Re: [eia] ambiguity at Stettin

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    I think the British would have to make a separate besieged forage roll
when they arrive at Stettin.  Since they were not part of the garrison
during Prussia's turn, it does not make sense that they can "benefit" from
Prussia's roll by allowing Prussian troops to take all the casualties (if
any).  BTW, I think they will also need to make separate besieged forage
rolls in the future, unless GB and Prussia combine movement.  Only under
combined movement could the Prussian and British forces inside Stettin be
considered "one garrison".

kdh

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 11:44 AM
Subject: [eia] ambiguity at Stettin


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

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

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