Michael Gorman on 4 Dec 2002 17:52:02 -0000


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [eia] Siege of Silistra, May 1805


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