[eia] a proposed compromise

["J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I accept the possiblity that I'm just being a spoinled brat about this, but
I have a compromise to propose:

I do not believe that I would have placed the British VII fleet in the
Naples blockade box if I had understood the way in which we were going to
interpret the rule on sea supply and blockades (in other words, I was going
by the literal wording "the port cannot be blockaded", and hadn't gone any
deeper).  I did mean to leave that fleet in an exposed position, but I never
meant to leave it where it could both be destroyed and also allow
reinforcement to Naples.

So my compromise is this:  the VII fleet did not move at all last turn,
remaining in the sea space off Naples.  The French fleet then moved right
past it into Naples to allow reinforcements there next turn.

That's it: I live with reinforcements in Italy, and Kyle lives with the
negation of the Battle of the Naples Approaches and the continued existence
of the VII fleet.

If this suggestion seems ridiculous or out-of-line, I apologize; it isn't
intended to be.  What does everyone think ?

-JJY
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [eia] Re: reinforcement at Naples


>     JJ,
>     I agree with you that in general it is distasteful to go back in time
to
> fix things.  Generally, if you made a mistake, you should just accept that
> fact and move on.  However, I think that going back to fix orders should
be
> permitted when both of the two following sets of circumstances apply:  a)
> the rules about the situation in question have recently been changed,
> reinterpreted, and/or clarified, and b) the change in question has a
minimal
> impact on the subsequent movements and decisions of other players.  Since
> both of these conditions apply in this case, I'm hopeful that the rest of
> you will be understanding and allow me to make the adjustment.  (Of
course,
> as we have decided in the past, the final decision lies with those who
could
> be adversely affected by the decision and/or those who are at war with the
> player requesting the change.  Still, these are the guidelines under which
> *I* would accept a request to fix one's orders as a reasonable one.)
>     I appreciate JJ's willingness to allow this change (however
> reluctantly).  I'm glad he understands that my request was *not* made in
> reference to his recently published land orders.  In fact, if I am
permitted
> to make my adjustment, those orders will be completely null and void as
far
> as I'm concerned.  He will be free to make whatever changes he deems
> necessary, whether they involve Italy or not.  (Needless to say, this
> goodwill on JJ's part deserves reciprocation on my part.  Translation:  I
> owe him one.)
>
> But I shouldn't count my chickens before they are hatched.  If any other
> player wishes to object to this adjustment, please let me know as soon as
> possible.
>
> Thanks,
>
> kdh
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 9:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [eia] Re: reinforcement at Naples
>
>
> > I guess I can't justify disallowing this change, but it does make me
> pretty
> > uncomfortable.  It does, after all, make a big difference in the game,
and
> > Kyle has had the chance to see what my land orders would have been.  Not
> > that I'm saying Kyle is reacting to my orders, but it just makes me
> > uncomfortable.
> >
> > -JJY
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 7:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: [eia] Re: reinforcement at Naples
> >
> >
> > >
> > >     Since we just clarified the rules for reinforcing by sea, I was
> > > wondering if anyone would object to a minor adjustment to France's
naval
> > > movement.  According to the rules, I should have had an opportunity
> after
> > > the naval battle at Naples to dock at the port.  (Rule 6.3.5.3 states,
> > > "Since the movement between a blockade box and its port is free, the
> > victor
> > > (even if the phaiscing side with all movement expended) in a blockade
> box
> > > naval combat may be, if the port is friendly or with access
permission,
> > > moved into the port following the naval combat.")  This adjustment, if
> it
> > > were allowed, would give France an opportunity to re-supply its corps
in
> > > Italy (under our newly accepted interpretation of the sea supply
rules).
> > >     Since GB had already taken its naval move before France, this
> > adjustment
> > > could not have had any effect on JJ's move.  Only Spain and Turkey
went
> > > after France in the naval phase, and since France is not at war with
> > either
> > > of those powers, it's hard to see what effect this adjustment could
have
> > on
> > > them, either.
> > >     Of course, if this adjustment were permitted, GB would naturally
be
> > > given an opportunity to revise its land orders accordingly.
> > >
> > > Please let me know if there are any objections,
> > >
> > > kdh
> > >
> > > > 5.2.2.2.3.4 allows supply for reinforcement to be traced by sea
> supply,
> > so
> > > > the issue turns on whether France can supply Naples by sea. 7.4.3.1
> > gives
> > > > conditions for tracing sea supply, which are. Clearly, the issue
here
> is
> > > > the interpretation of "Neither port may be blockaded." This seems
> > > > unequivocal, until you read the rule immediately following it.
> > > >
> > > > 7.4.3.2 specifically addresses blocking sea supply, saying that
"Apart
> > > from fleets in the blockade boxes of ports used for sea supply, enemy
> > fleets
> > > do not interrupt such a sea supply chain." Since "enemy fleets" is the
> > > subject of the independent clause, I take it that the fleets mentioned
> in
> > > the dependent clause are the same fleets---that is, enemy fleets. So,
an
> > > equivalent, but clearer wording of 7.4.3.2 would be:
> > > >
> > > > Sea supply is interrupted if and only if an end of the sea supply
> chain
> > is
> > > blockaded by an enemy fleet.
> > > >
> > > > Further considerations:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Fleets not at war with the blockading powers may pass through
> > blockades
> > > unhindered, with exceptions for transporting enemy corps.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Trade may be conducted from blockaded ports so long as the
> blockaders
> > > are not at war with the port's owner.
> > > >
> > > > In all respects aside from tracing supply, it seems that ports are
not
> > > simply blockaded, but blockaded-with-respect-to. Naples is blockaded
for
> > > Russia, but not for France.  It would be bizarre if the blockade
stopped
> > > French supply ships, but not French warships or French merchants. And
it
> > is
> > > very clear that French fleets and trade are not hindered by the
> blockade.
> > > Thus, based on 7.4.3.2 and the blockade and trade rules, I'm inclined
to
> > > think that 7.4.3.1 is a case of sloppy wording. If this is a correct
> > > interpretation, then so long as Kyle places a depot with a fleet in
port
> > > during his land phase, he will be able to trace sea supply to Naples.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>
>


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