Re: [eia] reinforcement question

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

I think the word "friendly" is intended to mean the forces of a major power
and all the free states controlled by that major power.  This distinguishes
a "friendly" corps from an "allied" corps, for example.  That's my opinion.

-JJY

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 7:57 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] reinforcement question


> I did not find anything in the rules that says definitely one way or the
> other.  But here is my take on the subject:  I assume that a "friendly
> corps' in this scenario is referring to a controlled corps of that major
> power.  My reasoning for this is that, regardless of physical depots on
the
> map, I think all corps are assumed to be in some limited degree of supply.
> Otherwise corps too far from a depot would run out of ammunition and be
> unable to attack at all.  I think it is this degree of supply that allows
a
> new military unit to be placed on the field and this type of reinforcement
> cannot come from another major powers supply line.  So, unless someone can
> dredge up a rule to the contrary I would vote that a new corps must be
> placed with "any friendly, _controlled_ corps".
>
> JRH
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>
> To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 3:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [eia] reinforcement question
>
>
> >     It's a good question.  I had assumed that you could only place a new
> > corps outside the home nation with another corps you controlled.  (Thus,
I
> > was celebrating the surrender of the Russian corps at Damietta, because
I
> > assumed that meant the end of Russian reinforcements.)  However, this
> > wording does seem to place my previous interpretation in doubt.
> >     Can we find someplace else in the rules where the word "friendly" is
> > clearly used to mean "allied or controlled"?  Maybe that would help to
> > settle the issue.  (Alternatively, is there any place else in the rules
> were
> > "friendly" is clearly used to mean just "controlled"?)  I am asking
> because
> > I use a physical rulebook to reference the rules and do not have a word
> > search capability as some of you seem to have who access electronic
copies
> > of the rules.
> >
> > kdh
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Joel Uckelman" <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 4:40 PM
> > Subject: [eia] reinforcement question
> >
> >
> > > I've been trying to determine whether it is legal for me to place a
> corps
> > > at Corfu. 5.2.1.2 permits a new corps to be placed with any unbesieged
> > > friendly corps. What I'm uncertain about is whether the Spanish corps
> > there
> > > counts as friendly. I can't find a definition of "friendly" in the
> rules.
> > > Are "friendly" corps just the corps I control? I.e., the rules are
> driving
> > > at the distinction between my corps and corps belonging to my minor
> > allies,
> > > e.g., Austrian corps are "friendly" corps for the Bavarians? (If so,
why
> > > didn't they say "controlled", which is clearer?) Or are my allies'
corps
> > also
> > > "friendly"? They're neither enemy nor neutral, so...?
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
>
>


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