|Michael Gorman on 29 Jul 2002 19:35:02 -0000|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|Re: [eia] Take 2|
This is simple? What's wrong with the rules as they stand that allow there to be forces in the same area not besieging each other? This seems much more complicated than the current rules and involves interleaving the movement and combat phases and attackers not actually knowing how many troops are in their own army until after they begin a battle while defenders get to know that if they choose to go into the city, they will immediately inflict losses upon the attacker and they get to know exactly how many factors they will kill with that decision. The only area you're getting rid of steps rather than adding them is in the case of moving into an area with a depot garrison. There the rules require the garrison to decide if it will defend the depot before it knows if it will be attacked. This proposal would reverse the decision order by letting the garrison know if the force is leaving first. This would save an email but judging from the response times typically seen during this discussion, I'm not sure that's really a big deal. Barring emergencies, people have been responding promptly to emails throughout the period we've been playing this game. I'm not sure it really constitutes a major savings of time to try to cut out one email that is only going to be required now and again.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 18.104.22.168 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
The only change I see as being worth making is JJ's proposal to allow depots to be built within a city whenever the surrounding area is enemy controlled rather than only when the city is besieged. The whole issue of forces partially or wholly taking part in sieges could be changed or not changed and it doesn't much bother me either way.
Mike _______________________________________________ eia mailing list eia@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia