Re: [eia] Retreat rules

["Everett E. Proctor" <spiritmast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I too think that we should stick with the rules as written.

-Everett

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:32:51 -0700
"James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Per 7.5.2.10.3.6 a force with no available retreat route is captured , along
> with any leaders present.  For the sake of simplicity, I think we should
> adhere to the rules where possible.  My reasoning for this is that the
> statement has been made that everyone has access to the rules.  If the rules
> as printed are not the rules, then someone is eventually going to make a
> mistake because they did not realize that the rule had been changed.  Aside
> from people simply making errors, this is a contributor to us continually
> going back and changing orders.  I don't mind playing it either way, but
> unless a rule seems drastically wrong I think we should consider playing
> with the rules as written.  Hmmm, this just occurred to me; is anyone
> physically keeping track of our house rules?  I recall long ago seeing a
> list of them, but don't believe I still have it.  Kyle, is it possible ( or
> too much trouble? ) to post these house rules on our EiA web page?  Hope
> I've helped muddy the waters sufficiently!
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> J.J. Young
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 5:01 PM
> To: public list for an Empires in Arms game
> Subject: Re: [eia] Retreat rules
> 
> 
> I do not object to the proposed house rule, as long as a retreating army
> with _no_ unobstructed route is still retreated multiple spaces, and is not
> wiped out or anything like that.  That would be too much of a departure from
> the rules for me.  But I don't think that's what anyone's proposing; just
> checking.
> 
> -JJY
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>
> To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 6:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [eia] Retreat rules
> 
> 
> >     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
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Gorman" <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 2:15 AM
> > Subject: [eia] Retreat rules
> >
> >
> > > I was reading over the retreat rules as I planned my next land phase and
> I
> > > think we've been doing them in a way that makes sense to me, but does
> not
> > > follow the rules.  From what I can see, forces always retreat towards
> > their
> > > closest depot, or lacking any placed depots, towards their closest
> > > capital.  If the way is blocked, they don't take an alternate route,
> they
> > > just retreat multiple spaces.
> > > We've been having troops retreat along the shortest unobstructed path
> but
> > > to always go one space when possible.
> > > So, for example, if I rolled a force around to Brest-Litovsk and then
> > > defeated Blucher, how we've been playing, with Grodno and Brest-Litovsk
> > > containing enemy forces, Blucher would retreat to the swamp space south
> of
> > > him one space away.  But reading the rules, I think they say he should
> be
> > > retreated to the northern space of West Galacia or the space between
> > Grodno
> > > and Koniogsberg.
> > > And as I think about it, last turn when Prussia actually did have to
> > > retreat.  I would have had the choice of the space he went to, or
> sending
> > > him to Grodno and then onto Brest-Litovsk since Grodno is occupied by a
> > > force that isn't a garrison without a depot.
> > > This would seriously alter the dynamics in retreats and what you can do
> to
> > > a force in retreat or withdraw.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > eia mailing list
> > > eia@xxxxxxxxx
> > > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eia mailing list
> > eia@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
> 

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