Re: [eia] Birmingham results

["J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Here are the relevant rules:

7.5.2.10.3 Retreat After Losing A Combat: The loser is retreated one area by
the victor. This occurs after pursuit (if any).

7.5.2.10.3.1: All retreats must be into an adjacent land area that is
closest (any closest area, if several qualify equally) to the nearest depot
of any nationality in the losing forceforce, or if none is on the map,
towards that force's nearest controlled national capital city.

7.5.2.10.3.3: If the area retreated to contains an unbesieged enemy corps,
cossack, freikorps or depot garrison, the force is retreated one more area
(same rules as 7.5.2.10.3.1), etc., until an open area is reached.

7.5.2.10.3.4: Retreat across a crossing arrow or onto ships is not
permitted.

7.5.2.10.3.5: A force may not retreat into the same area twice in the same
retreat.

7.5.2.10.3.6: A force must surrender (A army factors and leaders in the
force become prisoners) if no retreat route is available.

So I think that what Joel's saying is that the French retreat
Birmingham ---> London ---> Dover (SE of London), and then they have to move
to another area which is as close as possible to Paris, even though that
would be further from Paris than the Dover area.  Since they can't retreat
to London again, the only alternative is Portsmouth.

Hmm.  I'm not sure.  The first part of 7.5.2.10.3.1 talks about moving to
"an adjacent land area closest to the nearest depot", which is what Joel is
going by.  But the second part of the rule talks about moving "_towards_ the
nearest capital city", which implies that all retreat moves must bring the
retreating force closer to the depot or capital city in question.

So the question is, which of these two parts of the rule was the intention
of the rulemakers, and which one was sloppily added without considering that
it meant something different ?

Unfortunately, Jim, upon consideration I think I have to agree with Joel.
Here's a hypothetical situation that convinces me of this:

A major power has no depots on the map, and its army fights and loses a
battle outside its own capital city.  I do not think it is the intention of
the rules that this army must surrender, since anywhere it retreats would be
further from the capital than where the retreat started.

However, I can see perfectly well how Jim could have interpreted the rule
the way he did.  I think it would be reasonable to allow Jim to have his
corps now at Dover stay in London instead, which would result in Ney ending
up at Dover.

-JJY

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Uckelman" <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] Birmingham results


> Thus spake "J.J. Young":
> > Hmm.  Depot garrisons also prevent a retreating force from staying in an
> > area, so the shortest retreat path of (Birmingham ---> London ---> SE of
> > London ---> blocked crossing arrow = no retreat possible) may be
correct.
>
> I think that the French retreat to Portsmouth: The requirement in
> 7.5.2.10.3.1 is that retreates be into an adjacent land area closest
> to the nearest depot of the nationality being retreated. The Dover
> area isn't adjacent to itself, so it doesn't count. Lille is disqualified
> by 7.5.2.10.3.4 because it's adjacent across an arrow, and London is
> disqualified by 7.5.2.10.3.5 because the French retreated through it
> prior to arriving at Dover. Hence the only remaining adjacent are is
> Portsmouth.
>
> The salient fact here is that 7.5.2.10.3.1 does not require that the
> the French are always cutting the distance to a depot with every step,
> just that the next move is into the closest of the adjacent areas. The
> only places on the map where you can capture a force due to lack of
> retreat options are 3-area or smaller islands, where it's practical
> to fill *all* of the areas.
>
> --
> J.
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>
>


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