Kyle H on 10 Mar 2003 13:17:01 -0000

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

Re: [eia] Re: reinforcement at Naples

    Joel, thanks for your research on this point.  I think your reasoning is
persuasive.  Unfortunately, it is all for naught.  I agree with you and JJ
when you say that I have no fleet which will be able to serve as a basis for
sea supply.  So the French will not be able to reinforce their corps at


----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Uckelman" <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] Re: reinforcement at Naples

> Thus spake "J.J. Young":
> > My reasoning is that a friendly or allied fleet in one of the ports is
> > required for two ports to be connected by sea supply.  The only fleet
> > qualifies at present is the Russian fleet, which is blockaded.  So
> > it is that the fleet in a port is supposed to do to enable sea supply to
> > happen, the Russian fleet can't do it.  Joel said:
> >
> > > If this is a correct interpretation, then so long as Kyle >places a
> > with a fleet in port during his land phase, >he will be able to trace
> > supply to Naples.
> >
> > But this cannot be done this turn, since the 2 French fleets in port are
> > already blockaded by enemy forces.  So my conclusion is that there are
> > presently no friendly or allied fleets which can fulfill the purpose of
> > supply for France.  The French I and II fleets, and the Russian fleet,
> > blockaded and tied up to the docks, might as well not be on the map at
> > as far as sea supply goes.
> >
> > -JJY
> Aha. In that case, I concur. I hadn't checked first to see whether there
> were any French fleets that were in unblockaded ports.
> --
> J.
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx

eia mailing list