Re: [eia] British naval phase, 12/06 (part II)

[Michael Gorman <mpgorman@xxxxxxxx>]

At 03:34 PM 2/28/2005, you wrote:
> Thus spake "J.J. Young":
> > Sorry to be a hardnose, but in my opinion Joel already passed on
> > intercepting the first two fleets, and it was only when he saw how my 
> orders
> > continued that he changed his mind.  Of course, when the Portugal fleet
> > moves into the blockade box Russia can intercept then, before any more
> > fleets would join the battle (and they would).
>
> Absolutely not. I thought that in chosing not to intercept the stack, all
> that could happen was that that stack would declare an attack on me, or
> it would just pass by. Had I realized that that stack could be joined by
> others before the battle, I would have intercepted it at that point.
> Can you think of any reason why I would chose to fight a larger fleet instead
> of a smaller fleet? That should indicate to you that I didn't understand
> the situation when I made my decision this morning.
The only reason I can see is if you think most of the enemy strength that 
is going to be deployed to the battle is currently present and you want the 
advantage of being the defender, winning on ties.

In that situation it becomes a more calculated gamble.  If you correctly 
guess how many fleets the enemy is sending in, you avoid having to be the 
attacker and with the simpler naval combat chart, ties seem to occur with 
some frequency so that can be a big edge.

Mike

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