J.J. Young on 11 Mar 2003 02:53:01 -0000

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

Re: [eia] Re: reinforcement at Naples

I guess I can't justify disallowing this change, but it does make me pretty
uncomfortable.  It does, after all, make a big difference in the game, and
Kyle has had the chance to see what my land orders would have been.  Not
that I'm saying Kyle is reacting to my orders, but it just makes me


----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 7:20 PM
Subject: 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
> (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
> 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
> of those powers, it's hard to see what effect this adjustment could have
> 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,
> kdh
> > allows supply for reinforcement to be traced by sea supply,
> > the issue turns on whether France can supply Naples by sea.
> > 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
> 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
> blockaded by an enemy fleet.
> >
> > Further considerations:
> >
> > 1. Fleets not at war with the blockading powers may pass through
> 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
> 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
> > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia

eia mailing list