Re: [eia] One besieged forage roll or many?

[jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx]

I see what you're saying about the language of the besieged supply rules 
(although I still prefer my interpretation), but the gist of my argument is 
that since corps must normally forage separately when they occupy the same map 
area, I don't see any convincing reason why it should be handled differently 
inside a besieged city.  I'm sure you already see this, I'm just summing up for 
clarity.  It seems to me that the foraging rules in a besieged situation should 
be, if anything, harsher (in the sense of number of rolls, and thus, potential 
losses) than the situation in an open area.  Your proposal seems to be more 
generous, instead, unless I am misunderstanding.

-JJY



P.S:  Keep us updated on any response from Empires in Harm.  Anyone else is 
welcome to join in the discussion, too.
Quoting Kyle H <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> > I think that since 7.4.5.2 uses the language "besieged garrison and/or
> > corps" this definitely implies the possibility of multiple forage rolls
> > inside the same city, or they just would have said "garrison" or
> "occupying
> > forces".  I'm not sure what relevance 7.5.4.1 has at all.  Please explain
> > more fully.
> 
>     I take your point that in other foraging situations, losses are taken
> irrespective of the number of factors in each corps.  However, I'm not sure
> that the phrase "besieged garrison and/or corps" lends significant weight
> to
> your position against mine.  The sentence that phrase is in talks about how
> to take foraging losses.  By saying "besieged garrison and/or corps", the
> rules are simply indicating that you can choose to lose foraging losses
> from
> either of those sources.  However, this is helpful in that I now am able to
> see more clearly how you are reading that language.
> 
>     If in a previous email I wrote "7.5.4.1", then that was a typo.  What I
> intended to write was 7.4.5.1.  That rule describes the procedure for how
> to
> take care of besieged supply.  It reads: "The foraging die roll modifiers
> are not used for besieged supply.  Instead, for every *full* 5 army factors
> in the besieged city (regardless of whether the factors are part of a corps
> or merely a garrison) '+1' is added to the die, to a maximum of '+2'.  *For
> example, a city with 5-9 army factors would have '+1' added to the die
> roll.*  No other modifiers apply."  (emphasis is in the text)
>     This language refers to a single die roll ("the die roll").  Now I
> don't
> claim that this is convincing evidence against your view, because the rules
> could just be using the singular in a very general sense.  But recall that
> you used exactly the same kind of evidence to conclude that there can only
> be one garrison inside a city.  (You referred to the singular nature of the
> term "garrison" in 7.4.5.2.  If my reasoning is unconvincing here, then
> yours is unconvincing there.)
>     I can sum up my position this way:  if your interpretation were
> correct,
> then a much clearer statement would have been, "For example, a city with
> 5-9
> army factors would have '+1' added to EACH die roll."  Of course, just
> because the rules weren't written with maximal clarity, doesn't mean that
> you are wrong.  (I have certainly found other places where the rules could
> have been written more clearly.)  However, it still counts as evidence...
> 
>     Again, I don't claim that my reasoning is airtight.  I don't claim that
> it shows that I'm right and you're wrong.  I think that there are two
> reasonable positions one could come to given the language.  I prefer mine
> because I think it makes more intuitive sense.  While I admit that I'm less
> sure of my position now than I was earlier this morning, I'm certainly not
> ready to give up on it entirely.  I'm curious to find out what people on
> the
> EIH list serve will say.  (So far there have been two responses, both
> agreeing with my position.  But none of the big-wigs have responded yet.)
> I'll let you know what I hear.
> 
> kdh
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
> 
> 


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