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

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 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.
>

    I thought that his response to this point was that an army is almost
never better off rolling forage inside a city than they would be out in the
area using all their unused movement points to modify the roll.  Let's try
out a few random examples to see if he's right about that.  (Each example
assumes that the corps involved have 3 movement and are in the major power's
territory.)

2 corps with a total of 14 factors at Adrianople - it is a '3' area and the
city has 3 spires.
    When besieged, the entire garrison will be rolling one die at 1-.
Expected losses are 2.5, max losses are 5 factors.
    If unbesieged, each corps would roll at 5-.  Expected losses are 0.333,
max losses are 2.
    During winter, each corps would roll at 3-.  Expected losses are 1, max
losses are 6.

A 7 point garrison plus 2 corps (totaling 25 factors) at Constantinople -
it's a '3' area and the city has 5 spires.
    When besieged, the entire garrison will be rolling one die at 3-.
Expected losses are 1, max losses are 3 factors.
    If unbesieged, each corps would forage automatically.  (Expected losses
are 0, max losses are 0.)
    During winter, each corps would roll at 4-.  Expected losses are 1, max
losses are 4.

3 corps at Hamburg with a total of 18 factors - it is a '4' area and the
city has 4 spires.
    When besieged, the entire garrison will be rolling one die at 2-.
Expected losses are 1.67, max losses are 4.
    If unbesieged, each corps would forage automatically.  (Expected losses
are 0, max losses are 0.)
    During winter, each corps would forage at 4-.  Expected losses are 1.5,
max losses are 6.

According to this quick survey of a few random cases, foraging losses when
besieged are indeed worse than foraging losses would be if unbesieged,
except in winter.  In winter, there appears to be a slight (but noticeable)
advantage to being besieged rather than being out in the field.  However,
the big-wig (whose name is Ragnar, by the way) made the point that a
besieged army would take fewer losses due to exposure during winter than an
army in the field would.  (Inside a city, it's easier for everyone to keep
warm.)  I thought that was an excellent point, and might explain why
besieged forage tends to be slightly better than unbesieged forage during
winter.
    (BTW, the tally on the Empires in Harm mailing list is currently 4-0 in
favor of my interpretation.  I'm actually quite surprised that *no one* has
written in opposition yet.  I'm surprised that there is such unanimity about
an issue that has such potential for disagreement.)

kdh



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