Isn't the 3rd quarter July-September?

Since "they" said SUMMER 2003, 3rd quarter fits perfectly (Summer ends the 22nd of September or summink).



Games are late 90% of the time though, so dont hold your breath.

I dunno, I find 3R is not even as good as TSRs ETO/PTO...

But I haven't looked at any of the new stuff.

<r><QUOTE><s>[QUOTE]</s><I><s>[i]</s>Originally posted by Capitaine <e>[/i]</e></I><br/>
<B><s>[B]</s>Oh, how cute, the notorious "kid" <I><s>[I]</s>spiel<e>[/I]</e></I>; how clever. Bet you learned that from personal experience, eh? Whatever, "pal". Now if your bombast is finished... [turns back on ...

<r>I agree the corps counters from the original game are better than some dorky tin soldier icon.<br/>
<br/>
Hopefully they wil include a "use counters" option like in Hearts of Iron.<br/>
<br/>
The orginal counter art was just fine. You could not possibly confuse a corps with any other type of ...

<t>It would be better IMHO to simply dissallow the act at all.<br/>
<br/>
This rule for example allow for some odd things to happen.<br/>
<br/>
Spain is fighting England. His ally Russia is in enforced peace with Spain and so cannot help.<br/>
<br/>
Russia sends 2 fleets to SPain, picks up two 1 ...

<t>Sounds like its in reference to a corps destroyed due to failure to disembark...<br/>
<br/>
That rule is not in my rulebook... where does it come from?<br/>
<br/>
IMHO it would be better just to say that you are simply not allowed to place tranported corps in a position where they cannot ...

<r><QUOTE><s>[QUOTE]</s><I><s>[i]</s>Originally posted by Capitaine <e>[/i]</e></I><br/>
<B><s>[B]</s>I knew your "double duty" angle was there somewhere, soapy. Just glad actually to see it. Disagree w/ your a, b, c analysis -- namely (a) -- b/c it's not necessary under the rules, and YOU DON'T ...

<r><QUOTE><s>[QUOTE]</s><I><s>[i]</s>Originally posted by Capitaine <e>[/i]</e></I><br/>
<B><s>[B]</s>soapy, if you really have the bee in your bonnet to deny that a "field force" has nothing to do with "the field", and has no connection with the location it has in the area, fine. I'm just not that ...

<t>Oh Capitaine, mon Capitaine:<br/>
<br/>
I am not looking to create bad blood here but you are using a leap of logic to define something that is not referenced in the rules.<br/>
<br/>
Field Force is indeed defined as a force in a given location. That location is the area, outside of the city ...

<r>But you've made no point!<br/>
<br/>
If you contend that a city is an integral part of an area then that argues in effect for double duty, becuase the mvoement rules speak only of areas (which would include cities) and cities (which is a specific place inside an area)...<br/>
<br/>
The anti ...

<r>"Field Forces" is used in the same way "Field battle" is.<br/>
<br/>
The fact is there is no specific special region called "Field"... it is mentioned nowhere in movement, or even in combat. A "Field Force" is just as it is defined... forces outside a city (and therefore in the area). A "Field ...

Nevertheless England and France can never ally, and therefore England can never transport French troops.

<r>Strange then that the movement rules speak only of "areas" and also briefly of "cities" in regards to detaching garrisons. It never mentions "field" during movement. Why I wonder? In FACT, in rule <B><s>[B]</s>7.3.4 MOVEMENT FORM CITIES<e>[/B]</e></B> it states that forces may move OUT of a city ...

That's a pretty screwed up game! You must have had quite a few newbies on deck. Plus playing without the French-British peace restrictions is a bad idea for game-balance.

<t>That would be 4 French corps, 2 infantry + a weak guard under Napoleon & Ney, and 1 corps under Grouchy (leaderless I guess).<br/>
<br/>
Prussians would have 3 corps. Anglo-Dutch would likely be 1 british corps plus the dutch corps and the hanover corps.<br/>
<br/>
The battle would be an ...

Thats one way of looking at it!

<t>The problem is, if there were an intrinsic garrison in every town, I'd be asking "why can't I press those garrisons and national guard and whatever into my main army if I really need them?"<br/>
<br/>
If you want your cities to be garrisonned, garrison them! It's a good idea anyway, in most cases ...

Hey I'm not disagreeing with you. I think the problem is fixed far more conclusively using "double duty" anyway.

But to be the Devil's advocate as they say: what if you consider (as many do) that the city is actually seperate and distinct from the area?

Well I would tend to agree, like I said I have not seen out-of-control garrison building in many many many years of gaming... usually no one gets the chance... you know, open warfare and all

<r>Well it does say when it ENDS it's movement in an area with enemy forces it must originate an attack.<br/>
<br/>
It could conceivably keep moving into the city, and therefore not END it's movement in the area and therefore not have to originate an attack...<br/>
<br/>
(cossacks are allowed to ...