2) That's what I have been trying to say but then people went off on this tangent about a seige being uninterrupted. zaq actually opened the tangent and quoted the seiging rules NOT the rules for surrender and indicated that an attacking force breaking a seige was 'wrong' and against EiA and EiH which is not entirely correct, a seige can be interrupted just by battle under those very rules that were quoted.
First I never said anything about interrupted, you brought that up. What I did say was cancelled; there is a distinct difference.
I did quote the siege rules as the example includes a siege.
If the siege is interrupted has no significance for say tax collection. It is only relevant if the siege is cancelled, even if the attempt to relieve the city fails. EiA clearly states that the siege is not cancelled. The EiANW rules states that if the garrison attack the besieging force and loses, the siege is resumed which is consistent with EiA.
This was brought up as an underlying problem of the description, even if not specifically stated as a problem by the OP, it was explained as the cause by Marshall.
If the siege was interrupted only matters for determination of conquest. The subject of conquest has relevance if the besieged city is a minor capital but this is not the case in the OP's example. There is still a suggestion that the consequence of his example also applies to EiANW's implementation of conquest, which then would be inconsistent with EiA.
EiA states that a month’s uninterrupted occupation of a minor capitol is a prerequisite for conquest. Even if the relieving attempt is successful the occupier has still not fulfilled the requirements for conquest the month the siege is lifted. This is a third possible problem highlighted by the example.
All discussion in this thread assumes that control of a major capitol city is determined the same way that control is determined for a minor capital and that the same conditions that are used for determining conquest applies to check for forced surrender. This is regardless if the current implementation should be changed or not. There is to my knowledge no rule in the EiANW rules that explains the conditions for forced surrender. It would in my opinion be reasonable to assume that its not the developers intention that it should be easier to force a surrender from a major power than to conquer a minor.
The identified possible issues would then be:
1) Occupation of a major powers capital should not in itself force that major power to surrender.
2) After an unsuccessful attempt to relieve a besieged city, the siege should resume.
3) There is a suggestion that the condition requiring a month’s uninterrupted and unbesieged occupation of a minor’s capitol as per EiANW 10.7 is not implemented as stated.
