Re: [eia] Russian Land Phase

["J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am dubious, because of the fact that depot removal is completed before
depot creation, and the phrasing of rule 7.2.3 as, "within two unblocked
areas of an already exist_ing_ (before this turn) depot that is a supply
source".  I think Mike's interpretation would have a stronger case if the
rule read,"within two unblocked areas of a depot (a supply source or part of
a valid chain), _which existed at the beginning of this turn_".

I suppose just leaving the depot at Minsk for another turn would expose
Russia to an undesirable risk ?  Just groping for a simple solution.

-JJY

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Gorman" <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 11:07 PM
Subject: [eia] Russian Land Phase


> France might well go first, but I can't see how we'll actually matter to
> each other.
>
> Depot Removal: Minsk
> Depot Creation: Vitebsk and Vilna($2)
>
> I'm going to pause here to give people a chance to disagree with me on how
> depot creation works.  As far as I can tell, even though the supply source
> the depot north of Minsk is linked to changes from Minsk to Vitebsk, the
> fact that it existed at the beginning of the turn allows a depot to be
> added to its chain in Vilna.
>
> But, I can see how someone might disagree with me, so I'll stop and give a
> everyone a chance to disagree before I bother posting a bunch of orders
> that will change if this is not a proper set of depot orders.
>
> Mike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>
>


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