[eia] Kyle's proposed rule change

["J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I do not agree with this solution.  In my mind, there is a big advantage to
having a city besieged or not besieged, beyond the ability to make assault
attempts.  Controlling the types and length of battles that can be fought in
the area, forcing the besieged forces to use city foraging, etc.  I think
these advantages are too great to give to an attacker "by definition" just
for being in the area, and that the attacker should have to go through the
rigamorole of not using unused movement points for forage if they want to
gain those advantages.  Otherwise, an attacker surrounding a city with 2-3
fletches might never bother to try assaulting; the odds of a breach are too
low while the bonuses to the "besieger's" forage rolls would make it more
worthwhile to simply sit and wait.  I think this proposed house rule could
have a big effect on the way strong fortresses are attacked.

-JJY
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: [eia] Seige stuff


> > 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
>
>


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