Re: [eia] a try for a simple solution to 12.4

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thus spake "J.J. Young":
> 
> Small question; why is it important to use movement points as the metric,
> instead of simple areas ?  Maybe this was answered earlier and I missed it.

So you're not forced to march through a swamp.

[snip]  
> > 4. A fleet owned by or allied to a power that made peace may enter a port
> in
> > former enemy territory if a land unit allied with that power is in the
> port
> > or could enter the port later during the turn.
> >
> > 5. A fleet that enters a port under 4 must embark during the next naval
> phase,
> > carrying, at least one land unit if possible. A fleet that enters
> > Constantinople without an access agreement must exit the Dardanelles into
> the
> > area through which it entered.
> 
> One small problem here; what if the fleet moves to the port, with every
> intention of picking up a corps that could move to the same port, but some
> unexpected circumstance (such as enemy action) prevents the corps from
> getting to the port that turn.  Would the fleet be forced to leave the next
> turn, and then come back again in the third turn ?  This creates an extra
> month's delay in evacuation.
> 
> Is it necessary to require the _fleet_ to leave immediately at all, other
> than the same 6 month time limit as corps have ?

Good point. I'll adjust that.

> > Ok, hopefully that captures everything we've said thus far.
> 
> I think that Joel and I (at least), are getting close to consensus.  But
> there's a number of players that haven't been heard from, yet.

We've generated an awful lot of mail on this point. I wouldn't be surprised
if everyone else is waiting for the dust to settle.
 
_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia