Re: [eia] detailed response from an EIH big-wig

[jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx]

The only thing I do not feel was addressed by this reply is the fact that 
multiple corps in an area together outside a city would have to roll forage 
separately, and thus would be effectively "hungrier" than the same number of 
factors inside a besieged city.

But I'm willing to play it either way, whatever the majority decides.

-JJY

Quoting 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
> 
> 


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