technically be a reinforcement move, I think.  But again, I'm
              not sure, because it would have to be your territory before you could
              reinforce; on the other hand, if it really were your territory, the enemy
              couldn't reinforce into it, so you'd be in no danger of losing.

              However, since you're not _required_ to occupy a territory, therefore it's
              captured until you occupy it, and so I'd be inclined to the interpretation
              that if none of the attacking unit can occupy it, it's still the property
              of the defender.

              Scott Orr

              =======================================================

              Just finished relocating...

              Realistically, removal of all organized opposition from the target of attack
              facilitates occupation by the attacker's organized forces (whether it be
              airborne, amphibious, or land). One could further the
              "indigent/insurgent/geurilla" concept to say that land forces would not be
              able to occupy either... So when could an attacker ever take over a country?

              3.0 Rules clearly indicate to me that this situation is addressed in
              Step D of Stage 4 Attack - Occupying a Captured Territory or Sea:

              "If the defender has lost all of his forces at the target of the attack, then
              the attacker may now occupy that zone with any number of his forces from one
              or more zones. He must pay the standard moving costs, ..."

              I detect no restrictions on the type of movement permitted. The
              Supply Center card lists Moving Costs for Armies as 1 grain for marching and
              2 oils for flying (with navies able to sail 4 armies for 1 oil).

              Thanks,

              Jonny


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Mold
              Why do 2 armies do battle and the defenders lose all units and the attackers lose all units, how does this translate to a victory for the attacker. It puzzles
              Message 6 of 10 , Feb 17, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Why do 2 armies do battle and the defenders lose all units and the attackers
                lose all units, how does this translate to a victory for the attacker.
                It puzzles me how I could launch an airborne attack deep into enemy
                territory, have my entire airborne troop defeated and control the territory?
                I think it would be faster and easier to mobilize troops from a nearby
                friendly territory to occupy than to organize another air borne group to fly
                across enemy territory and set them in to hold the ground. Logistically
                doesn’t seem to work for me.

                David Ferguson
                Located in the interior of British Columbia, Canada
                Hang "N" there
                Mold's Hanggliding & Paragliding page
                mailto:mold@...
                http://www3.telus.net/mold



                > But how could you occupy a territory quicker than the residence or country
                > that owns that territory? Realistically
                >
                > David Ferguson
                >

                This would technically be a reinforcement move, I think. But again, I'm
                not sure, because it would have to be your territory before you could
                reinforce; on the other hand, if it really were your territory, the enemy
                couldn't reinforce into it, so you'd be in no danger of losing.

                However, since you're not _required_ to occupy a territory, therefore it's
                captured until you occupy it, and so I'd be inclined to the interpretation
                that if none of the attacking unit can occupy it, it's still the property
                of the defender.

                Scott Orr

                =======================================================

                Just finished relocating...

                Realistically, removal of all organized opposition from the target of attack
                facilitates occupation by the attacker's organized forces (whether it be
                airborne, amphibious, or land). One could further the
                "indigent/insurgent/geurilla" concept to say that land forces would not be
                able to occupy either... So when could an attacker ever take over a
                country?

                3.0 Rules clearly indicate to me that this situation is addressed in
                Step D of Stage 4 Attack - Occupying a Captured Territory or Sea:

                "If the defender has lost all of his forces at the target of the attack,
                then
                the attacker may now occupy that zone with any number of his forces from one
                or more zones. He must pay the standard moving costs, ..."

                I detect no restrictions on the type of movement permitted. The
                Supply Center card lists Moving Costs for Armies as 1 grain for marching and
                2 oils for flying (with navies able to sail 4 armies for 1 oil).

                Thanks,

                Jonny






                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.