Re: [eia] Re: reinforcement at Naples

["James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think that I tend to agree with Danny on this issue.  I think we should
try to limit changing our orders to *illegal* orders ( such as my building
two depots in a chain in the same month).  As Danny pointed out, there are
numerous instances  in history when a decision proved to be a mistake.  If
there is ever any doubt about how a rule might be interpreted it should be
questioned before sending out our orders.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] Re: reinforcement at Naples


>     Although I have withdrawn my request to fix my naval orders, I would
> like to clarify what I think is a rather important point, for future
> reference if for no other reason.
>     Apparently the position I stated about when revisions to orders should
> be allowed was not clear because both JJ and Danny misread it.  Danny even
> quoted it verbatim and still misinterpreted it!  So that shows that it was
> not written clearly.
>     Apparently, JJ and Danny thought I was saying that one of the
conditions
> for allowing revised orders was that the revision should have a minimal
> impact on the game situation.  That's not what I meant at all!  If that is
> what I meant, then my position would be relatively vacuous.  After all,
why
> would anyone ask to go back and fix their orders unless the effect would
> have some bearing on the game.  If the change would truly have no impact
on
> the game, then why bother proposing it in the first place?
>     Quite the contrary, I was trying to articulate conditions under which
a
> revision should be permissible *despite the fact* that the revision would
> have serious consequences within the game.  And what I said was that the
> revision should have a minimal impact *on the subsequent movements and
> decisions of other players*.  In other words, even if we go back and fix
the
> mistake, there is no reason to think that any subsequent decisions made by
> other players would have been any different.
>     So in conclusion (and for the record), I was not talking about minimal
> impact on the game situation.  If I had meant that, my position would have
> been worthless.  (It would tell us how to handle the easy cases when what
we
> really want to know is how to handle the hard cases.)  What I meant was
that
> the revision would not have changed anything that anyone else has done
> subsequent to the change.
>
>     Of course, as I said at the beginning, it's all academic now.  It was
> just bugging me that people had radically misunderstood my position.  I
> couldn't live with myself unless I set things straight.  :-)
>
> kdh
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 11:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [eia] Re: reinforcement at Naples
>
>
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>

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