| J.J. Young on 13 Dec 2002 03:35:01 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| [eia] please read the whole thing before responding |
|
6.3.1 WHO MAY FIGHT: If enemy fleets of
more than one major power occupy a sea area, blockade box, or port, only one
major power's stack can be attacked (for this purpose, all major powers who have
declared combined movement and are at war with the attacker are considered to be
one major power). Other major powers in the sea area, blockade box, or
port can be ignored (even with combined movement declared, if not at war with
the attacker).
This rule is written badly. It covers the
situation where the defender's combined stack has fleets which are, and
fleets which are not, at war with the _single_ attacking major power (that is,
fleets not at war with the attacker do not participate). It does not
cover the situation we have here, where the fleets of the defenders are at war
with at least one of the combined attackers.
Here are three ways this situation could have been
addressed by the rule-makers, but was not:
1.) The last sentence could have said, "even
with combined movement declared, if not at war with _all_ fleets in the
attacking stack". Or, conversely, it could have said, "if not at war with
_any_ of the fleets in the attacking stack".
2.) The situation of attacking a combined
defender's stack could have been handled exactly like a defender carrying troops
at war with the attackers; if you sail around together with our enemies, you are
liable to attack, in the same way that you are liable to attack if transporting
enemy corps.
3.) The situation of a combined attacking
force vs. a combined defending force is handled very explicitly and efficiently
for land combats in section 7.3.8 (which just emphasizes the sloppiness of
the rule-makers vague language for the same situation in the naval
rules). In 7.3.8, if any of the combined defenders are not at war with all
attackers, that defender must leave the area before the battle takes
place.
With all the time invested to get to this point in
the turn, were're painted into a corner as to how to interpret the rule. I
wish I felt certain about the intention of the rule-makers; this is one of the
worse lapses I've seen of being vague about a situation which is bound to come
up. The only (other) thing I'm going to say on the matter is that we
really should have hashed this rule out as a group ahead of time, and I
take my own full share of the blame for this. I recognized the vagueness
of the rule the first time I read it, and I'm sure everyone else did, too
(unless I am just way off base). But my desire to be close-vested about my
plans kept me from bringing it up, until we come to this situation where our
entire naval turns have been based on different assumptions. I promise to
do better in the future about bringing up issues where (at least to me) the
rules are fuzzy, as soon as I see them, instead of letting matters
drift.
On to the battle !
-JJY
|