[eia] couple more rules questions

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    GARRISON MULTI-TASKING:  Earlier this turn, before Spain took its naval
turn, its II Fleet sat in Barcelona harbor.  At the same time, in the area
outside Barcelona, there was a depot manned by a small garrison.  Now let's
suppose that Russia for some reason decided to use its III Fleet to attack
the II Fleet in Barcelona harbor.  The question is Should we suppose that
the harbor guns are manned by a garrison or not?  On the one hand, the
garrison is outside the city defending the depot, so how could it also be
inside the city manning the guns?  On the other hand, we might just want to
assume that garrisons can switch back and forth automatically and
immediately just to save ourselves extra work and consideration in placing
our garrisons.
    DEFAULT POSITION:  Unless people tell me otherwise, I will assume that
depot garrisons also function as city garrisons when needed, i.e., that the
2 are essentially interchangeable at any time.  (This ruling seems in
keeping with our previous ruling on depot garrisons.)

    SEA SUPPLY:  Basically, this question boils down to what counts as a
"friendly controlled port or port area".  Recall the situation a few turns
back when the British had a corps in Amsterdam, but Holland was still
French-controlled.  Under those circumstances, would GB have been able to
place a depot in Amsterdam and use that depot as part of sea supply?  (For
all I know, JJ might actually have done this.)
    Maybe we dealt with this issue before, but I'm having trouble getting my
mind around the purpose of the term "friendly" in the phrase "friendly
controlled port".  Surely, since there was a British corps in Amsterdam, the
port of Amsterdam was controlled by GB at the time in question.  But was it
friendly to the British?  If so, can anyone think of a situation in which
there would be an "unfriendly controlled port or port area"?  When would
that term "friendly" ever come into use?
    DEFAULT POSITION:  I am assuming that JJ expects to be able to use ports
that his forces control for sea supply regardless of whether GB controls the
entire territory.  And in fact, when I asked a similar question on the EiH
list, a big-wig there told me that the term "friendly" is entirely redundant
as it is used throughout the rules - so "friendly controlled" just means
"controlled".  Although it would be nice for me if things worked out the
other way, I can accept this ruling if that's the way others see it as well.
I just wanted to make sure that everyone else is on the same page so that
the issue doesn't come up again.  Is everyone happy with the idea that the
word "friendly" has no real meaning in the rules of this game?  If not,
speak up.

kdh


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