Michael Gorman on Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:07:24 -0600 (CST)


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

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


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