Re: [eia] question about repatriation

[Michael Gorman <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 10:56 AM 4/27/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> This
> change would be OK with me, since it's where garrison factors have to go,
> anyway.  Why should the corps go somewhere radically different
> ?
>  
> Another question; is going to the territory of
> an ally (with access) optional, or mandatory, if the ally's territory is
> closer ?  For example, I have a factor of Danish I in garrison at
> Viborg.  Must it go to Sveaborg, or could it go to the closest
> British-controlled city (probably Christianna, although I haven't counted
> carefully, yet).
>  
> For that matter, this example applies to my
> corps, too.
>  
> -JJY

I think if we're going to go through the effort to write new case by case
rules for the basic repatriation rules, we should instead finish writing
rule 12.4 since that situation would lead to a better result
overall.

Barring that willingness to write the mechanical parts of 12.4, I think
we should keep the alternative rule simple and stick with closest. 
Otherwise we make the force teleportation rule even more improbable than
it already is.

On another note, we are going into a period where we may have actual
months without major wars going on.  If people do think of good ways
to make 12.4 functional, we could put that rule back into place for the
next series of conflicts.  Just something to think about before
we're about to end a war rather than trying to figure it out at the last
minute as has been our normal way of dealing with muddled
points.