Re: [eia] Retreat rules

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thus spake "Kyle H":
>     Wow, here's another case of us just blindly playing the rules
> incorrectly for a long, long time.  Thanks for notifying us of the mistake,
> Mike.  I agree with you, though, that I think I prefer the way we have
> already been doing things, i.e., armies are retreated via the shortest
> *unobstructed* route to their nearest depot/capital.  Can we just call this
> a house rule and move on?  Or would people like more discussion on this
> issue?
> 
> kdh

I think I understand why they wrote the rule that way: so you can't force
an enemy to retreat in the wrong direction by occupying areas in the right
direction. On the other hand, the rule as written could also have a
retreating army retreat not only toward, but through one or more enemy
corps (e.g., if the victor has additional corps in areas along the line
of retreat), which doesn't strike me as something a retreating army would
do. The way we've been playing has the added advantage of limiting retreats
to reasonable distances. It shouldn't be possible for a corps to retreat
farther than it can force march.

So I also favor the rule as we understood it, not as printed.

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