Re: [eia] couple more rules questions

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

I think "friendly-controlled" just means controlled by you or by another
non-enemy that gives you access to place a depot in a port that they
control.

As to the question of whether a depot can be placed in a port city and used
for sea supply regardless of whether the entire territory is controlled, I
would say that there are many circumstances in the game when an invader
creates a depot in one area of a larger territory which the defender still
controls.  The important thing is that the area where the depot is placed is
controlled by the invader (it must be, since a corps must be there to place
the depot).  I don't see any difference between this and the placement of a
sea supply depot in a port.

I think our lives will be much simpler if we assume that garrisons can
switch duties simulatneously.  Keeping track of exactly which possible duty
each garrison is fulfilling each turn will add another level of complexity
to our orders, but this can be done if others wish to do so.

-JJY
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 9:46 AM
Subject: [eia] couple more rules questions


>     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
>
>


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