Re: [eia] Seige stuff

[Michael Gorman <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> "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."

        My concern with this rule is that it is now very easy to starve an 
enemy force without substantial risk to your own force.  You can have a 
force in the area using normal supply rules while forcing an enemy that you 
aren't besieging to use siege supply.  It is now going to be better in many 
cases to not besiege someone since they have to act like they're under 
attack when they actually aren't.
        Let's take a look at Constantinople as an example.  Right now it's 
full of the bulk of the Turkish regular army.  Granted, that might change 
by the next turn, but let's assume it doesn't.  I move my corps in and 
attack.  We'll assume I win the field battle outside the city so we can get 
to the example of this proposed rule in action.  Constantinople will have 
at least 15 infantry factors inside, 10 of the 25 point garrison could be 
depot garrison and fight outside if the depot was left on the field, and 
they have a real morale value and can cause significant casualties before I 
could wipe them all out.  So, I decide to just ignore them and make them 
act like they're under siege.  They have one turn when their fleet can 
supply them, but then I can move my fleet down to the blockade box the 
following naval phase since I control the area around the city.  Now I just 
ignore the city, take advantage of the high supply value of the area to 
allow my force to forage automatically and let the Constantinople garrison 
starve without having to pay the cost of supplying my army or risking 
foraging losses like I'm supposed to when I besiege a city.  I even get 
around the rule that garrison factors only have to roll for supply when 
they're besieged.

        The concerns about an enemy retiring into the city you just left 
can be completely avoided by leaving a single garrison factor in the city, 
thus making it a non-friendly, non-vacant city and thus ineligible for the 
force you're attacking to retire into.  If you choose instead to abandon 
the city entirely and go out into the countryside to find the enemy force, 
then you run the risk that they'll maneuver around you and occupy the city 
you abandoned, at that point you can besiege them or whatever but it was 
your own fault that they had the option.

Mike


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