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

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    Thanks for your input, Jim.  If JJ still maintains his original position
on this issue, then it seems like we have a new 4-3 majority going the other
way.  Unless I am mistaken, our new (slim) majority favors interpreting
4.2.2.3 in terms of existing corps rather than potential corps.

kdh

P.S.  Normally I wouldn't be satisfied deciding an issue on the basis of
such a slim majority.  But this is an issue of such little consequence in
the grand scheme of things, that I think it's best to just take care of it
with a simple vote and be done with it.


----- Original Message -----
From: "James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] [escrow] October 1805 Political Orders


> 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

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