Re: [eia] relief battle clarification

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thus spake "J.J. Young":
> What I think is weird is that capturing a city
> > mid-battle could make the besiegers better off than had they held the city
> > prior to the battle.
> 
> If the besieged city fell in mid-battle, all (well, most of) the forces
> previously committed by the besieger to keeping the city sealed up would be
> freed up to join their comrades on the outer lines fighting the relievers.
> I think this would have a bad effect on the morale of the relievers.

But that frequently did not happen. Even well-disciplined troops 
sometimes sacked the cities they'd invested (e.g., Kleber's men sacked
Jaffa in 1799), making them useless and unavailable for anything else.
 
> BTW, maybe this is a question which we could refer to the Empires in Harm
> people and see how they do it.  I would be willing to go along with their
> consensus.

I'm not suggesting anymore that the rules are unclear on the point. What
I'm suggesting is that the rules don't make sense.

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