Re: [eia] JJ's proposal

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thus spake D Mount:
> Here was JJ's proposal for anyone who missed it.
>  
>  
>  
> "If a retreating corps is retreating from an area _adjacent_ to its national 
> capital, it will retreat to the area of its national capital in precedence to
>  an area closer to the nearest depot.
>  
> EXCEPTION 1:  Since a retreating force cannot be split up, this house rule on
> ly comes into effect when the national capital in question is the nationality
>  of the _majority of corps_ in the retreating force.
>  
> EXCEPTION 2:  Since a force cannot be retreated into the same area more than 
> once, if the retreating force has been moved into the area of the national ca
> pital, and must continue retreating because the national capital's area is en
> emy-occupied, this house rule no longer applies for the remainder of the retr
> eat."
>  
> This should help insure that a retreating force starting near its capital sho
> uld end up there, or at least pass through and end up somewhere close.
>  
> Opinions ?  Exceptions or problems I didn't see ?
>  
> -JJY

This creates an odd situation for me because I have two capitals: Suppose a
Russian corps is defeated adjacent to Moscow, and Moscow is enemy-occupied
but St. Petersburg is not. In this situation, it seems to me that St.
Petersburg should be the relevant focus for retreat. But the proposal would
have my corps retreat to Moscow first, even though it's occupied, and then
someplace else.

What about just discounting depots more than 10 areas distant for the purposes
of retreat? If a cavalry corps riding at full speed can't reach a depot in
two months, then it's unlikely to figure in a commander's retreat decision.

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