From: Doug Murphy Subject: unofficial 100YW errata Map: fortress in Savoy should be marked Turin. Counters: only 1 year counter provided (at least in my countermix). You need two: one to mark the relevant decade, the other for the year. Also, I've only found one DIP marker (colored for the French). I use a control marker for the English DIP. Setup: Ambiguous about whether units in some (mostly French) provinces are setup in fortresses or not. Since other instructions make it clear to setup units within forts, we said if it's not explicitly stated in the setup instructions, said units do not begin in forts....(of course, they can move into one during their turn as 1-unit-forces) Also, there are some other markers you may be interested in making up that I've found make the game go faster: TP markers for "ones" and tens" that you can use on either the Ops track or DIP track. Setup RV (Crecy scenario) English: 47 French: 52 Doug Murphy From: Noel Wright Subject: unofficial 100YW errata >Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 09:16:47 -0600 >From: Doug Murphy >Subject: 100YW unofficial errata > >Map: fortress in Savoy should be marked Turin. I didn't notice this. It really only becomes important in PBM. >Counters: only 1 year counter provided (at least in my countermix). You >need two: one to mark the relevant decade, the other for the year. Also, >I've only found one DIP marker (colored for the French). I use a control >marker for the English DIP. You already have to keep track of TP on a sheet of paper. Why not do the same with DIP? I would prefer to keep as many control markers as possible available for use. I continually ran out of control markers in 30YW. >Setup: Ambiguous about whether units in some (mostly French) >provinces are setup in fortresses or not. Since other instructions make >it clear to setup units within forts, we said if it's not explicitly stated in the >setup instructions, said units do not begin in forts....(of course, they can >move into one during their turn as 1-unit-forces) It says in the general scenario instructions that units set up in fortresses unless noted otherwise, or there is no fortress in the area. >Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 13:43:46 EDT >From: "Thomas E. F. Sobczak, Jr." >Subject: Re: 100YW unofficial errata > >> Map: fortress in Savoy should be marked Turin. > >Map: fortress in Auvergne is Toulouse. > fortress in Languedoc is also Toulouse. Should it be >Toulon and be a port? If not, what? (I don't have a map of France >handy.) > >Thom Sobczak > >------------------------------ Toulon is east of Marseille. The fort in Languedoc is presumably Toulouse, since it is not on the coast, and is in the general area. Unfortunately, the encyclopedia I looked at had a map with cities and the modern departements, and a map with the old provinces and no cities. A map I saw in another encyclopedia made it look like Clermont-Ferrand was more likely than St. Etienne. Another map showing English holdings in France over this period showed another possibility: La Tour. I found a problem with the set-up. There is none given for Holland! Another problem I ran into was what to do if a fleet was in a sea area, and the other side captured all its ports. This happened to the French fleet in the Bay of Biscay. I would think that it would either be destroyed or treated as besieged during troop payment, but who knows? The French "3" strength chivalry also have that strength on their reverse side. The Parliament/Feudal Array Tables seemed wrong to me. On the table, 1-2 is no effect, 3-4 is either half TPs/chivalry go home, and 5+ is more TP/free units. I would think it that the result for 1-2 and 3-4 would be reversed. One question I have also applies to 30YW. Does a force within an area actually have to enter a fortress in that area to pick up any units stationed there? If it does, it then requires 4op to enter an area, pick up additional units in fortresses there, then continue on to another area. Given that you can only place one new unit per area per turn, this makes gathering an army very difficult and time-consuming, considering that each turn represents a whole year. From: Doug Murphy Subject: unofficial 100YW errata -Reply >>> Noel Wright 05/17/96 01:07am >>> >Map: fortress in Savoy should be marked Turin. I didn't notice this. It really only becomes important in PBM. ....Well, and in setup too. You already have to keep track of TP on a sheet of paper. Why not do the same with DIP? I would prefer to keep as many control markers as possible available for use. I continually ran out of control markers in 30YW. ....I'm just the opposite...I hate tracking anything on paper so I made up TP markers (x1, x10, x100) for each side and use 'em on the Op track. But I hear you about control markers in 30YW. Toulon is east of Marseille. The fort in Languedoc is presumably Toulouse.... another possibility: La Tour. ....My maps of France are all either not detailed enough or too modern. Anybody have 100YW and know what this could be? I found a problem with the set-up. There is none given for Holland! ....Hmmm. I assumed then there are no units/action there by default. We may be wrong. What happened in Holland during the 100YW? Another problem I ran into was what to do if a fleet was in a sea area, and the other side captured all its ports. This happened to the French fleet in the Bay of Biscay. I would think that it would either be destroyed or treated as besieged during troop payment, but who knows? .... Good question. I destroyed a Fr fleet when the English took control of the "entire" Atlantic coast. But since the map doesn't include all possible ports, is this right? Figure these fleets as impressed mercies could barely operate out of land for a few days anyway...maybe destroying it just represents its dispersal. The French "3" strength chivalry also have that strength on their reverse side. ...Good catch. I never had more than 3 Fr chiv in a force. The Parliament/Feudal Array Tables seemed wrong to me. On the table, 1-2 is no effect, 3-4 is either half TPs/chivalry go home, and 5+ is more TP/free units. I would think it that the result for 1-2 and 3-4 would be reversed. ....why? Given that those numbers represent a die roll, either set would be OK. One question I have also applies to 30YW. Does a force within an area actually have to enter a fortress in that area to pick up any units stationed there? ....I say yes, and you have to pay the OP to move in and out. The 100YW rules 10.1 say a force consists of units in the same province OR fortress, even though this same rule says you can form units into any combination of forces in a single province. 10.27 says units that are picked up must be located in the province OR fort the force currently occupies.... Doug Murphy From: Noel Wright Subject: 100YW >From: Doug Murphy >Subject: unofficial 100YW errata -Reply > >I found a problem with the set-up. There is none given for Holland! >....Hmmm. I assumed then there are no units/action there by default. We >may be wrong. What happened in Holland during the 100YW? > I ended up assuming the same setup as Brabant. It would probably make more sense to use a similar set-up to Flanders, given the terrain. >The Parliament/Feudal Array Tables seemed wrong to me. On the table, >1-2 is no effect, 3-4 is either half TPs/chivalry go home, and 5+ is more >TP/free units. I would think it that the result for 1-2 and 3-4 would be >reversed. >....why? Given that those numbers represent a die roll, either set would >be OK. This is only true when there is no drm for a leader or enemy occupation involved. Then, the likelihood of the bad result stays the same until the drm reaches +3. Only the likelihood of "no effect" or freebies change. Doesn't that seem strange? Here's another problem. Sieges are almost always successful. Because of the sequence of play, there is normally no way for the other side to either fight its way out of a siege, or attempt a relief expedition. It is possible for a single militia unit to march into an area and besiege a much larger fortress garrison, starving it into surrender. Even a force stacked with a leader with a maximum military rating is vulnerable to this. I think this seriously overrates the effectiveness of sieges. It occurred to me that it might be better to have troop payment occur after operations. Then, a besieged force would get a chance to extricate itself.