Re: [eia] Seige stuff

[Michael Gorman <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

	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.

Battle issues:
	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 
defending.


Mike


_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia