Kyle H on Wed, 16 May 2007 14:01:02 -0700 (MST)


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

Re: [eia] Remaining French land phase stuff


    I can't help but reiterate my earlier contention that this rule is just 
plain broken and should be discarded.  The idea that the forces have to pick 
chits and reveal forces, and *then* the defender can make a withdrawal 
attempt is just loony, as far as the rules of the game are concerned.  (I'm 
sure someone can come up with a pseudo-historical justification for it, but 
you can do that for anything.  I'm saying that this rule is inconsistent 
with the internal logic of the rest of the combat rules.)

    Ok, I've made my opinion known.  I'll shut up now.

kdh

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mel Chin" <mchin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: [eia] Remaining French land phase stuff


> For example, the defender picks "Defend" and the attacker chooses 
> "Assault".
> After forces are revealed the defender has a less than 5:1 than the 
> attacker
> (hence a overwhelming combat) and gets to attempt withdrawal.
>
> The attacker knows beforehand that he's going to have to reveal his forces
> and that the defender may be able to withdraw afterwards.
> For my solution, the attacker gets the option of going into combat knowing
> the defender will find his strength (since the defender will reveal his
> strength only if there's a combat) so there's no "scouting" of enemy 
> forces.
>
> Mel
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Joel Uckelman" <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 8:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [eia] Remaining French land phase stuff
>
>
>> Thus spake "Mel Chin":
>> > If it's a trivial combat, the defender will know the attacker's 
>> > strength
>> > anyway before a withdrawal if he doesn't choose a withdrawal chit.
>> >
>> > Mel
>>
>> How will the defender know that? That's precisely my point.
>>
>> -- 
>> 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 

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