Re: [eia] Prussian forage roll

["J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nate should correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that the Austrians did
besiege Wittenburg, but did not attempt to breach this turn.  At least, all
the Austrian corps that went there paid for supply, and Nate said that no
breach roll would be attempted at Wittenburg, which implied to me that a
siege was going on.

BTW all, to avoid this kind of confusion, I usually phrase my land orders
like so:

1 I:  Erfurt ---> besiege Wittenburg

to clarify that a siege is beginning or continuing, at least in cases where
there's no question of the city garrison fighting in the field rather than
defending the city.

-JJY

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Gorman" <mpgorman@xxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 1:22 PM
Subject: RE: [eia] Prussian forage roll


> At 08:32 AM 4/16/2005, you wrote:
> >I'm presuming Mike made a typo when he said the Saxons are reduced to
> >4I, since, in addition to the fact that I also had them starting at 4I,
> >if they had started the turn with 6I he would have to have foraged at
> >3-, not 4-.  I agree that they should have 2I remaining.
>
> Their forage roll does not vary with strength as they are not
> besieged.  They forage normally, three available movement and within home
> nation, but penalties of 2 for winter and 2+ for other corps in the area.
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>
>


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