Joel Uckelman on 10 Mar 2003 01:50:01 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [eia] Re: reinforcement at Naples

Thus spake "Kyle H":
>     Well, I just returned from a weekend trip to visit Katy's =
> grandparents, and I don't have a lot of time to research the wording of =
> the rules.  But my initial response is that it doesn't make much sense =
> that French reinforcements would be unable to penetrate a blockade of =
> ships that are not at war with France.
>     But, like I said, for all I know the language on this point may be =
> perfectly clear, and I wouldn't know it.  So if I'm screwed on this one, =
> then I'm screwed.  But since I don't have time to look it up myself, I'm =
> sending this issue out for all interested parties to consider.  Please =
> read JJ's question below and let me know what you think.
> kdh allows supply for reinforcement to be traced by sea supply, so 
the issue turns on whether France can supply Naples by sea. gives 
conditions for tracing sea supply, which are. Clearly, the issue here is 
the interpretation of "Neither port may be blockaded." This seems 
unequivocal, until you read the rule immediately following it. specifically addresses blocking sea supply, saying that "Apart from fleets in the blockade boxes of ports used for sea supply, enemy fleets do not interrupt such a sea supply chain." Since "enemy fleets" is the subject of the independent clause, I take it that the fleets mentioned in the dependent clause are the same fleets---that is, enemy fleets. So, an equivalent, but clearer wording of would be:

Sea supply is interrupted if and only if an end of the sea supply chain is blockaded by an enemy fleet.

Further considerations:

1. Fleets not at war with the blockading powers may pass through blockades unhindered, with exceptions for transporting enemy corps.

2. Trade may be conducted from blockaded ports so long as the blockaders are not at war with the port's owner.

In all respects aside from tracing supply, it seems that ports are not simply blockaded, but blockaded-with-respect-to. Naples is blockaded for Russia, but not for France.  It would be bizarre if the blockade stopped French supply ships, but not French warships or French merchants. And it is very clear that French fleets and trade are not hindered by the blockade. Thus, based on and the blockade and trade rules, I'm inclined to think that is a case of sloppy wording. If this is a correct interpretation, then so long as Kyle places a depot with a fleet in port during his land phase, he will be able to trace sea supply to Naples.


eia mailing list