Oh those tricky Romans! Rule challenge...

[lavanpk]

I want a penalty flag thrown on this move! Here's my rule challenge and what happened in my game:

Can an Army that declined combat turn around and intercept another Army in the same phase? The manual states "a general who declines combat forfeits the right to use Interception for the remainder of the current Campaign Phase".

What happened: During their turn, a Roman Army under Marcellus invades Zeugitania, conquers Utica then procedes to place Carthage under siege. On my next turn I call on my trusty ally, king Syphax, to relieve the siege. The Roman general declines combat against Syphax & the Carthage garrison and ends the siege. OK, so next I direct Syphax & his Numidian army to re-take Utica. As the Numidians move to storm Utica, Marcellus promptly intercepts poor Syphax and destroys his army. Nice move by the Romans, but I didn't think this was possible or I would not have tried to re-take Utica.

So why can Marcellus intercept Syphax when he has already declined combat in the same phase?

[nalivayko]

Oh, that Marcellus... A thorn in the Carthaginian butt

If you are correct in quoting the manual, that I would support your rule challenge... probably should be posted in Tech Support forum though?

[Treefrog]

strayduck,

I hope you saved it before poor Syphax moved on Utica. If you did, seems like he could concentrate the mobile garrison from Carthage to join him attacking Utica, then move them back into Carthage.

On a different, are you any relation to Blue Duck, the character in Larry McMurtry's Lonesome Dove?

[mercenarius]

Well, the game currently treats a leader's decision to abandon a siege in a different way. I admit that the tutorial and the manual do not make this situation clear.

I do see your point and I will consider a rule change. It's worth noting that leaders who are conducting a siege may not intercept at all. On the other hand, you get the option-card draw if they abandon their siege.

The forfeiture of the right to intercept is based on the idea that the defending leader has to retreat to a defensible position and isn't free to move around any more. A leader who lifts a siege still has operational freedom - unless the relieving army is strong enough to attack him and force him to hole up in his camp.

Let me note that it may also be unclear that abandoning the siege doesn't count as the "you can only catch a general with his pants down once for each attacking leader" business. So if you then proceed to attack the (formerly) besieging army in the field, that leader doesn't get an automatic right to decline pitched battle.

I will have to think about this. Thanks for raising this point. It's definitely worth considering a rule change or at least a clarification in the manual.

[nalivayko]

Well, if put this way... Syphax appears under the walls of Carthage, Marcellus retreats, Syphax marches back to Uttic, while Marcellus follows him in secret... Nothing that couldn't have happen in real life (Treefrog is right, a better move would have been picking up reinforcements in Carthage... provided there were any). Better yet, pick up reinorcements in Carthage, offer battle to Marcellus (hopefully, still outnumbered), have him decline battle and only then proceeding to besiege/assault Utica.

So, the difference is between shutting oneself up in camp and retreating from siege (not taking defensive position). I'd vote for clarification in the manual (and in game tips) rather than changing the rules.

[Treefrog]

.... and while we are talking about camps, why can't one beseige a camp just like a city?
Don't tell Vercingetorix it can't happen.

[mercenarius]

The idea is that an army based in a temporary fort could move out when it saw a threat developing but a city of course cannot.

Also, the defensive advantage of an army in its camp may be nothing more than favorable terrain. If the attacking army tries to flank it, the defender can just retreat a little.

The rule as it stands is somewhat simplistic, but I think that it works OK.

[lavanpk]

Treefrog, nalivayko,

As far as strategy goes, I wasn't confident Syphax plus the mobile elements units (13 total) from Carthage could beat Marcellus and his army in the field (12 legions) especially given Marcellus' leadership edge. I think Marcellus would have gladly accepted a pitched battle against Syphax after leaving the siege. Perhaps combining the armies under Syphax would have been wiser before attacking Utica, but then I didn't think that Marcellus would still be able to intercept him after refusing battle to break the siege.

And no, I'm not related to Blue Duck character of "Lonesome Dove" fame - I'm closer to the Oregon Duck...

[nalivayko]

strayduck, even if Marcellus did not intercept you, wouldn't he still smash Syphax's army during Roman turn?

mercenarius, I do agree. I can think of several historic examples where the enemy was able to slip from his own camp undetected (Hannibal himself could have easily provide a couple or more). I can also think of some examples where the enemy was besieged in his own camp, but they are not as numerous. Either way, it's a developer's call. There are few real life scenarios that the rules of the game do not support, but as real life goes, every rule gets broken once in a while, it would be a nightmare to simulate them in game.

Scenario examples:

1) Per treefrog, an enemy camp can be besieged;
2) An army sallying out can be defeated and yet manage to escape the siege (i.e. retreat elsewhere);
3) A besieging army can refuse to battle to enemy sallying out by either retreating to its own encampments or lifting the siege altogather (an option I wish I had so many times when the Romans sallied out of Rome).

[lavanpk]

mercenarius,

Thanks for your response. I understand your rationale and the game is excellent as is though amending the manual to clarify this would be helpful. Though I'm not entirely convinced that refusing a pitched battle should be treated any different when a general is conducting a siege versus when he is not with regards to interception. In both cases hasn't he surrendered the initiative to the attacker/reliever? Hmm... perhaps a die roll (to use the board game analogy) based on the commander's rating would be a way to see if the general can intercept in both cases rather than an absolute yes or no interception chance. Great game by the way!

Did I mention this is a great game?

[lavanpk]

nalivayko,

Interesting point. If Marcellus hadn't intercepted Syphax I probably would have had him join the Carthage city forces - or would Syphax now be subject to Marcellus intercepting him before entering Carthage even though Marcellus had refused battle to break the siege? So a besieging army cannot intercept anyone. Yet a besieging army that retreats can intercept another army including presumably even the relieving force as it tries to enter the once besieged city? Not sure if the game actually would play out like that but I don't think this is right.

[mercenarius]

Armies entering friendly cities are not subject to interception. They are subject to interception when they exit a friendly city.

As an aside, let me note that moving into a city is the most practical way for two generals to combine forces. That's because it's OK if both forces have been moved by different leaders. In the field, armies can only combine if all units are eligible to move with the current leader.