[eia] JJ, don't read!! (very short)

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    JJ, don't read this!  You better stop...  (If you read further, it's your own fault.)

 

    Notice that such a modification would be unnecessary under my (and JJ's previous) interpretation of the rules.  This case provides a perfect example of how Mike's interpretation results in intuitively wrong consequences.  If Mike is right and enemy stacks are allowed to be in the same area without a siege, then a corps can be stuck in a city but unable to build a depot in the city (because the rules for depot construction require a siege).  Mike is willing to change the rules here in a way that makes his interpretation less counter-intuitive overall.  And of course, if his is the interpretation that we are going with, then that's a good thing!  But notice that, whether Mike likes it or not, this counter-intuitive result is further evidence against his interpretation.

    (Hope it doesn't sound like I'm needling.  I'm just trying to make a point.)

 

kdh

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael Gorman

To: eia@xxxxxxxxx

Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 11:52 AM

Subject: [eia] JJ's post

1.)  A defender in a city should be able to build a sea supply depot there whether the attacker outside is laying siege or not.
 

        That sounds like a reasonable modification to me.