Re: [eia] battle of Bordeaux: British withdrawal roll, overwhelming odds and trivial combats

["Mel Chin" <mchin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think the the problem here is not the rules but how hidden strengths
affect the combat sequence.  There shouldn't be two rolls for withdrawal.
Maybe the attacker should announce his strength with his chit pick and the
defender can state after chits are revealed (but before any other actions
are taken) whether it's a trivial combat or not. Even better, both sides can
post their units strengths with the chit pick escrow.

Mel



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joel Uckelman" <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] battle of Bordeaux: British withdrawal roll,overwhelming
odds and trivial combats


> Thus spake "Bill Jaffe":
> > I see the siege rules as rewarding primarily "fletches", which are
> > fortifications that make a city more important from a POLITICAL point.
The
> > reason having a corps present is added is because the loss of an entire
> > corps formation in a siege would be politically newsworthy, just as the
fall
> > of Lille or some of the other principalities. I actually would house
rule
> > that a 2 or more fletch city, or 4 or 5 spire city always causes PP to
be at
> > stake, even in a surrender. But I don't know if that would be
unbalancing.
> >
> > Clearly, most overwhelming odds situations are more about a small force
left
> > behind to hinder the movement of a large force, rather than these where
1
> > mid-sized corps of 8 or 10 faces a 1 point militia-based corps.
> >
> > However, I do see this as not changing the way the rule reads - you are
> > forced to trivial combat, so 7.5.3.5 doesn't apply, and there are no PPs
> > awarded.
> >
> > Bill Jaffe
> > Wargaming since Tactics (1958), and playing 18xx since 1829
> > billj@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
>
> The sole exception given for PP awards after trivial combats listed in
> 7.5.3.5 is when both sides agree to resolve a limited of field combat
> as a trivial combat. Overwhelming numbers forces this to be a trivial
> combat, so that exception doesn't apply here.
>
> There is one justfication I can think of for awarding PP when a corps
> is defeated in a siege vs being defeated in a trivial combat, namely
> that in a successful siege assault the corps staff is captured, while
> in a trivial combat presuambly many of these people slip away even if
> the corps itself ceases to exist. I think that it's the loss of the
> staff (who are presumably important people at home) that matters
> politically here, hence the PP award for the siege and not for the
> loss of a tiny battle.
>
> Also, I think that the rules as written permit a second withdrawal attempt
> in this case, though I find this odd, and think that they probably
shouldn't.
>
> -- 
> J.
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>


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