J.J. Young on Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:38:55 -0500 (CDT)

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

Re: [eia] JJ's proposal

I have no problem with the proposed house rule being applied to me this
turn, but only if we are adopting it permanently.  I don't want to abide by
a rule that is promply thrown out afterward.  So let's decide; is the
proposed house rule better than the rule as written ?  I will abstain.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] JJ's proposal

>     Joel's proposal isn't bad except that it would have no effect on the
> current situation.  Since there is a British depot at London and London is
> less than 10 spaces away from the German corps in question, they would
> continue to retreat as they did under the rules as written.
>     Perhaps we could satisfy Joel by adding a third exception to JJ's
> rule saying that the corps will not retreat to a capital if its area is
> occupied by unbesieged enemy corps.
>     You know, I'm starting to wonder if this house rule is worth the
> trouble.  After all, the only corps it would affect in the current
> is the Wurttemburg corps.  It seems to me like the effect of this new rule
> is so minor that it is not worth the trouble we are going through to find
> the right wording.  If other players feel strongly about adopting such a
> rule, I won't stand in the way.  But I'm starting to think that it is
> ultimately unnecessary.
> kdh
> > 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
> > 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

eia mailing list