Re: [eia] Re: reinforcement at Naples

["J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The only thing I disagree with in what Kyle has said is that this change has
"minimal impact".  We all know that the future of Italy hinges on it.  If I
had know the way we were going to interpret the rule on sea supply to
blockaded ports, I might have placed my VII fleet somewhere different, but I
can't say for sure.  Oh, well.

-JJY

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [eia] Re: reinforcement at Naples


>     JJ,
>     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
> possible.
>
> Thanks,
>
> kdh
>
> ----- 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
> 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
> > 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
> after
> > > the naval battle at Naples to dock at the port.  (Rule 6.3.5.3 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,
> > >
> > > kdh
> > >
> > > > 5.2.2.2.3.4 allows supply for reinforcement to be traced by sea
> supply,
> > so
> > > > the issue turns on whether France can supply Naples by sea. 7.4.3.1
> > 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.
> > > >
> > > > 7.4.3.2 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 7.4.3.2 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 7.4.3.2 and the blockade and trade rules, I'm inclined
to
> > > think that 7.4.3.1 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
> > eia@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>
>


_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia