Re: [eia] question about multi-national sieges

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thus spake "J.J. Young":
>
> For the record, I don't think the intention of the rule is to allow "tag =
> team" sieges; but the idea of one ally having to march away so that the =
> other ally can attack the city seems very wierd, too.  Maybe the =
> resolution should be that a siege should not be allowed at all.  I don't =
> know.
> 
> -JJY

Here's a Bad Thing that would be possible if no siege were allowed in 
situations like these: Say Russia is besieging Constantinople. Turkey and 
Britain could then collude to prevent the Russians from capturing 
Constantinople by going to war with Britain and allowing a British force to 
land there. Then the only way for Russia to ever capture the city would be 
to declare war on Britain. This is extremely wonky. However we resolve 
this, it should not be by preventing sieges.

-- 
J.


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