OOC Thread

[Ramses II CP]

You know we do have another option. I could move King Philip's army into Dijon. I suppose the question then would be which action took place first. Obviously the garrison can flee before the siege starts, but can Philip move his army into the city before hand? How close are the two forces relative to Dijon? Should we roll dice for it?

Would the siege even go forward if King Philip moved into the city?

So many questions to be answered. This being a test game, maybe that's what I should do without regard to IC matters...

[Privateerkev]

You know we do have another option. I could move King Philip's army into Dijon. I suppose the question then would be which action took place first. Obviously the garrison can flee before the siege starts, but can Philip move his army into the city before hand? How close are the two forces relative to Dijon? Should we roll dice for it?

Would the siege even go forward if King Philip moved into the city?

So many questions to be answered. This being a test game, maybe that's what I should do without regard to IC matters...

Well, Ig and I are already next door to Dijon. We didn't attack last turn because of the civil war rules forbidding first turn attacks by the declarer. So we just parked right next to the city.

And, with Ig's ballista, we're not going to siege, but simply storm in. If you want to see if you can make it into Dijon in time, just ask TC and maybe he'll set up an AI vs AI battle of you versus Ig. Also, with me just to Ig's north, I would ask if I intercepted you beforehand. Then there might be a AI vs AI battle for you vs me.

I'm glad we're doing the test game because we've already found some holes in the rules.

[Ramses II CP]

...and that's what I get for not looking at the save first. Okay, I'll snag the save and pull Dijon's garrison.

Still, it's an interesting question. What would happen if a technically neutral character moved into a city that was under threat of assault. I suppose it would be handled entirely IC via negotiation, but if those broke down and the assault went forward would it represent a new civil war against the third party?

edit for clarity: Taking the save.

[TinCow]

Since the city is kind of surrounded, I will give the besiegers the option of trying to intercept the garrison as it leaves, if they want to. If they succeed (die roll) I would start an AI battle in the field. Of course, this might piss off the King, since they garrison are bound for his army and he's still technically neutral. The reason for this is that the attack was ordered well before the garrison was evacuated. If I had the time this morning, I could have done the assault right then. The besiegers should not be penalized for my own slowness. Plus, it makes sense.

If anyone thinks this goes beyond the powers of the umpire of the Battle of Dijon, let me know. I'm doing this purely as the umpire of the battle, not as the supervisor of the entire Test Game. Is this the kind of leeway we want to allow for all battle umpires?

[Ramses II CP]

Yep, it would be fine with me either way, I just might have to edit some posts.

[Privateerkev]

Since the city is kind of surrounded, I will give the besiegers the option of trying to intercept the garrison as it leaves, if they want to. If they succeed (die roll) I would start an AI battle in the field. Of course, this might piss off the King, since they garrison are bound for his army and he's still technically neutral. The reason for this is that the attack was ordered well before the garrison was evacuated. If I had the time this morning, I could have done the assault right then. The besiegers should not be penalized for my own slowness. Plus, it makes sense.

If anyone thinks this goes beyond the powers of the umpire of the Battle of Dijon, let me know. I'm doing this purely as the umpire of the battle, not as the supervisor of the entire Test Game. Is this the kind of leeway we want to allow for all battle umpires?

I'd be fine either way.

On one hand, it makes sense to be able to intercept a unit you've been standing next to.

On the other, "interceptions" aren't in the rules so maybe we should do without it and discuss putting it in the rules for next time.

[TinCow]

Either way, I don't want to make a rule about it. It's more of a question of how much leeway we're going to give the umpire of a battle.

[Privateerkev]

Either way, I don't want to make a rule about it. It's more of a question of how much leeway we're going to give the umpire of a battle.

Ok, that makes it simpler. Then yes, I think the umpire should have the leeway to decide these things. You and Econ have done stuff like this many times and I have no problem deferring to your judgment on this.

As for which way the umpire decides, I don't care. But if I am allowed to intercept the garrison, I will take the opportunity.

(can I ask for them to surrender and add them to my army?)