J.J. Young on 29 Jul 2002 05:53:03 -0000

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

Re: [eia] Seige stuff

Mike's interpretation, and definition of foraging rules for a corps in a
city but unbesieged sound good to me.  I think both of us would agree that
it should be possible to place a depot in an occupied port city that has
enemy forces in the area outside, whether the city is besieged or not.

We seem to be very close to consensus.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Gorman" <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: [eia] Seige stuff

> 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
> probably end up fighting eventually as there will be too many
> for mistakes to be made that draw the corps into conflict a little at a
> 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
> 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

eia mailing list