[eia] detailed response from an EIH big-wig

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    As promised, here is the text of a response to an email I sent to a
big-wig on the EIH mailing list.  In the email I sent, I explained what I
thought were some of the core points in favor of JJ's position and asked the
guy what his responses would be.  (Apologies to JJ if I didn't get his
points right.  I just used the points that I thought were most persuasive.
Sorry if I missed any.)  Although he snipped some of the arguments I sent
him, I think you can still get the gist of what I was trying to say on JJ's
behalf.  Here's the text.  (The points I sent on JJ's behalf are are
indented with the '>' symbol.  The big-wig's replies follow with no
indenting.)

>    Recently, my opponent wrote me the following in support
> of his view:  "...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. ...
Because they lose most of their other "corps" properties as well:
movement, detaching, standing down...

> 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..."

The besieged forage modifier does stress that the number of factors is
important, not the number of corps. Why would 2 corps(1i) and 1i be 3 times
as hungry as 3i??

>    Do you have any reply to the intuitive point that, in
> general, when an army is besieged, it should be losing
> factors more quickly rather than less quickly?
>
I don't think there's much of a comparison. Let's not forget that foraging
while moving is not starvation but mostly attrition due to exhaustion,
desertions, frozen toes, etc. You don't have a lot of trouble with fatigue,
desertion and cold inside a besieged city.

The best comparison is would be the same situation unbesieged, but in that
case, the corps forage normally(use the area value, +3 for movement, etc). I
don't think it's possible to make a comparison that makes sense in game
terms. Normal forage implies that the corps have freedom of movement, a
siege implies they do not.

As to the actual question: "Should a besieged army lose more or less factors
than one unbesieged?", yes, I think it probably should. And it will be very
rare when not besieging an enemy to let them do more forage rolls will make
any sense(3 non-French corps inside Toulon in winter).

> present.  But if this is right, then why does 7.4.5 say,
> "...besieged garrisons and corps must check for supply by
> the foraging method..."?  Why does it mention corps
> separately if it is understood that corps are part of
> garrisons?
>
I have no idea. Possibly because the glossary on garrisons does not include
corps in its list while they most certainly are inside besieged cities at
times. Still, if "garrisons" does not include corps, why assume it does
include guerillas and cossacks? Their participation as a past of the whole
is mentined under 7.3.3.3.1, with the exact wording of 7.3.3.3.2. That would
lead to the conclusion that besieged guerillas/cossacks don't need to roll
for supply at all.


>    Here's one more argument my opponent is likely to make
[..]
>  7.4.5.1 simply tells you how to calculate the modifier,
> but that modifier is still *used* in the same way that it
> would be used in the normal foraging method (namely, it is
> used for each corps individually).
>
That's a bit convoluted:
Step 1: normal forage = 1 dr per corps.
Step 2: besieged forage = normal forage.
Step 3: besieged forage = 1dr per(garrison and corps).
Step 4: besieged forage = 1dr per garrison and 1dr per corps.

It seems obvious to me though, that
1dr per(garrison and corps) <> 1dr per garrison and 1dr per corps

And if you're reasoning like this, you first define the "normal method"
properly:
"A die is rolled for each foraging corps"
Why wouldn't that become:
"A die is rolled for each besieged city"
instead of:
"A die is rolled for each garrison and corps in a besieged city"

So if it is an argument, it's the same as the last one.
(i.e."garrisons _and_ corps")

Some questions for the "other side":
- Please define a corps in a city in such a way that it is not also a
garrison, as mentioned in 7.3.3.3.2. Since it must forage as a garrison
_and_ as a corps, would it not need to roll twice?

- Effectively, every single factor in a city that is not part of a corps is
another garrison. Why not forage for every factor seperately then?

- How many forage rolls does a garrison of multiple nationalities have to
make?

All-in-all, I do not think their explanation is completely daft. The most
troublesome about it is that it is rooted and supported by only one phrase
"besieged garrisons and corps must check for supply". Imo, that leaves a lot
of room for error. One roll per city seems the most obvious choice. If not,
besieged depot supply s/b handled in the same way as well (pay extra for the
corps). And there's the small inconsistency w/r to guerillas and cossacks.

Well, good luck.

kdh


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