Kyle H on Mon, 25 Sep 2006 19:29:18 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [eia] French Land Phase

    I think it's your call, Mike.  You are within your rights to require 
your opponents to abide by the rules, but if you are willing to let them go 
back and correct their mistake, I'm sure no one else will have a problem 
with that.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Gorman" <mpgorman@xxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] French Land Phase

> At 05:20 PM 9/25/2006, you wrote:
>>Thus spake Michael Gorman:
>> > At 10:43 AM 9/24/2006, you wrote:
>> > >Sorry, had I realized that, Mack's I corps could have dropped a factor
>> there
>> > >to garrison the depot.
>> >
>> > I guess I should've read this whole discussion earlier.  I had expected
>> > things to go how Bill did, that since he had combined movement the 
>> > Turks
>> > could garrison the depot.  Since they can't I'd end up eating the depot
>> for
>> > the French corps which would save them a factor and leave one cav 
>> > factor
>> > left alive in the Naples corps unless we pull an Austrian factor back 
>> > to
>> > garrison it.
>> >
>>For the record, all three of us expected my garrison to be holding the 
>>Every once in a while, I'm still surprised by something in the rules...
> So, are we going to let Bill drop a garrison back there then?  I have no
> real problem with it since it seems everyone involved thought it was
> unnecessary but it was.  I hadn't expected to be able to eat the depot 
> when
> I planned the move so it's not like I wrote my movement orders around it.
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx

eia mailing list