Michael Gorman on 29 Jul 2002 05:43:03 -0000
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
What I see in the forage situation for a corps in a city that is not
besieged but has enemy troops in the same area is that they can forage
normally, but suffer the penalty for other corps in the area.
The image I carry that makes this not seem just boneheaded to me is that
each area is pretty big and it's possible that two forces trying to avoid
each other could successfully do so without having more than minor
skirmishes between their scouts so long as one of them remains pretty much
stationary, like in a city. If they're both moving in the field, they will
probably end up fighting eventually as there will be too many opportunities
for mistakes to be made that draw the corps into conflict a little at a time.
As not besieging the city would seem to imply that the intruding force is
not getting close to the city, then the fields and nearby towns that a
corps would want to use for forage would remain available to the force in
the city and they would not have to rely on what could be had only within
the city. As there appear to be no cases where having your movement minus
a maximum of two for other corps plus the base area for a region is worse
than being in the city, not being besieged remains better than being
besieged for supply purposes, which makes sense, I think. And of course,
garrisons wouldn't have to roll at all in this situation.
Not being able to build a depot in a land locked city also makes sense as
the supply lines would have to go through the area outside the city which
is enemy occupied and has no friendly corps to defend the supply lines.
This is where I disagree with the rules as written. Like JJ, I cannot
understand why a port city could not choose to build a depot inside the
city and use it as if they were under siege. I can't see any reason for
not allowing someone to do that. I can see that you couldn't normally put
a depot inside a city as it's probably a real pain in the ass for the
residents, but if you needed to do it because it's that or starve, pissing
off the residents would mean a lot less.
Kyle brought up what kind of battle you'd have if you left the city. I
think it'd be a field battle. You aren't having to sortie out of the city
against a force that's right in front of you, so you can take the field
normally. The down side of this being that if you lose, you get forced out
of the area and probably lose the city you were defending. The upside is
that you can get out of the area and not be stuck in the city you were
eia mailing list