Re: [eia] St. Petersburg siege

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

   Chalk me up for being *against* using the full, combined force for each
individual attempt.

kdh

----- Original Message -----
From: <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] St. Petersburg siege


> That's what I had thought, before Ragnar's response.  How does everyone
want to
> handle this ?
>
> -JJY
>
> Quoting Kyle H <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > > This is different from what we (or at least I) had decided.  I had
thought
> > that
> > > although both non-combined besiegers would get separate attempts to
> > breach,
> > > if/when a breach is made the phasing besieger would only get to use
his
> > own
> > > forces.  What Ragnar is saying seems to be that both besiegers get
> > separate
> > > rolls, and then all of the besieging forces, phasing and non-phasing,
get
> > to
> > > participate in the battle.  Is this what we wnat to do ?  This throws
the
> > > advantage firmly to the besieging side in these situations.
> > >
> >
> >     I didn't realize that's what Ragnar was saying, but I guess you're
> > right.  Personally, I don't think it makes sense.  If GB and Spain get 2
> > siege attempts, they should not get to combine their forces for each
> > attempt.  That seems just wrong to me.  If you get twice as many
attempts,
> > each attempt should be made with (roughly) half as much force.  Doesn't
that
> > make sense?
> >
> > 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
>
>

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