Kyle H on 31 Jul 2002 02:42:05 -0000

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

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

    If this message seems a bit out of context, that's because it was actually sent *after* another message that got held up and is waiting for Joel's approval.  So if you're wondering where this email is coming from, try re-reading it after you read the first "JJ, don't read!!" email.
----- Original Message -----
From: Kyle H
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 9:44 PM
Subject: [eia] JJ, don't read!! (very short)

    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.)
----- Original Message -----
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.