Re: [eia] condensed garrison issues in votable format

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

> ISSUE 1A:  GARRISON MIGRATION.  Can factors from a pre-existing city
> garrison become part of a depot garrison at the time that a new depot is
> created in the same area?
>     - The rules seem to say NO.  (For example, see 7.3.4.)
>     - In the past, we have said YES.
>     - My recommendation is YES.

I vote YES, and I don't even think that the rules contradict this view.

> ISSUE 1B:  DEFAULTS?  If we say YES to Issue 1A, should we come up with
> default assumptions regarding whether a city garrison migrates when a new
> depot is created?
>     - The rules have no bearing on this issue.
>     - In the past, we have had a default (city garrison becomes depot
> garrison), but that default would not have a clear application in all
cases.
> (See previous email for a discussion of difficult cases.)
>     - My recommendation is NO; depot creators must explicitly decide which
> (if any) city garrison factors become depot garrison factors.  Depot
> creators are to be prompted if necessary to make these decisions.

I vote YES to a default, but only where the eligible factors that could
become part of the depot garrison number 10 or less.

> ISSUE 1C:  CASE-BY-CASE DEFAULTS.  If we say YES to Issue 1B, what will
the
> defaults be for each of the distinct cases mentioned in my previous email?
> (See below.)
>     - The rules have no bearing on this issue.
>     - Past experience is inapplicable.
>     - I have no recommendation.

See my vote for 1B above.

> ISSUE 2A: CAN CORPS BURN DEPOTS?  If an ungarrisoned depot and a corps of
> the same nationality are in the same area when an enemy corps arrives,
does
> the corps have the option of burning the depot (as if the corps were a
depot
> garrison)?
>     - The rules seem to say NO.  (See 7.3.3.3.1, 7.3.3.3.2, 7.3.6.1, and
> 7.3.6.2.)
>     - In the past, we have said YES.
>     - My recommendation is YES.

YES.

> ISSUE 2B:  HOW ABOUT ALLIED OR CONTROLLED MINOR FREE STATE CORPS?  If we
say
> YES to Issue 2A, can allied or minor free state corps burn ungarrisoned
> friendly depots?
>     - The rules have no direct bearing on this issue, but indirectly they
> seem to indicate NO.  (See 7.3.3.5.1 and 7.3.3.5.2.)
>     - I believe that in the past we have said YES.
>     - My recommendation is YES.

Controlled free state corps YES, allied corps NO.

> ISSUE 2C:  OWNER PERMISSION.  If we say YES to Issue 2B, can an allied
corps
> burn an ungarrisoned friendly depot without first obtaining permission
from
> the depot owner (assuming that the depot owner has no forces present in
the
> area)?
>     - The rules have no bearing on this issue.
>     - Past experience is not applicable.
>     - My recommendation is YES.

NO.

> ISSUE 3A:  BESIEGED SUPPLY.  Does each besieged corps and each besieged
> garrison within the same city have to roll *separately* against the city's
> besieged supply value?
>     - The rules are ambiguous on this issue depending on one's
> interpretation of the wording.  (See 7.4.5 and 7.4.5.1.)
>     - In the past, we have said YES.
>     - My recommendation is NO.

Definitely YES, although all factors in a city not in a corps are part of a
single city garrison (note the unambiguous single noun "garrison" in
7.4.5.2).

> ISSUE 3B:  DISTINGUISHING GARRISONS.  If we say YES to Issue 2A, do
garrison
> factors of different (but allied or controlled minor free state)
> nationalities count as separate garrisons?
>     - The rules do not address this issue.
>     - Past experience is not applicable.
>     - My recommendation is NO.

NO, all the factors in a city not in a corps are part of one city garrison.

-JJY


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