Kyle H on 31 Jul 2002 17:37:06 -0000

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

[eia] Looks like I'm wrong after all.

    Well, after all this fussin' and a-fightin', I finally did what I
usually do to begin with:  consult the Empires in Harm rules and see how
they deal with the situation.  It turns out EiH takes Mike's interpretation
that enemy stacks can co-exist in the same space without a siege.  They make
it a bit more explicit by writing:

"Sieges must be declared when they commence.  Failure to do so assumes that
the forces are in the area surrounding the city, but are not besieging the
city.  (This has implications for the city garrison's supply situation.)"

    So I wrote to the EiH mailing list about some of my questions and I got
a response from one of the list administrators that you can read for
yourself if you like.  The gist is that he doesn't have any easy answers
either.  However, he directed me to another piece of EiA rules language
which I don't recall seeing before and which is fairly definitive.  The last
line of reads: "Unbesieged corps in a city use the forage value of
the area in which they are in, not the city supply value."  Not the best
grammar in the world, but it gets the point across pretty clearly.  (Sorry
if someone had already pointed this language out to me.  If anybody did, I
must have missed it.)

    So Mike is right and I am wrong, at least when it comes to the issue of
enemy stacks being in the same space without a siege.  However, I'm not
convinced that Mike is right about his attempt to strictly separate the
movement and combat phases, but it's of relatively little importance now.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: polysorbate80 [mailto:polysorbate80@xxxxxxxxx]
> Only recently did I discover the wording in 7.5.4 which
> reads, "Sieges must be declared when they commence.  Failure to do
> so assumes that the forces are in the area surrounding the city, but
> are not besieging the city.  (This has implications for the city
> garrison's supply situation.)"  Up until that time, I had always
> assumed that corps that ended movement in an area containing enemy
> corps had to launch an attack, be it a field combat or a siege
> combat.  But this rule shows that my original interpretation was
> wrong.  However, now that I understand this rule, it seems to bring
> up a number of difficulties that I hope someone can help me with.
> SUPPLY QUESTIONS: 1.) Do the attacking corps have to consider the
> defending corps (inside the city) as in the area when the attacking
> corps forage using the area value?

Yes. Being in the city is still considered being in the area. The forage
penalty is +1 per _unbesieged_ corps. Since the corps inside the city isn't
besieged, it counts.

> 2.) Do the defending corps forage using the area value or besieged supply?
Yes. This is mention in the EiA rules(, at the end), albeit in an
obscure location.

> 3.) Why can't defending corps inside a city that is not besieged create a
> Rule 7.2.2 reads, "If such a port is besieged, then the depot is
> placed in the port city itself. This is the only case where the
> depot is considered to be in a city rather than in the surrounding
> area."  This rule says very specifically that there must be a siege
> in order for there to be a depot in a city space.  Why is this true
> if it is possible for enemy corps to be in the surrounding area
> without laying siege?
Interesting question. No idea. Especially in winter, this may pose a

> COMBAT QUESTIONS:  4.) Suppose the defending corps inside the city
> choose to come out and attack the attackers in the area.  Is this a
> garrison attack combat or a field combat?  I presume it is a field
> combat since garrison attack combats require a siege.
I agree, (trivial) field combat.

> 5.) Assuming that it is a field combat, when the defender takes
> the field to attack the enemy corps, can the enemy corps fall back
> into the city (if it is left open)?  That seems very strange to me
> since, presumably, the corps that just left the city would be between
> the city and the enemy corps, thereby blocking access.
Hmm, good question again. You would seem to be right. Also, the corps in the
city cannot detach any factors as a permanent garrison to prevent
this(EiA: Although this _is_ very strange, it seems to be correct.
There would seem to be some disadvantage to garrisoning a city with just a
corps and no lose factors.

> Basically, my entire understanding of how to play EiA/H has recently
> been shaken to its foundation, and I'm trying to put the pieces back
> together.  Any help would be appreciated.
> Thanks in advance,
> Kyle
Not sure if I'm helping, but I tried..


eia mailing list