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.

kdh

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

From: Kyle H

To: eia@xxxxxxxxx

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.)

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.