Fwd: [Supremacy] Occupying territorry
- I don't know why the rules were written so that the attacker get the
advantage when both sides were lost, but this is what we're presented with.
You might say that it's not "enemy" territory you fly over, since there is no
organized opposition? This is similar to the reinforcement phase or the
movement cycle. The reinforcement phase seems like a logistical "stretch"
also: You battle, then forces move thousands of miles around the map in an
instant. You immediately battle again, and forces can instantly move
thousands of miles again during the reinforcement phase. It seems like
planes, trucks, or ships wouldn't be available again so soon on such short
notice. Capture another supply center, and you can cram so much movement
into one game turn that the game mechanics are far-fetched when compared with
In a message dated 2/17/01 7:26:26 PM Central Standard Time, mold@...
> Why do 2 armies do battle and the defenders lose all units and the attackers[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 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
> > 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
> 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,
> 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).