Joel Uckelman on Sun, 18 Apr 2004 15:15:48 -0500 (CDT)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: FW: [eia] Assault at Kassel

Thus spake "Kyle H":
>     Joel is right that there is no house rule currently in force that would
> require JJ to retreat one way rather than another.  However, we might wish
> to consider adopting such a house rule since it seems unrealistic that
> forces would *intentionally* retreat *toward* enemy corps.
> kdh

In reality, the fact that there is a supply depot in London should play no
role in the decision process of the Hessian (or Badener, or Wurtemburger)
commander. Likewise, the Turkish depot at Erzerum should make no difference
for the Moroccan commander. Retreting toward a depot makes sense only when
it is near enough to be used within the next few months, and it it doubtful
that the commanders in question would even be aware of the existence of
particular depots in far off England or Armenia.

I would expect that for the Hessians the defense of Hesse would be their
priority, and so if they were unable to retreat into another part of Hesse
they would attempt to retreat into a friendly area adjacent to Hesse. They
have access to both Frankfurt and Magdeburg, the latter of which is nearer
to the site of the battle. So I think it makes the most sense for the
Hessians to retreat to Magdeburg. (This might be different if they weren't on
their own, but instead were stacked with or near a major power corps. In the
absence of outside influence, my expectation is that the Hessians would not
decide that the best way to defend Hesse is to conquer Holland.)

I don't know how to codify this, however; good retreat rules are notoriously
difficult to write.

eia mailing list