Re: [eia] Spanish Land Phase, 4/07

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    I disagree that Spain should have the ability to teleport its fleet to
Barcelona to fix a mistaken interpretation of the rules that has been going
on since the game began.  Our past policy when we found mistakes was not to
fix them retroactively, but to let things stand as is.  So, for example,
when we found out that Spain was not supposed to be getting the manpower
from Languedoc for all those economic phases, we did not suggest that Danny
should lose 7 - 8 factors worth of troops.  And that was perfectly
appropriate, in my view.  The rules are there for all to read.  Since no one
else caught the error either, Danny should not be penalized for a mistake
that we all made.
    In this case, I think that our previous interpretation of the rules
should apply for the remainder of this turn.  So Spain keeps its fleets
where they are and gets to supply the corps in Damietta via sea supply.  But
even under our old interpretation of the rules, Naples would not have been
eligible for sea supply this turn.  So the corps at Naples loses 2 (not 3 -
thanks JJ) factors due to foraging losses.
    However, we are all aware that next turn the sea supply rules will be
enforced as written.  If Danny wishes to move his fleets, that will be his
choice.

kdh

----- Original Message -----
From: "J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] Spanish Land Phase, 4/07


> Kyle, we need to stop wasting our time typing emails about the same things
> simultaneously !  :-)
>
> On further reading of rule 7.4.3.1, I find that I have been interpreting
> this rule slightly incorrectly.  I never violated the rule myself in this
> game, but I passed on my incorrect interpretation to Danny.  In order to
> connect two ports by sea supply, the rule says, "At least one of these
ports
> must contain a fleet of the major power and/or an ally and _that port_ (my
> underline) must be a supply source or be able to trace a valid supply
chain
> to a supply source."  I had thought that the fleet could be in either of
the
> two ports, and when Danny asked me about sea supply, that's what I told
him.
> But apparently I am wrong.  Sorry, Danny.
>
> I have gone back carefully over the records and I find that because of
this
> mistake, which was the fault of my bad advice, Spain's sea supply to
> Damietta was invalid for March and April.  However, this could easily have
> been fixed if the Spanish I fleet, which had been staying in Damietta to
> maintain sea supply there, instead accomplished the same purpose by moving
> to Naples or Palermo in March, and maintaining a depot in one of those
> places for a cost of $1 in the economic phase, then moving to Barcelona in
> April's naval phase.  Then sea supply was maintained the entire time.
>
> So Danny, the upshot is that you would have had to pay an additional $1 in
> the economic phase (which you could just pay now), and the I fleet would
now
> be in Barcelona, and there's no problem with sea supply.  Again, I'm sorry
> about this mistake.
>
> On the Naples issue, I find that there's a maximum penalty of 2 to the
> forage roll for big garrisons, so the forage roll would be 4-2 = 2-.  So
> Spain could either build a depot in Naples, and pay the $1.5 to feed then,
> or lose 2 factors.
>
> So to sum up:
> 1.)  To maintain sea supply until now, the fleet in Damietta had to have
> moved to a Spanish supply source (Barcelona ?), and Spain had to have paid
> an additional $1 of maintenance in the 3/07 economic phase (which I
include
> in the following total costs).
>
> 2.)  Spain can either pay a total cost of $9 and build a depot in Naples,
or
> pay a total cost of $8 and lose 2 factors in Naples.
>
> I hope this is a satisfactory solution.  I tried to fix my mistake with a
> solution with the minimum change, that was fair to both warring parties.
>
> -JJY
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>
> To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 11:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [eia] Spanish Land Phase, 4/07
>
>
> > > I corps in Naples holds (f/4-)
> >
> >     Danny,
> >     You are apparently not aware of how forage rolls work when you are
> > besieged.  You start with the number of spires, which is 4.  But then
you
> > subtract 1 for every full group of 5 factors garrisoning the city.
Since
> > you told us that the city is fully garrisoned, that means there must be
at
> > least 15 factors in the city (and not more than 16 due to Spanish corps
> size
> > limits).  Hence, your forage roll would be 4 (base value) - 3 (garrison
> > size) = 1.
> >     With this new information, you may wish to revise your land orders
to
> > take advantage of sea supply.  ...  However, taking a look at the map,
I'm
> > not sure you'd be eligible for sea supply this turn even if you did
build
> a
> > depot at Naples.  (None of your ships are in ports that could be a
supply
> > source.)  So, I think you're stuck with 3 foraging losses this turn.
> >
> > kdh
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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