Re: [eia] Seige stuff

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> The weird part is, the outside forces could choose to retire into the
> city you just left.
>
> -Everett
>

    See now, that's just plain bizarre!  To me that consequence demonstrates
that the currently proposed way of thinking can't be right.
    We all recognize that consistency requires that some change be made to
the rules somewhere.  Here's a simple change that I think would deal with
all our problems: whenever there is a corps in an area which also contains
an enemy corps inside a city, the corps inside the city is considered
"besieged" *by definition*.  However, if the corps outside the city want to
be eligible to make assault attempts, they must forage without their unused
movement.
    This very simple solution deals with JJ's problem, because now depots
can be made in ports.  JJ had pointed out before that the rules seem to
entail that whenever there are enemy corps in the same space, the city is
besieged.  That is also accommodated by my suggestion.  The consequences of
this rules interpretation also make sense (to me, anyway):  corps inside the
city use city supply values, corps outside the city use the area supply
values.  If the defenders attack the besiegers, it is a garrison attack
combat, and if the defenders fail, they return to their city.  Finally, this
solution makes intuitive sense as well because it represents the difference
between a siege in which the besiegers are sitting half a mile away and a
siege in which the besiegers are actively trying to storm the city.
    Like I said, this interpretation would require a rules change, but it is
a minimal one.  The wording in 7.3.7.1 would have to be changed so that the
word "besiege" is changed to something like "be eligible to make siege
assaults".  Here's how I would rewrite it:

"7.3.7.1  Enemy Corps or City Garrison in Area.
    If during movement, a corps moves into an area containing unbesieged
enemy corps, the corps *must* cease movement.  Under these conditions, a
field combat will take place unless all of the enemy corps decide to (and
are able to) retire into the city.  By definition, whenever a corps is in an
area containing a city which contains enemy corps, the city is considered to
be besieged.
    If, on the other hand, a corps moves into an area containing enemy corps
or garrisons that are already in a city (besieged or unbesieged), then the
phasing corps may continue movement or stop movement.  If the corps stops
movement then it is "besieging" the city by definition, however, the corps
is not forced to expend the resources necessary to make siege assaults.
(Corps that make siege assaults are considered to be engaged in combat
whether the assault is successful or not.  However, corps that do not make
siege assaults are not considered to be engaged in combat.)  A corps is
ineligible to make siege assault attempts if it forages for supply and uses
unconsumed movement points to modify the die roll."

    As a separate issue, I would add the following language to the end of
this section:

"It is possible that some besieging corps will choose to make assault
attempts while others in the same area will not."

Mike expressed that the "all or nothing" rule seemed a bit silly and I agree
with him.  That's why I am in favor of this extension.  But if others
disagree, then I can get by without it.

kdh

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