Re: [eia] Siege of Silistra, May 1805

[Michael Gorman <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 07:25 PM 12/3/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>     Since you were never given a choice in the matter previously and since
> knowing the result of the dice rolls is irrelevant to the decision-making
> process, I see no reason not to say that your currently expressed desires
> should dictate what happened in the siege battle.  So the garrison at
> Silistra surrendered, thereby avoiding combat and preventing Turkey from
> receiving the +1 political point.  I'm sure everyone would agree that you
> cannot be forced to accept a result just because someone rolled dice for
> you, especially when the result of the die rolls are irrelevant to the
> decision you would have made.
>     So unless you inform me differently, I will assume that there was a
> surrender at Silistra after the breach.
>
> kdh
>
> > In the future the attack rolls should not accompany the breach rolls as
> > that garrison would have surrendered rather than fought since I already
> > know the strength of the attacking corps and that my defenders could not
> > win or inflict losses.
> >
> > Mike
> >
I didn't make an issue of it because I really didn't care a hell of a lot 
either way in this case.  It pointed out to me that we should be putting a 
break between breach and assault rolls, which I have also failed to do in 
the past, but since it was over one factor, I didn't much care if they 
ended up having to fight or not.  If no one minds me deciding after the 
rolls are made that they surrendered, I might as well have them do so since 
there really was no way they could have won once the walls were breached, 
but otherwise I don't have a strong concern either way for this instance.

Mike


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