Joel Uckelman on Sat, 7 May 2005 14:26:02 -0500 (CDT)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [eia] ambiguity at Stettin

Thus spake "J.J. Young":
> If the Prussian garrison at Stettin survives its forage roll and my =
> British corps lands inside the city, I'm not sure how we handle forage =
> for that corps.
> One the one hand, I could see it argued that by making a second besieged =
> forage check, Stettin's garrison has been put in double jeopardy.  One =
> the other hand, no second check would mean that my corps has completely =
> avoided both supply and forage risk for the turn.  Both these =
> alternatives seem off.
> A third alternative might be to stick with the 1 forage roll made by the =
> Prussian garrison, but if the arrival of the new troops modifies this =
> roll (and it will in this case), then any foraging losses that would =
> have been suffered have to be taken by the new troops.
> Anyway, I'm not trying to get away with anything here, but I just don't =
> know what the proper interpretation is.  What do you guys think ?
> -JJY

The Prussian garrison shouldn't be required to forage outside of its turn.
If the presence of the Prussian does not affect the forage number for the
British (i.e., the British do not have 5x-1 factors, for some x > 0) then
I'd say we don't even need to resolve the issue; the British corps should
just roll for itself as normal. If the British are one factor shy of a
multiple of five, though, I'd go with the harsher forage number, since they
spent part of their turn unsupplied at sea, which I suspect would be worse
than foraging in a besieged city.

eia mailing list