J.J. Young on 28 Jul 2002 23:07:03 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [eia] Seige stuff

This all sounds good and right to me, as long as the owner of a non-besieged
port city in an enemy-occupied area would still be allowed to build a depot
in the city.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Everett E. Proctor" <spiritmast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 6:31 PM
Subject: [eia] Seige stuff

> O.K., after spending a couple hours looking over the rules and
> re-reading these posts, here is how I now think the rules are supposed
> to work:
> Movement :
> When a corp enters a territory that contains an enemy corp, it must stop,
> and must declare an attack.  That attack is declared at the end of all
> after foraging.  ( and 7.5.1)
> When a corp enters a territory where an enemy corp is already in a city
> from a previous turn, the moving corp must either "stop *and* besiege"
> or continue movement.  It cannot stop but choose not to be part of the
> siege. (
> Foraging:
> The phasing player must choose whether or not to use remaining movement
> for foraging.  If any corp in the area chooses to use the movement, then
> none of the corps may siege.  (  and 7.5.4)
> Attack:
> Now comes the official declaration of attack.  The defender must choose
> whether or not to retire into the city. (
> If he chooses to retire, then the attackers choose to besiege or not
> besiege.  They can only choose to siege if no corp used excess movement
> for foraging.  And if they choose to siege, all of the corps must
> participate in the siege.  (   and 7.5.4)
> If they choose not to siege, then during the next month, according to
> the movement rules above, they can choose to move on, or to stay and
> siege, but they cannot choose to stay and not siege.  Therefore this
> situation can last 1 month at max.
> This results in no extra e-mails than we have been doing, and no needing
> to go back and recalculate foraging.
> Also, this results in there never being a situation where there is a
> siege while there are also unsieging corp in the same territory.  This
> solves J.J.'s problem with the port supply.
> A corp that finds itself in a city, unbesieged, with enemy corp in the
> same territory *could* move out into that territory, but then would have
> to stop and declare an attack on those corp  (7.3.4)
> The only problem left, is how to supply the corp in the city when it is
> not being besieged.   I think technically by the rules, it should forage
> off of the territory, including the minuses for other corp in the area.
> However, this could result in it being easier to starve a corp by not
> besieging, and that doesn't sound right to me.  So I suggest that we
> make it a house rule that in this rare case, that it can choose to be
> supplied by the territory or be supplied by the city as if it was being
> besieged.
> That's it.  My final word on this.  I swear  ;-)
> -Everett
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia

eia mailing list