| Kyle H on 12 Mar 2003 02:33:01 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [eia] Re: reinforcement at Naples |
Hey, it's no big deal. My philosophy training has just made me anal when it comes to getting a point across. As far as I'm concerned, the issue is dead. On with the Austrian land phase! kdh ----- Original Message ----- From: "Danny Mount" <mount.23@xxxxxxx> To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 8:41 PM Subject: RE: [eia] Re: reinforcement at Naples > 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 Although I have withdrawn my request to fix my naval orders, I would 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 _______________________________________________ eia mailing list eia@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia