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

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    Oops.  I just realized that my "Adrianople" example below is calculated
as if the area's forage value were '2' rather than '3'.  So instead of
thinking about Adrianople, think about Galatz instead.

kdh

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 8:35 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] detailed response from an EIH big-wig


> > 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
>

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