|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.