Re: [eia] 3/05 Austria land phase

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

> 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).

As I just posted, I now don't think this is even a house rule, I think
it is how the rules are supposed to work.

> 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.

I don't think that they *have* to forage as to be able to siege.   I
think that they choose right away whether or not to use extra movement
for forage, before knowing if the defender will retire or not.  If any
one of the corps chooses to use the extra movement for forage, then if
the defender chooses to retire, then none of the corps may siege.

> The written rules, in some places, seem to assume that if an occupied city
> has enemy forces outside, the city must be under siege.  For example, the
> rules for port city supply state that a depot may constructed in a port city
> even if besieged, that this is the only situation where the depot is
> considered inside the city, and not the area, and that the depot may be
> moved out into the area when the city is no longer besieged.  This seems to
> mean that if enemy forces were outside the port but not laying siege to it,
> you would not be allowed to build a depot in the city, which seems odd.

I believe that this is correct, that you need besieging forces to "be in
a city".   I think the statement in 7.3.7.1 about the attack being able
to choose to besiege a corp inside a city or to continue movement refers
to a situation in which there are besieging forces in the province from
a previous phase.  You have the option of joining the siege, or continue
moving.

And yes, all of this is what Mike previously said, and I now agree with
him.


If this had been my understanding of the rules at the time I had made my
land phase orders, I would have supplied the Cavalry corp from Bologna. 
I propose to Kyle that if Davout chooses to stay out and fight, I'll go
ahead and take the foraging losses anyway, but if he decides to retire,
that I be considered to have supplied from the depot.   Is that fair?

-Everett

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