Joel Uckelman on Tue, 20 Apr 2004 00:07:41 -0500 (CDT)

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

Re: [eia] JJ's proposal

Thus spake "Kyle H":
>     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 house
> 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 situation
> 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

Well, what about this: Insert the corps' capital---if friendly-controlled, 
unbesieged, and adjacent---as first in the list of retreat priorities.

That's simple, and rectifies the problem of a corps abandoning its capital 
when enemy forces are threatening, but not yet at hand.

The effect this would have is to send the Wurttemburgers to Stuttgart 
instead of Metz, which I think we agree makes sense, and leaves the 
Badeners and Hessians where they are because their capitals are 


eia mailing list