Michael Gorman on 12 Aug 2002 17:46:04 -0000


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

Re: [eia] condensed garrison issues in votable format

At 12:42 AM 8/11/2002 -0400, you wrote:

> ISSUE 1A:  GARRISON MIGRATION.  Can factors from a pre-existing city
> garrison become part of a depot garrison at the time that a new depot is
> created in the same area?
>     - The rules seem to say NO.  (For example, see 7.3.4.)
>     - In the past, we have said YES.
>     - My recommendation is YES.

I vote YES, and I don't even think that the rules contradict this view.

I agree with JJ.  That seems to be fully supported by the rules.

> ISSUE 1B:  DEFAULTS?  If we say YES to Issue 1A, should we come up with
> default assumptions regarding whether a city garrison migrates when a new
> depot is created?
>     - The rules have no bearing on this issue.
>     - In the past, we have had a default (city garrison becomes depot
> garrison), but that default would not have a clear application in all
cases.
> (See previous email for a discussion of difficult cases.)
>     - My recommendation is NO; depot creators must explicitly decide which
> (if any) city garrison factors become depot garrison factors.  Depot
> creators are to be prompted if necessary to make these decisions.

I vote YES to a default, but only where the eligible factors that could
become part of the depot garrison number 10 or less.

I think it has to be defined when enemy forces arrive if it is a pure garrison factor force, no corps present, or at the beginning of the combat phase if there are corps present. So, I don't believe it is necessary to define which factors are where when the garrison or depot is created.

> ISSUE 1C:  CASE-BY-CASE DEFAULTS.  If we say YES to Issue 1B, what will
the
> defaults be for each of the distinct cases mentioned in my previous email?
> (See below.)
>     - The rules have no bearing on this issue.
>     - Past experience is inapplicable.
>     - I have no recommendation.

See my vote for 1B above.

My thoughts on 1B lead me to feel this case is unnecessary.

> ISSUE 2A: CAN CORPS BURN DEPOTS?  If an ungarrisoned depot and a corps of
> the same nationality are in the same area when an enemy corps arrives,
does
> the corps have the option of burning the depot (as if the corps were a
depot
> garrison)?
>     - The rules seem to say NO.  (See 7.3.3.3.1, 7.3.3.3.2, 7.3.6.1, and
> 7.3.6.2.)
>     - In the past, we have said YES.
>     - My recommendation is YES.

YES.
7.3.3.5.1: All army factors/corps used to garrison a depot must be of the same major power as the depot.

As Corps can be part of a depot garrison, I see no reason why they cannot do anything a depot garrison can do.  The big difference is that if you have corps garrisoning the depot, then you know the enemy force has to cease movement when they enter the space so there is no issue of burning the depot and having the enemy force just keep moving.  I guess you would technically be required to make that decision before the attacker has to announce they will exercise their only choice, to cease movement, but I would think we could just let that get decided after movement.  If an attacker wanted to force the decision before the defender knew where all the attacking corps were going, they should have the right to do that, but in most cases, I figure you could send all your movement orders and then let the defender decide.


> ISSUE 2B:  HOW ABOUT ALLIED OR CONTROLLED MINOR FREE STATE CORPS?  If we
say
> YES to Issue 2A, can allied or minor free state corps burn ungarrisoned
> friendly depots?
>     - The rules have no direct bearing on this issue, but indirectly they
> seem to indicate NO.  (See 7.3.3.5.1 and 7.3.3.5.2.)
>     - I believe that in the past we have said YES.
>     - My recommendation is YES.

Controlled free state corps YES, allied corps NO.
        I agree with JJ on this one too.  As allied corps cannot be a part of a depot garrison, the depot would be considered ungarrisoned if the only forces in the area were allied corps.  This would lead to the oddity of being able to convert the depot in the presence of allied corps who would be unable to prevent the conversion.  We might want to disallow conversion in the presence of an allied army, but I don't believe the allied army would be allowed to burn the depot in either case.


> ISSUE 2C:  OWNER PERMISSION.  If we say YES to Issue 2B, can an allied
corps
> burn an ungarrisoned friendly depot without first obtaining permission
from
> the depot owner (assuming that the depot owner has no forces present in
the
> area)?
>     - The rules have no bearing on this issue.
>     - Past experience is not applicable.
>     - My recommendation is YES.

NO.
I'm going to have to say no on this one.  I would not be bothered by the rule, but I think allowing the allied army to defend the corps from conversion would be a sufficient middle ground.  I will point up to my thought on allied corps and depot conversion in the previous issue again though and suggest that people think about that as an alternative.

> ISSUE 3A:  BESIEGED SUPPLY.  Does each besieged corps and each besieged
> garrison within the same city have to roll *separately* against the city's
> besieged supply value?
>     - The rules are ambiguous on this issue depending on one's
> interpretation of the wording.  (See 7.4.5 and 7.4.5.1.)
>     - In the past, we have said YES.
>     - My recommendation is NO.

Definitely YES, although all factors in a city not in a corps are part of a
single city garrison (note the unambiguous single noun "garrison" in
7.4.5.2).

I would say it should be a single roll for the entire city.  This view is based on:

7.3.3.3.2: Corps may form all or part of a city garrison without detaching army factors, so that any types of army factors in such corps could also be a garrison.

7.4.5 Besieged Supply: Unless eligible for sea or invasion supply, besieged garrisons and corps {must} check for supply by the foraging method, using the {city} supply value (which equals the number of spires in the city picture) rather than the forage value of the area containing the city.

7.4.5.2 Besieged Foraging Losses: For each point of the die roll over the city supply value, one army factor of the besieged garrison and/or corps is lost. If all the besieged army factors are lost, any besieged leaders become prisoners of the besiegers and the besieging forces {may} immediately detach factors to control the city. Note: Unbesieged corps in a city use the forage value of the area in which they are in, not the city supply value.

7.3.3.3.2 seems to say that there is a single city garrison that the corps can be a piece of and therefore there should be only one forage roll as there is only a single entity that makes up the city garrison.  I can see JJ's view coming out of 7.4.5 but I believe the plurals in that clause are making it a general statement that anything besieged must forage, not to mean that garrisons and corps are to be considered different things in the same city.

As 7.4.5.2 refers to a single die roll resulting in losses from a garrison and/or a corps I think it must be also true that a single roll could apply to both a pure garrison factor and to a corps factor.  Therefore, it must be the case that corps and garrison factors form a single City Garrison that suffers losses as a single entity.

> ISSUE 3B:  DISTINGUISHING GARRISONS.  If we say YES to Issue 2A, do
garrison
> factors of different (but allied or controlled minor free state)
> nationalities count as separate garrisons?
>     - The rules do not address this issue.
>     - Past experience is not applicable.
>     - My recommendation is NO.

NO, all the factors in a city not in a corps are part of one city garrison.

I would also say No.  The rules are explicit that this is not the case for depots, but the lack of a corresponding declaration for cities implies to me that all factors in a city are part of the same garrison.

Mike


Oh, had a great time out at GenCon this year.  It'll be moving to Indianapolis next year so there are two possible Cons for everyone out in Columbus to consider.  I want to get down to Origins or GenCon next year, but I doubt I'll bother going to both.  My expectation is that the two will merge in the next few years as they're too close together and happen one right after the other.