Siege battles in 1.07

[Dancing Bear]

How are seige battles going to work in 1.07? I ask because there is no chit choices for a siege battle, and often the beseiger wipes out the defender in the first round. Will 1.07 still require a file exchange, even if the attacker destroys the garrison in round 1? Will the new system require the a battle file to go from the attacker to the defender and back again, even when the defender is eliminated in round 1?

[Marshall Ellis]

I have changed nothing in the siege battle elements for 1.07.
How it runs today is how it will run.
BTW: 1.07 is almost done so not much more will be added.

[Jimmer]

With the "rolled in advance" piece that Marshall has coded, this should be a non-issue. The battles were declared during land movement, and the dice were rolled between the movement and combat phases. Thus, no matter how many times you re-roll it, nor what order you do them in, they'll always come out the same. AND, you can't know the results of ANY of them until after you have committed on ALL of them.
 
At least, that's the idea.

[Dancing Bear]

That should deal with security, but I was more worrid about the number of file exchanges, which seems unchanged, so ok.

[Jimmer]

But, the number of file exchanges could be one for the actual battle rolls, assuming the above-mentioned security changes are in place. The order would be:
 
1)  Phasing player completes all moves
2)  Phasing player sends land movement phase PBM file. Note that the rolls are included in this file. Also, the order of the battles could be important here.
3)  At least one non-phasing player being attacked acknowledges receipt of the PBM file (this step is a bit murky)
4)  Phasing player's computer calculates the results of all siege and computer-operated battles (sadly, there are still some of these beyond sieges)
5)  Siege battle results are displayed to the phasing player
6)  Siege battle results are included in the final land combat PBM file sent out by the phasing player.

[Dancing Bear]

Can you reinforce a seige battle? If so, this might apply only when there is is no chance of reinforcement.

[delatbabel]

You cannot reinforce a siege battle.  You can only reinforce a field battle.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

You cannot reinforce a siege battle.  You can only reinforce a field battle.

Yes, but including trivial combats, if memory serves.

[Dancing Bear]

In which case then, there is no need for more than one file exchange for a siege combat (or trival combat), as per Jimmers suggestion.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

In which case then, there is no need for more than one file exchange for a siege combat (or trival combat), as per Jimmers suggestion.

Yup. And, even that is purely for security reasons (to prevent cheating: a reload could be used to avoid "bad" battles).

[Dancing Bear]

In which case, it hardly seems worth while to have file exchanges for any seige combats. Why not drop all file exhanges for seiges? It is not like a seige really makes a difference to a war. The most important roll for a seige is whether or not the beseiger gets in, and that happens before the file exchange anyways. I say we drop file exchanges for seiges. What do you guys think?

[Marshall Ellis]

I think (???) that we offered this up a while ago and the overall response was to keep the exchange to help verify results BUT it's been a while ... everybody sound off here...

[obsidiandrag]

My concern is if there are corps inside the city.. then the defender needs to be able to select which troops are getting squashed etc..
 
OD

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

In which case, it hardly seems worth while to have file exchanges for any seige combats. Why not drop all file exhanges for seiges? It is not like a seige really makes a difference to a war. The most important roll for a seige is whether or not the beseiger gets in, and that happens before the file exchange anyways. I say we drop file exchanges for seiges. What do you guys think?

Speed vs. security

Without a file exchange, there's no way to know how many times a person tried to get the "right" results. For a breakin roll against Constantinople (for example), this could change the game rather extremely.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: obsidiandragon

My concern is if there are corps inside the city.. then the defender needs to be able to select which troops are getting squashed etc..

OD

I would agree with that: If there is any type of "multi-part" army present beyond militia and infantry, the battle should be fought normally.

[Dancing Bear]

Then this is basically what we have right now. If there are two or more units present, then there is a file exchange. However, the difference here, is that there is only one file exchange, not 3.

Maybe an overwhelming odds (say 5:1) mechanism can be implemented instead of the number of units types. So a defender consisting of a small corps with one factor and a one infantry factor garrison would not involve a file exchange if attacked by the Grand Army. Such a battle would be fought by the AI.

However, the main point we are making is that we don't need 3 file exchanges for siege battles.