Emperors and Eagles questions

[bahdahbum]

Hy,

First things first : many funny armies . Now as to the lists :

Russian army of poland 1807 ( pg 116 ) : it is stated that the russian cuirassier unit mat have 4 or 6 bases but the maximum is 4 . So which is right ?

Russian army of poland 1807 ( pg 116 ) : no russian guard , but they took part at friedland and suffered heavy losses at the end of the battle in a fierce melee bayonet . So I suppose we could use the guard infantry from 1805 but would like to have an official confirmation . ( I know I already asked the question but still got no answer )

[terrys]

Russian army of poland 1807 ( pg 116 ) : it is stated that the russian cuirassier unit mat have 4 or 6 bases but the maximum is 4 . So which is right ?

I'll increase the maximum to 6

Russian army of poland 1807 ( pg 116 ) : no russian guard , but they took part at friedland and suffered heavy losses at the end of the battle in a fierce melee bayonet . So I suppose we could use the guard infantry from 1805 but would like to have an official confirmation . ( I know I already asked the question but still got no answer )

You are correct that the Russian guard should be available for the 1807 campaign.
The simplest way around the omission is to allow the Russians in 1807 to use a division (of any type - infantry, cavalry or mixed) of entirely guards from the 1805 list.
There was no major change in composition of the guards between 1805 & 1807, apart from some additional jagers (but still not enough for a full unit), but may necesitate increasing the number of skirmisher attachments to 2 for this division.

[bahdahbum]

Thank you

One more thing there is no uhlan unit in the 1805-1807 russian armies . But at Austerlitz, Eylau and Friedland there was always on 10 squadron regiment present and a 10 squadron regiment is theoretically 1600 lancers, let's say they were 1000-1200 ....so a small BG should be available

[Selaurant]

A question regarding the French Army of Italy, 1800. Restrictions include:

Mixed divisions MUST not be used. (why bold "must"? Do you mean must NOT?)
....
In mixed divisions, attachments MUST be...?

Surely either the last restriction is not required, or you meant "MUST" rather than "MUST not". Historically I would have thought the latter made more sense.

[bahdahbum]

I interpreted as : MAY NOT , are FORBIDDEN .

[Selaurant]

Bahdahbum

If it is as you say thenthe last restriction makes no sense and should be removed. That would be odd though, because there were certainly mixed divisions at Marengo.

[bahdahbum]

English is not my mother language . But to me MUST NOT is , I must admit not that clear . But the only way to interpret it with all list is FORBIDEN but I may be wrong .

[Sarmaticus]

Unlike in, for example, the similar sounding German phrase, there is no ambiguity in the English phrase, "must not", means not permitted.
"Need not", is what is used when a thing is not compulsory; it is not required. Must not means not allowed; you cannot do it.

[terrys]

A question regarding the French Army of Italy, 1800. Restrictions include:

Mixed divisions MUST not be used. (why bold "must"? Do you mean must NOT?)
....
In mixed divisions, attachments MUST be...?

Surely either the last restriction is not required, or you meant "MUST" rather than "MUST not". Historically I would have thought the latter made more sense.

A problem with the proof reading. It was suggested to us very late on that 'must' should be changed to upper case. In most cases this proves to be true, but as you say in this case it is the word "NOT" that should have been changed.

[hazelbark]

Austrian Army in Germany 1800

There are no references to mixed divisions. I think this would make it the ONLY Austrain list in both books that does not have any mixed division. Is that accurate?

[Russ1664]

Does anyone know if a consolidated errata list been produced for E & E ?

If we are still collecting potential corrections can I offer:

Page 128 maximum medium and heavy field artillery bases should each be changed from"2" to "3"


Russ

[bahdahbum]

I think Terry as too much to do

[terrys]

Does anyone know if a consolidated errata list been produced for E & E ?

I do.....

I've completed the list of updates, but I'm not going to publish it until after the Challenge (in just over a week time).
I still need to review the forum posts to see if I've missed anything.
I'll be publishing the latest updates for ToN at the same time.

[BrettPT]

Hi Terry

Perhaps when reviewing the lists you could consider those lists (Toulon & Turkish) that have fortified artillery that cannot be used outside of fortifications (ie when winning the initiaive). Perhaps allow them to be deployed when attacking. (A defender could always avoid their shooting by deploying 1MU back - making them 17MU away, the guns would then only be of use to prevent flanking movements or counter-attacks by the defender).

We've got player's - myself included - painting Ottomans at the moment, none of whom are willing to field fortified artillery because of the risk of not getting to deploy them.

No great issue for me as the fortification rules are a bit of a headache at the moment and it's easier not to use them.

However, fortifications seemed standard in all Ottoman battles against the Russians and should probably feature on table in European Ottoman orders of battle.

An alternative might be to simply drop the aggression for European Ottoman armies to '0', which would make it likely they would defend and therefore be able to field the fortifications in most battles.

Cheers
Brett

[terrys]

We've got player's - myself included - painting Ottomans at the moment, none of whom are willing to field fortified artillery because of the risk of not getting to deploy them.

Its probably a logical decision to allow either player to deploy fortifications. We hadn't created any of the Ottoman lists at the time that the ules were completed. (The list in the rulebook having an initiative of zero - so not a likely problem).
It will have to wait until the next rules update.