Re: [eia] Seige stuff

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    Well, I'm glad we are arriving at some kind of consensus regarding the
mechanics of the siege/forage rules.  But now where does this leave us with
respect to Turin?  Since our mutual understanding has just emerged (thanks
primarily to Mike), I don't think Everett should be penalized.  So I am
willing to allow his cav corps to lay siege along with the rest of his
forces at Turin, even though it used extra movement points to forage.
(After all, he did lose a cavalry factor in the process.  I can't ask for
much more than that!)
    Of course, all this assumes that Davout will retire into the city.  I
haven't yet come to a final decision there.  But I will decide very soon.

kdh

----- 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
movement,
> after foraging.  (7.3.7.1 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. (7.3.7.1)
>
> 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.  (7.4.1.2.2  and 7.5.4)
>
> Attack:
> Now comes the official declaration of attack.  The defender must choose
> whether or not to retire into the city. (7.5.1.1)
>
> 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.  (7.5.1.1.2   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
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia