Everett E. Proctor on 29 Jul 2002 18:07:03 -0000

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

Re: [eia] Seige stuff

I agree with what Mike says here.

> >
> >     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

Everett E. Proctor <spiritmast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

eia mailing list