Re: [eia] a try for a simple solution to 12.4

["J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Personally, I don't have much of a problem with "teleporting" garrisons out
of fomerly enemy territory.  After all, garrisons don't need to be fed,
anyway.  I think the spirit of 12.4 is preserved, having to plan and exert
effort to get your corps out of f.e.t.

I like Everett's suggestion of having the "honors of war" of garrisons just
take them to the nearest city in friendly territory, rather than just to the
nearest friendly-controlled city (which might still be in f.e.t.).  I hadn't
realized how Turkey's special situation with Feudal corps could screw him
over in these situations.  I think Everett's suggestion (which amounts to
using repatriation for garrisons, but not for corps), would be a simple way
to address Joel's concern.

-JJY
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Uckelman" <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] a try for a simple solution to 12.4


> Thus spake "J.J. Young":
> >
> > Why ?  I guess I'm just being dense.  If garrisons either leave or end
up
> > with one of their own corps, then the odds of successfully getting those
> > factors out of the former enemy territory are very good.  There is the
> > remote possibility that the nation in question will both a)  not have
enough
> > room left in that corps, and b) not have any unused corps counters (very
> > unlikely, if the war has gone on any length of time).
>
> This is exactly the situation I'm thinking of.
>
> > I think these chances for getting garrison factors out are more than
fair.
> > After all, there's no obligation to write the rule so that all garrison
> > factors are _guaranteed_ to get out, is there ?
> >
> > -JJY
>
> It's not that I think it's unfair, as this would apply equally to
everyone;
> rather, it poorly simulates what would happen in such a situation. I think
> there's a solution at hand that isn't onerous and is commensurate with the
> level of detail at which we're simulating. A garrison in that situation
would
> not simply disband---that would ammount to desertion. Rather it would do
what
> presumably happens when honors of war are given during sieges: the
garrison
> packs up and marches somewhere else.
>
> Picture the following: Turkey is at war with Austria near the end of the
> year. The Turks have garrisoned a bunch of cities in Austria, but
subsequently
> the Janissary corps that dropped off the garrisons is forced back across
the
> border. Now all that Turkey has left in Austria are feudals, and all three
> regular corps are already on the map. If Turkey and Austria make peace at
this
> point, all of the Turkish garrisons are dead under your proposal, since
> modified honors of war wouldn't take them out of Austria, the feudals
can't
> pick them up, and they can't form a new corps.
>
> So I think that if we're going to implement honors of war we should do it
> the way I described last, as that avoids both this problem and the
> teleportation problem by introducing lag for travel time.
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>
>


_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia