Re: [eia] Question: all-or-nothing and supply

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    It depends on when you two are planning to get together online.  I can
probably make it any time today or this weekend.

kdh

----- Original Message -----
From: "J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: [eia] Question: all-or-nothing and supply


> I don't know how to set up an escrow for Egypt and Syria's chit choices
(if
> the instructions for this were ever sent to me, I've lost them - sorry).
> Could someone volunteer to act as neutral observer and recieve our choices
?
> As a reminder, since the Egyptian corps is British-controlled, it has a
"2"
> tactical rating for its corps commander, while the Turkish-controlled
Syria
> corps has a "1".  So based only on tactical ratings, the Syrians will be
> rolling at -1, the Egyptians at 0.
>
> -JJY
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 7:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [eia] Question: all-or-nothing and supply
>
>
> >     Another question on the same topic:  I recall that once upon a time
> the
> > idea was floated that we would not require a corps to lay siege on the
> first
> > turn that it arrived, but *would* require it to lay siege on subsequent
> > turns.  Did we decide to go with that, or was that idea rejected?  My
> > perception of the rules is that a besieger can decide to stop the siege
> any
> > time he wants and still remain in the area.  (I don't know why he'd ever
> > *want* to do that, but there may be a reason.)
> >     Of course, as we all know, my understanding of the rules is still
> > incomplete, so I could be wrong.  If I am wrong and there is decisive
> rules
> > language on this issue, could you please point me to it?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > kdh
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Gorman" <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 1:32 PM
> > Subject: Re: [eia] Question: all-or-nothing and supply
> >
> >
> > > At 10:00 AM 8/1/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> > > >     Everett, you are right.  If the an enemy corps is already
> besieged,
> > then
> > > >you do not need to stop movement and declare an attack.  You can
> continue
> > > >moving right on by, if you wish.  Or you can stop and join the siege.
> Or
> > > >you can stop, and subsequently decide to lift the siege.
> > > >
> > > >kdh
> > >
> > > That last one is an important one to point out, I think.  The fact
that
> > you
> > > need to supply a corps that stops in an area where you are involved in
a
> > > siege so as to allow it to join the siege or all corps must lift the
> > siege.
> > >
> > >          There is one last scenario where you can continue movement,
but
> I
> > > expect it'll be a rare one.  Once a corps is in a city, it remains
there
> > > until its owner's turn when they can spend zero movement points to
> remove
> > > it from the city.  This could lead to a situation where you enter an
> area
> > > with an enemy corps that has not yet left its city.  In that case, you
> > > could also continue movement.  I imagine this is most likely if you
> > abandon
> > > a siege and then have another corps pass by that turn or if two
nations
> > are
> > > at war with a third and are not using combined movement to coordinate
> > their
> > > actions.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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