Re: [eia] allow me to muddy the waters even more

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thus spake "J.J. Young":
> You've got it backwards.  I am suggesting that France should have _more_ of
> a say in where their forces could be repatriated to, not that Spain should
> have a say; in other words, they wouldn't neccessarily have to go to the
> closest French-controlled areas, but perhaps could be placed somewhere else
> along the border between French and Spanish territory.  This would allow us
> to sidestep some ridiculous outcomes of repatriation.
> 
> But as I said, I haven't thought this through completely yet, for instance
> how to apply it to cases where the territories of the two former enemies do
> not actually touch.  Does anyone think this is a worthwhile avenue to pursue
> for a compromise solution ?
> 
> -JJY

I still think the best solution that doesn't involve complex movement
rules would be to specify a destination for each corps and garrison,
count the areas they'd have to travel to reach that destination, and
have them appear as reinforcements there on the turn that they would
if they had marched. That eliminates the weird teleportation results
direct repatriation yields, and it avoids the problems with fighting
another power in FET.

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