Re: [eia] [escrow] October 1805 Political Orders

["James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think I agree with Kyle on this issue.  Of course we are all gentlemen and
we trust each other in regards to certain areas of the game, but I feel the
forces need to be on the board when war is declared.  My example of this
would be this:  in the Iraqi conflict (war?) we did not state " well, we
have some troops in basic training and as soon as they graduate we will
invade"!  No, we had combat units that were already formed and these are the
troops we used to invade.  Regardless of the fact that many may have been
reservists they were still in pre- formed combat units.  Again, I feel that
the units that will be used to invade *must* be on the board.  I apologize
if this sounds like a reversal from my previous position, but I feel this is
what the rules intended.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Uckelman" <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] [escrow] October 1805 Political Orders


> Thus spake "Kyle H":
> >
> >     Thanks for this response.  My problem was that I had forgotten to
move
> > the Spanish fleet from Cartegena to Barcelona on my physical map.
> >     But when I thought that Spain's fleet was still at Cartegena it
occurred
> > to me how ridiculous our current interpretation of  4.2.2.3 is (the
> > "physically impossible" rule).  On our current interpretation, we are
saying
> > that it is "physically possible for the declaring major power to enter
the
> > minor country's territory during this turn" when it is merely
conceptually
> > possible for the major power to build a new corps.  But that
interpretation
> > places virtually no limits on a major power.  Because, after all, *some*
> > type of reinforcements come every month.  October is a militia
reinforcement
> > month.  So (if Spain's fleet were at Cartegena) Spain could say, well I
> > *could* build a new corps with the militia factors I have due this
month.
> > And I *could* transport that corps by sea.  Therefore it is physically
> > possible for me to enter Algeria this turn.  Same goes for November.  If
> > Spain were to make the declaration in November (under the same imaginary
> > conditions), Spain could say, well I *could* build a new corps with the
> > cavalry factors I have due this month.  And I *could* transport that new
> > corps by sea to Algeria.  ...  The point is, there will never be an
occasion
> > where building a new corps in a port city of the home nation is not at
least
> > a conceptual possibility.
> >
> >     To be overly pedantic (philosophical?), I think we have confused
> > "physically possible" with "conceptually possible" in our interpretation
of
> > this rule.
> >
> > kdh
>
> I still stand by my analysis of this last time: There is, at the time of
> the declaration of war, a chain of events that would lead to a Spanish
> corps entering Algeria sometime during this turn.
>
> In the case of the game, I don't see what the difference would be between
> physical and conceptual possibility, since the rules define the game
> "physics".
>
> --
> 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