[eia] Take 2

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Was I mistaken in thinking that we had agreed that the forces involved in
> a siege must be all or nothing ?
>
> -JJY

    I think we were all in agreement that that's what the rules *say*.  I
don't think we were in agreement that the rules *make sense*.  However,
perhaps everything is simpler if we stick with all-or-nothing.  I'm willing
to yield on that one.
    And I'm also willing to accept defeat on my proposed rule.  I see JJ and
Mike's points about the impact my proposal would have had on siege combats.
So, ok, that proposal is off the table.  So back to square one.  Maybe it
would help to start off by enumerating the principles that should be
included in any adequate proposal.  Here are the principles that I think
should be included in any proposed rule:

EXPEDITION PRINCIPLE:  Whatever rule we adopt should not entail that other
players need to make decisions and send emails *in the middle* of another
player's land phase.  That is, the rule should allow each player to send out
all their land phase orders at once, with other players making whatever
decisions need to be made later.

SIMPLICITY PRINCIPLE:  Rather than devising a whole new set of rules for
what happens when two corps share the same space but are not attacking one
another, we should try to ensure that whenever two corps share the same
space, they are attacking one another.

GARRISON PRINCIPLE:  What we do with corps and what we do with city
garrisons are two entirely different things.  I'm willing to accept that
attacking corps must lay siege to a town containing enemy corps if they end
their movement there.  If we decide that such attacks are required in order
to maintain overall consistency with the supply rules, then that's fine.
However, it is important to me that corps can ignore enemy garrisons if they
want to.  I think that, however messed up the wording in 7.3.7.1 may be,
this point at least is incontrovertible.  I have relied on it in my previous
orders, and I need that understanding to remain.

    Actually, having laid out these 3 principles, I'm coming to a very
simple understanding of how these rules should work.  Here's what I'm
thinking now:

WHEN A CORPS MOVES INTO AN AREA CONTAINING AN UNBESIEGED ENEMY CORPS:
    *  the corps must halt movement and declare an attack
    *  for each corps that enters such a space, if it is foraging for
supply, it must send two supply options in the land phase orders - one for
if the defender decides to retire and the other if the defender does not.
(If the phasing player forgets to do this, then it is his problem if, after
he has already rolled for forage, he is required to lose more factors
because the defender chose to retire, thereby negatively modifying the
forage rolls.)
    *  if the defender does not retire, there will be a field combat (or
limited field combat)
    *  if the defender does retire, there will be a siege assault attempt

(These rules guarantee that if a corps is in an area with another corps,
there is either a land combat going on or a siege attempt.)

WHEN A CORPS MOVES INTO AN AREA CONTAINING A BESIEGED ENEMY CORPS:
    *  the corps may or may not continue moving, at the phasing player's
option
    *  if the corps stays, then it must join the siege

WHEN A CORPS MOVES INTO AN AREA CONTAINING AN ENEMY CITY GARRISON:
    *  the corps may or may not continue moving, at the phasing player's
option
    *  if the corps stays, it may or may not lay siege at the phasing
player's option
    *  if the corps does not lay siege, then it does not count as having
participated in combat for that land phase

(Since unbesieged garrisons do not need to be supplied, we don't run into
the same kind of problems we had by leaving unbesieged corps in cities
surrounded by enemy corps.)

WHEN A CORPS MOVES INTO AN AREA CONTAINING A GARRISONED ENEMY DEPOT:
    *  the corps may or may not continue moving, at the phasing player's
option
    *  if the corps stops movement, the garrison may destroy the depot and
retire to the city, if it fits  (Those factors that do not fit inside the
city must surrender.)
    *  when this happens, the corps may or may not lay siege at the phasing
player's option
    *  if the corps stops movement and the garrison decides not to destroy
the depot, then there will be trivial combat between the garrison and the
incoming corps.

    It seems to me that adoption of these rules guidelines would resolve all
of our problems.  Or is there something else that I'm not seeing?

kdh





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