Damage of capturing provinces?

[jonreb31]

I can't find it in the manual. If I capture just provinces, not cities, does it lower the production of resources at all?

Or is it sorted out so I could do something like capture almost all of Pennsylvania but it wouldn't lower income at all unless I took the city?

[Alex Gilbert]

Yes, a province without a city provides 2 money.  I think that a conquered province witout a city provides you with 1 money, so it is a net shift of 3 and seems worth it to me.
 
Alex
 

[jonreb31]

Alright, thanks.

Also does anyone know if I were to surround a city, E.X have every province bordering the city province captured, would it cut off income from that city?

Finally one more question. If a city is under siege, does it cut off the resource income?

[Gil R.]

Surrounded provinces still produce.

Any city under siege will stop producing simply because there is an enemy force in that province (i.e., the one doing all that besieging).

[jonreb31]

Thanks! Very useful information.

[quikstrike]

This is probably covered in the rules, but I'm chilling on a slow midnight shift, don't have a printed copy of the rules, and there is no online copy of the rules available (hint, hint) and this thought just occured to me:

Lee conducted his two invasions of the North not really so much to threaten Washington, and even less so to actively seek to take it, but instead to move the ANV out of Virginia and subsist his command on Northern resources, giving the Northern Virginia economy a much-needed break. If an army is outside of supply, foraging in enemy regions, does that provide a reduction in costs of supply? Example: my Army of the Tennessee is currently running around southern Missouri, conquering various regions (though not yet Jeff City, and the logistics of a siege that far north put me off the idea...) Does the fact that my army is conducting foraging operations reduce the economic impact of that army to my economy? Also, even though I am in "friendly" territory, there is no rail connection to friendly sources of supply, and the Illinois side of the Mississippi is still in Union hands, meaning I believe, that the river is no good to me as a source of supply for troops in Cape Girardeau etc. I presume therefore, that if I want to receive reinforcements for my brigades in Southern Missouri, they will need to head back south to a supply head in order to receive troops from my camps, etc. If I'm wrong, tell me so--I have two union armies "surrounded" by CSA territory in Southern Missouri, and while offensive operations against the Union are not practiceable right now, I'm perfectly happy to keep him surrounded and play attrition warfare. If however, losses I'm taking are irreplaceable as well, I need to consider perhaps a rotation of units to the rear for R&R, or I need to more urgently pursue production of more troops for the AoT in order to attempt a decisive stroke against his two western armies.