RE: [eia] Re: reinforcement at Naples

[Danny Mount <mount.23@xxxxxxx>]

Kyle,
I understand what you are saying now.  Sorry about the misinterpretation.
We can wait to hear back from the other guys to see what they say or just
continue on.  I trust your judgment.  So again, I apologize for the
confusion.
-DEM





-----Original Message-----
From: eia-admin@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-admin@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Kyle
H
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 7:57 PM
To: eia@xxxxxxxxx
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    Although I have withdrawn my request to fix my naval orders, I would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