Michael Gorman on 29 Jul 2002 17:48:02 -0000

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

Re: [eia] Seige stuff

"  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.


eia mailing list