Kyle H on 29 Jul 2002 04:18:06 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: [eia] proposed house rule |
JJ brings up some important
questions, but I think they have relatively easy answers.
1. If a corps is in a city that is not besieged by
enemy forces in the same area, then it may not leave the area without
fighting. This is pretty straightforward. In order to leave a city
space, a corps must first move from the city into the surrounding area. (I
forget where that rule is, but I'm sure it's right.) In that case, the
corps will have entered an area containing an enemy corps and must stop and
declare an attack. (In this case, though, the corps outside the city would
not have the option of retiring.) The only thing I'm not sure about is:
what kind of battle would result, a garrison attack combat or a field
combat? My inclination is to say garrison attack, but I could be persuaded
otherwise.
2. Corps inside a city must use city forage values
rather than area forage values. (If they were to go out into the area,
they'd be attacked. Hence, they are limited to city forage
values.)
Think of it like this: the enemy corps
outside the city do have the city "under siege", but they are simply not
expending the effort necessary to make *siege assaults*. So they get to
use their unused movement for forage, but the guys in the city are still eating
rats and whatever else they can find. It boils down to the difference
between a "sit and wait" siege or an "Once more into the breach!" siege.
Only if you are doing the latter (i.e., attempting siege assaults) do you
lose your movement bonus to foraging.
BTW, if I understand the house rule proposed below,
it seems to entail that whenever corps end up in a city area with forces of any
kind inside the city, the corps must expend the energy necessary to make siege
assault attempts. If that is the correct understanding, then I am against
adopting it.
kdh
|