Re: [eia] first rules question + Joel's concern

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > First question:  Condition H attached to the Withdraw strategy states, =
> > "If defender is all cavalry and/or cossacks/freikorps, strategic rating
=
> > is '+1'."  So what happens if an infantry corps and a cavalry corps are
=
> > leader-less and, hence, dicing separately.  The first alternative is =
> > that the infantry corps gets no modifier to its roll and the cavalry =
> > corps gets a +1.  The other alternative is that neither corps gets the =
> > +1 because the defending force is not "all cavalry".  [In our battle, JJ
=
> > rolled well enough so that it didn't matter either way.]  I can see =
> > arguments going both ways on this one.  What do you guys think?
>
> I thought the intent was that a cavalry corps would have an easier time
> slipping away if it didn't have any infantry to protect. And it would be
> unusual for your cavalry to abandon your infantry in a planned withdrawal.
>

    Well, don't these two considerations pull in opposite directions?  My
thinking was that if both the infantry corps and the cavalry corps broke and
ran without being concerned for the welfare of the other unit, then clearly
the cavalry should have an advantage over the infantry.  However, if the
cavalry is withdrawing alongside the infantry - i.e. staying with it and
helping to protect it - then it should not receive a bonus to its roll.  So
it depends on how you perceive the situation...
    In the end, I'm not sure which consideration is more weighty, but we
should probably decide one way or the other just for future reference.  [One
possibility is that during a withdrawal - a planned maneuver - the cavalry
would *not* get the bonus because it is helping to protect the infantry, but
during a retreat - a haphazard maneuver - the cavalry *would* get the bonus
because it is just trying to get away as quickly as possible (in the absence
of strong inter-corps leadership).  That solution makes sense to me, but I'm
not wedded to it if people prefer something else.]

> Last turn I was almost in a situation for which this rule does not
provide:
> After the Battle of Constantinople, I couldn't retreat toward my capital,
> since that's where the battle was. What if I had had no depots on the map
at
> the time? Can't retreat toward your capital and no depots is a situation
> the retreat rule doesn't cover. In my case, there was only one area to
> which I could have retreated anyway, so no decision had to be made.
>
> Since I wasn't using combined movement with anyone, your proposed changes
> (which I think are reasonable for the cases they cover) still wouldn't
tell
> us what to do in the situation I just described.
>

    If you are retreating from your capital and you have no depots on the
map and you are not using combined movement, then there are simply no
constraints on how the force may be retreated.  It may be retreated in any
direction that the player who controls the withdrawal/retreat chooses,
within the rules.  (It can't be retreated into a space containing enemy
forces unless that is the last resort, and it can't be retreated across a
crossing arrow.)
    So I don't think Joel's scenario presents a problem for the rules at
all.  It simply presents a situation in which the normal restrictions do not
apply.

kdh

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