Re: [eia] Birmingham results

[Michael Gorman <mpgorman@xxxxxxxx>]

At 05:05 PM 5/20/2006, you wrote:
>Thus spake "J.J. Young":
> > 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.
>
>I read the clause starting with "towards" as also selecting from among the
>areas adjacent to the retreating corps' location. All that clause does
>is ensure that, in the event that there are no depots and more than one
>adjacent area to retreat to, an adjacent area at least as close to the
>capital as any other adjacent area is chosen.
I would agree that Portsmouth is a reasonable end point if I had withdrawn 
the army.

I'm inclined to say that since the victor chooses the retreat path, he can 
validly choose a path that pins my army against the arrow and forces 
surrender.

He could choose to retreat me to Portsmouth, but he is not required to do 
so.  So he can retreat me to London and then the SE of London leaving my 
clear retreat path to be across the arrow.  I would also see it as 
reasonable for him to choose to retreat me to London and then to Portsmouth 
if he felt so inclined, but I don't see that he is required to do so.


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