J.J. Young on Tue, 20 Apr 2004 22:15:06 -0500 (CDT)

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

Re: [eia] retreat rules settled

As Jim said, the Wurttemburg corps moves from Metz to Le Havre and besieges
the city.  An additional depot is created ($1) on the VI fleet in the
English Channel to feed it, at a cost of $2.  So Great Britain's total cost
for the month is $10.  A siege roll is on the way, although even if the city
is taken, that will just push the French fleet into the blockade box, with
no naval battle, since the city is not blockaded.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "EiA" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 12:14 AM
Subject: [eia] retreat rules settled

>     Hi everyone.  I want to point out that our discussion regarding
> rules had gotten off course.  The question JJ initially brought up is "can
> retreating (withdrawing) corps with two equidistant spaces from a depot
> retreat into an enemy occupied area if an open area is also available"?
> However, what we have been discussing is whether a corps should retreat
> towards a depot or a capital.  JJ and I talked on the phone earlier today
> and I we agree that the rules do *not* prevent retreating towards an enemy
> corps (silly as it sounds) and the Wurttemburg corps will move to LeHavre
> instead of Stuttgart.  You should see a siege roll coming soon from JJ for
> the siege on LeHavre.
>     I still think the withdrawal rules should be tweaked to prevent
> retreating *towards* the enemy.  However, as Kyle stated earlier it is not
> fair to do this in the middle of a move.
>     As soon as we receive JJ's siege results (and possibly a brief naval
> battle) January will finally be over.  (I say finally, but with every
> at war with someone I think it went exceptionally quick.  Kudos,
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia

eia mailing list