Kyle H on 11 Mar 2003 00:22:01 -0000

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

Re: [eia] Re: reinforcement at Naples

    Since we just clarified the rules for reinforcing by sea, I was
wondering if anyone would object to a minor adjustment to France's naval
movement.  According to the rules, I should have had an opportunity after
the naval battle at Naples to dock at the port.  (Rule states,
"Since the movement between a blockade box and its port is free, the victor
(even if the phaiscing side with all movement expended) in a blockade box
naval combat may be, if the port is friendly or with access permission,
moved into the port following the naval combat.")  This adjustment, if it
were allowed, would give France an opportunity to re-supply its corps in
Italy (under our newly accepted interpretation of the sea supply rules).
    Since GB had already taken its naval move before France, this adjustment
could not have had any effect on JJ's move.  Only Spain and Turkey went
after France in the naval phase, and since France is not at war with either
of those powers, it's hard to see what effect this adjustment could have on
them, either.
    Of course, if this adjustment were permitted, GB would naturally be
given an opportunity to revise its land orders accordingly.

Please let me know if there are any objections,


> 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.
> --
> J.
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx

eia mailing list