J.J. Young on 29 Jul 2002 05:09:02 -0000

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

Re: [eia] Seige stuff

Kyle, be careful because there is a distinction between forces in a city
which are "besieged" and forces which are simply in a city with enemy forces
passively in the area outside the city.  Rule states that a
besieging major power *may* elect to launch an assault attempt.  Not
besieging a city and having a city under siege but electing not to assault
are two separate things.

I do not think it is obvious that corps retired into a city, but unbesieged,
should use the city's forage values.  This method of foraging is, after all,
called "besieged supply".

I think the consensus that was emerging, until we heard from Kyle, was that
all or none of the attacking corps in an area must lay siege to a city.
After all, the rules state that *all* corps that participated in a field
battle must be eligible to lay a siege, or it cannot be started at all that
turn, and that all available forces must participate in an assault combat.

I do agree that the purpose of the rule about not having to declare an
attack if the enemy is in the city seems to refer to the case where the
enemy is already besieged and other corps (besides the besiegeing forces)
are just passing though the city's area on the way to somewhere else.

I still think that it would be a lot simpler to *require* a siege of any
enemy-controlled city in an area you control.  But if we can clarify the
issues of supply and/or forage for corps retired into cities but not
besieged, then I would be satisfied.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 12:08 AM
Subject: Re: [eia] Seige stuff

>     I'm not sure about the last bit.  Why can't the corps in the second
> month decide to stay and not lay siege, i.e., not make siege assault
> attempts?  After all, if you can be there for one month without besieging,
> then why not longer?  Again, I would emphasize the distinction between a
> sit-and-wait type siege vs. an assault-the-city type siege.  Although I do
> have reservations about the last bit, I agree with almost everything else
> Everett has written.  Maybe you could just explain a bit more why you
> this is implied by the rules...
>     In any case, though, I want to make sure it is understood that city
> garrisons are completely different from enemy corps.  So a corps can move
> through an area containing an enemy city garrison without stopping.  And
> a corps does stop in an area that contains an enemy city garrison, the
> need not declare an attack.  Just making sure...
> 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
> > and must declare an attack.  That attack is declared at the end of all
> movement,
> > 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
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia

eia mailing list