[eia] fed up

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>          This is simple?

Actually, yes, it is.

>  What's wrong with the rules as they stand that
> allow there to be forces in the same area not besieging each other?

Perhaps you could explain these rules to me, because clearly I don't
understand them.  And if you could cite where you are getting your
interpretation along the way, that would help.

This
> seems much more complicated than the current rules and involves
> interleaving the movement and combat phases

Could you please explain this remark.  I don't see how my suggestion
interleaves 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.

Could you please explain this remark.  I don't see how my suggestion leaves
the attacker in the dark about how many factors are available.  The whole
point is that if enemy stacks are in the same square, they must all be in
combat with one another.  So the attacker's strength is whatever he's got
there.

>          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.

So be it.  Here's what I suggest you do, Mike.  Try doing what I did.  I
laid out all the various options that a corps could encounter (an unbesieged
enemy corps, a besieged enemy corps, a city garrison, a depot garrison) and
explain to me what the rules say about these situations.  That way we will
all know what the basis of your criticisms are.

    For instance, I take it that your understanding of the rules as they are
written allows a corps to be in a city unbesieged with enemy corps in the
area.  You claim that the corps in the city can use normal supply under
these circumstances and that to initiate an attack would be a field battle.
Mike, these are things you are making up.  These are not found in the rules
anywhere.  In fact, as JJ pointed out quite correctly, I thought, the rules
as they are written seem to assume that whenever there are enemy corps in
the area outside the city that is enemy controlled, there must be a siege
going on.  So much for playing by the "rules as they are written", huh?
    The point is that there are subtle inconsistencies in these rules such
that there is *no such thing* as playing by the rules as they are written.
You apparently have an interpretation of the best way to understand the
rules as they are written.  Please tell us what that interpretation is in
detail so that we can evaluate it.  But please don't pretend that your
interpretation is the same as "the rules as they are written".  Much as we
might not like it, we have embarked on a constructivist enterprise.  We are
filling in the gaps as we go.  I tried my best to accommodate my
understanding of the rules and what I took to be the constraints of an
email-based game.  You thought that attempt was overly complicated.  So
let's see your attempt, and we'll see whether it holds water.  For instance,
if it has as a consequence that a corps inside a city that chooses to engage
a corps outside the city gives the outside corps the opportunity to retire
into the city, then your interpretation is full of crap.  ...  But why
anticipate problems?  Why don't you send us the details of your
interpretation first, and I'll criticize it later.

Ok, I'm done.

kdh


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