Re: [eia] relief battle clarification

[jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Another point to consider occurs to me.  If the reliver and the garrison do 
not have combined movement, then the participation of the garrison in the 
relief battle would give it 2 chances to "attack" (once with the relievers, 
once on its own phase) in one month, something which the rules bend over 
backward to avoid having happen.

So maybe a garrison of a different nationality from the reliever _cannot_ join 
the relief battle, _unless_ the garrison and reliever have combined movement.  
However, this would still leave us in the same boat when there is combined 
movement.

-JJY

Quoting Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>:

> Thus spake "J.J. Young":
> > What I think is weird is that capturing a city
> > > mid-battle could make the besiegers better off than had they held the
> city
> > > prior to the battle.
> > 
> > If the besieged city fell in mid-battle, all (well, most of) the forces
> > previously committed by the besieger to keeping the city sealed up would
> be
> > freed up to join their comrades on the outer lines fighting the relievers.
> > I think this would have a bad effect on the morale of the relievers.
> 
> But that frequently did not happen. Even well-disciplined troops 
> sometimes sacked the cities they'd invested (e.g., Kleber's men sacked
> Jaffa in 1799), making them useless and unavailable for anything else.
>  
> > BTW, maybe this is a question which we could refer to the Empires in Harm
> > people and see how they do it.  I would be willing to go along with their
> > consensus.
> 
> I'm not suggesting anymore that the rules are unclear on the point. What
> I'm suggesting is that the rules don't make sense.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
> 
> 


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