Re: [eia] 3/05 Austria land phase

["Everett E. Proctor" <spiritmast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 14:28:23 -0500
Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Thus spake "J.J. Young":
> > So in essence, our present house rule states that if you move into an area
> > containing an enemy corps and a city, the enemy corps is always considered
> > to be outside of the city and you must stop movement there.  OK, I have no
> > problem (although it looks like Joel does).
> > 
> > My position now (which admittedly might not the same position I started this
> > discussion with) is that the house rule should be strengthened to say that
> > not only must the attacker stop moving, but they must forage or supply in
> > such a way that they would be eligible to besiege, and that if, after all is
> > said and done, the attacker is still there to besiege the city, they must do
> > so.
> 
> Fine, but what if the attacker doesn't want to besiege the city, say if the
> intent of the move was to scare the defenders into the city so they could be
> bypassed?


It is now my belief that that is a strategy that is not allowed by the
rules.

(which is different from what it was an hour ago)

-Everett

_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia