Pocus wrote:Might be that. Or that through OMBs the distance (counting in links only) is not that big?
If only accessibility of a target location is taken into account, it could occasionally lead to some very weird occurrences, like a wounded leader landing in California
If links are being counted, it begs the question of why one of the forts in the Gulf wasn't picked. They should be the closest in links, but maybe only actual cities are taken into account.
But from a logical standpoint, since, from my understanding, the wound occurred through a bombardment, and there are no enemy troops in the region at all, forcing the wounded leader to be evacuated does not feel like the right thing to do. This completely ignores the fact the evacuation is instantaneous and immediately puts the wounded leader in a location, for he would otherwise require an actual naval unit and at least some amount of travel time.
Besides, in some specific cases, removing, for example, an army commander with corps under his command to a distant coastal city, and locking him there could have very harsh and unrealistic repercussion for the player.
- He cannot return the wounded leader to NOLA until he has 'healed'.
- There is no contingency in the game for another leader to take over as at least an acting army commander in the actual commander's absence.
- The player transferring the command of the army to another leader could cause serious NM and VP costs. This really breaks the concept of political influence, because it would be very difficult to argue for not replacing an army commander, at the very least temporarily, if he cannot fulfill his duties.