Re: [eia] 2 rules questions

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    7.5.1.1.2 does seem to indicate that sieges are declared when an
opponent retires into a city (i.e. during movement).  This new information
convinces me that besiegers can't reinforce.  Thanks for finding the rule
for me.  (That is why I asked the question, after all.)
    Joel and Jim also cleared up my question about artillery as part of the
flanking force.  They informed me that artillery can't flank (which I either
didn't know or had forgotten).  The only remaining question seems to be
whether flanking guard units can be committed before arriving.  Logic seems
to dictate that they cannot, and if there is consensus for that position (as
I assume there is), then we should adopt it as a house rule (since there
doesn't appear to be any such restriction in the rules).

kdh

P.S.  Is Everett having email trouble again?  Does anyone know?  I think I'm
going to send out my Economic Phase orders early, and just amend them as
necessary once the Austrian land phase is resolved.


> I don't have the time or energy to start a major rules debate this week,
but
> I don't agree.  According to 7.5.1 or thereabouts, the act or decision of
> besieging a city takes place at the same time as field combats, not after.
> I feel that the way we have structured our land orders via email was to
say
> when each corps moves if we would have that corps lay siege (or we assume
> that it will) if the enemy we attack withdraws into a city.  At least, we
> have no history of sending separate emails announcing our decision whether
> or not to lay siege after the defender's decision whether or not to
> withdraw.
>
> And I do think that laying siege should count as "taking part in a battle"
> for the purposes of this rule, assault or not.  Army sieges are
large-scale,
> complex operations that take at least as much coordination and time as the
> preparations for a field battle, and *should* interfere with those forces'
> ability to reinforce other areas.
>
> I'm not going to stand against everyone on this, and as I said I won't
have
> time to carry on a lengthy debate, but that's my opinion.
>
> -JJY
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia

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