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

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    One of the big-wigs on the EiH message board replied to me today (one of
the list administrators).  He is also in favor of my position.  (That makes
it 3-0 so far.)  Here's what he wrote:
Well, try the original EiA rules for reference and try reading onward a
little:

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.

This -imo- clearly (;-) indicates that the garrison and corps inside take
their roll together as one, since the losses are applicable to either. Had
your group been right, it'd have said:

"For each point of _a_ die roll over the city supply value, one army factor
of the besieged garrison _or_ corps is lost."

Also, when actually paying for supply, 7.4.2.1.2 Besieged Port Garrison
Depot Supply: Besieged port city garrisons using sea supply through a depot
in the port city cost half a money point per garrison to supply.  Besieged
port city garrisons using invasion supply cost one money point per garrison
to supply as they are in an adjacent area.


The problem arises from the idea that a corps inside a city is anything but
simply another counter that is part of the garrison(as mentioned in
7.3.3.3.2).

I've replied to him with a few arguments that I anticipate you would make
against his position.  When he responds, I'll forward that as well.

kdh


----- Original Message -----
From: <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 10:19 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] One besieged forage roll or many?


> 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
>

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