Kyle H on 11 Mar 2003 13:40:01 -0000

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

Re: [eia] Re: reinforcement at Naples

    I agree with you that in general it is distasteful to go back in time to
fix things.  Generally, if you made a mistake, you should just accept that
fact and move on.  However, I think that going back to fix orders should be
permitted when both of the two following sets of circumstances apply:  a)
the rules about the situation in question have recently been changed,
reinterpreted, and/or clarified, and b) the change in question has a minimal
impact on the subsequent movements and decisions of other players.  Since
both of these conditions apply in this case, I'm hopeful that the rest of
you will be understanding and allow me to make the adjustment.  (Of course,
as we have decided in the past, the final decision lies with those who could
be adversely affected by the decision and/or those who are at war with the
player requesting the change.  Still, these are the guidelines under which
*I* would accept a request to fix one's orders as a reasonable one.)
    I appreciate JJ's willingness to allow this change (however
reluctantly).  I'm glad he understands that my request was *not* made in
reference to his recently published land orders.  In fact, if I am permitted
to make my adjustment, those orders will be completely null and void as far
as I'm concerned.  He will be free to make whatever changes he deems
necessary, whether they involve Italy or not.  (Needless to say, this
goodwill on JJ's part deserves reciprocation on my part.  Translation:  I
owe him one.)

But I shouldn't count my chickens before they are hatched.  If any other
player wishes to object to this adjustment, please let me know as soon as



----- Original Message -----
From: "J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] Re: reinforcement at Naples

> I guess I can't justify disallowing this change, but it does make me
> 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
> uncomfortable.
> -JJY
> ----- 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
> > 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
> > naval combat may be, if the port is friendly or with access permission,
> > moved into the port following the naval combat.")  This adjustment, if
> > 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,
> >
> > kdh
> >
> > > allows supply for reinforcement to be traced by sea
> so
> > > the issue turns on whether France can supply Naples by sea.
> gives
> > > conditions for tracing sea supply, which are. Clearly, the issue here
> > > 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
> > 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
> 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > eia@xxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx

eia mailing list