Matrix Games Forums

I cannot find the thread where this subject was being discussed, so I'll start a new one. This is a new variant of the problem, though, and it makes the problem much bigger than it was.

The root problem being discussed was that when a relieving force attacked a besieging force, a victorious besieging force was left in the rural area, not back besieging as it should have been.

Well, the problem is a lot worse than we thought. In fact, the besieging force has the siege lifted BEFORE FORAGING occurs. As a result, the garrison never has to forage, even if all the owner does is throw a 1-factor corps against the besiegers. This really perverts the way things should work in these situations.

The siege should NOT be lifted until the relieving force WINS the combat.

This really changes the dynamics of attempts to besiege a city. Under the original rules and how the rulebook for EiANW seems to be written, a besieging force attacking a city garrison of 1 factor has a 2 in 3 chances of breaking in outright. If it fails, the factor in the city (assuming 3 spires -- about the middle) will die a further 1 in 2 chances.

This problem really needs to get solved. As I'm finding out in my game as GB, it makes it very unwise to attack even 1-factor garrisoned cities "protecting" France's blockaded fleets. What used to be a 3 in 4 chance of killing the fleet outright drops to a 1 in 2 chance, at a cost of 6 infantry for each attempt (assuming France has a corps in the neighborhood.

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

I cannot find the thread where this subject was being discussed, so I'll start a new one. This is a new variant of the problem, though, and it makes the problem much bigger than it was.

The root problem being discussed was that when a relieving force attacked a besieging force, a victorious besieging force was left in the rural area, not back besieging as it should have been.

Well, the problem is a lot worse than we thought. In fact, the besieging force has the siege lifted BEFORE FORAGING occurs. As a result, the garrison never has to forage, even if all the owner does is throw a 1-factor corps against the besiegers. This really perverts the way things should work in these situations.

The siege should NOT be lifted until the relieving force WINS the combat.

This really changes the dynamics of attempts to besiege a city. Under the original rules and how the rulebook for EiANW seems to be written, a besieging force attacking a city garrison of 1 factor has a 2 in 3 chances of breaking in outright. If it fails, the factor in the city (assuming 3 spires -- about the middle) will die a further 1 in 2 chances.

This problem really needs to get solved. As I'm finding out in my game as GB, it makes it very unwise to attack even 1-factor garrisoned cities "protecting" France's blockaded fleets. What used to be a 3 in 4 chance of killing the fleet outright drops to a 1 in 2 chance, at a cost of 6 infantry for each attempt (assuming France has a corps in the neighborhood.

So you want the besieger to split his forces, to keep siegie up ?
But i do agree it can be a problem. The unbesiege could not be moved to land combat-phase.

But you can turn your example around, say the besieger is only 3-4 factor corps, now comes a relieve force of say 50 factors. And maybe the 2-factor-corps in the city wanna join the battle ?
Would a weak corps remain besieging while they get surounded ?

Remember its 1 months turns.

Regards
Bresh

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

I cannot find the thread where this subject was being discussed, so I'll start a new one. This is a new variant of the problem, though, and it makes the problem much bigger than it was.

The root problem being discussed was that when a relieving force attacked a besieging force, a victorious besieging force was left in the rural area, not back besieging as it should have been.

Well, the problem is a lot worse than we thought. In fact, the besieging force has the siege lifted BEFORE FORAGING occurs. As a result, the garrison never has to forage, even if all the owner does is throw a 1-factor corps against the besiegers. This really perverts the way things should work in these situations.

I beleive this - as long as the interpretation is that the siege is interrupted by combat and the attacking force is controlled by the same power as the garrison - is a correct implementation as the supply phase is before the combat phase. If this interpretation is correct and what the creators intended could possibly be argued.

The siege should NOT be lifted until the relieving force WINS the combat.

In any case the seige should be resumed - a choice of wording that implies that the siege is interrupted by combat - the rules is very clear and leave no room for argumentation about this.

I am more worried about the consequences the current implementation have on control - for the purpose of tax collection, PP penalties and if occupation of ones capital will persist to be a major contributor to forced surrender also on surrender - than its effect on supply/foraging.

It also bothers me that the program don't seem to provide any option for the garrisson to help a releiving force to battle the beseigers or for that matter make any distinction between normal field combat and limited combat.

There is also other serious issues that has been reported that are related to sieges and conquest. Among those we seen that if a MP DOW a minor and that minor is put under the control of a MP with who the first MP have access to - probably regardless if its volunterily or forced - that minor cant be conquered by the DOW'ing MP.

There is also an issue where the program can confuse where different forces are and let a corp that should be besieged leave and return in to the city, at will, creating alot of different serious and erratic consequenses that isnt wanted or expected.

Both of these issues are described in the bug report thread.


Regards

zaq