Re: [eia] retreat results

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thus spake "James Helle":
> Quoting Mike:
> 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.
> 
> 
> Mike, if you agree that pinning the French army against a crossing arrow and
> forcing a surrender is a valid option then that is what I would choose to
> do.  That was my purpose for specifying that a depot garrison existed and
> placing a corps SE of London.  However, if you dispute this is a legal
> maneuver I will choose a different retreat route.  Do we feel a vote is in
> order since this could set a precedent?

"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."

The phrase beginning with "that" and running to the end of the sentence
is a restrictive phrase modifying "an adjacent land area". It isn't
applicable to the area occupied by the retreating corps, since that
area isn't self-adjacent. The set of adjacent land areas that are X can't
ever contain the area in question. The only way that the French could be
pinned at Dover is if they'd already been retreated through London and
Plymouth.

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