Hello,
I didn't upload the British turn seeing the message that he will post
again. If he does not have any changes I could do so now, but we need Tiron
to clarify first whether he will post a new file or not.
I don't see other people replying on the Danish island issue and it has
been under discussion for too long. Therefore* the rule will be followed as
written,* so Prussia please move forward with your turn assuming this.
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 9:04 AM, Laertes Papaspyrou <
dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I got this mail twice, is that a good thing??? :) I resubscribed
yesterday, lets see if it helps.
To the issue discussed, even though it may not make much sense, the rule
seems clear. It does not distinguish between besieged/ unbesieged.
Therefore I think crossing is possible as long as there is someone in
whatever state on both sides.
------------------------------
*From:* Yannis Sykamias <ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>
*To:* "eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "
eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Cc:* Laertes Papaspyrou <bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tiron <
strategija@xxxxxxxxx>; Highlander Scotland <scotland_above_all@xxxxxxxxxxx
*Sent:* Friday, 29 June 2018, 7:28
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: moving via Danish sea crossing arrows
Good morning!
Makis, Do you mean Trello or free lists?
I am copying the emails directly to check!
------------------------------
*From:* eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Thursday, June 28, 2018 9:26:23 PM
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: moving via Danish sea crossing arrows
Laertis is not able to receive emails from trello, he asked me to let you
all know, it is the reason he is not replying. Theo and Tiron have also not
replied on the issue, I wonder if they receive the messages we write?
The above 'complaint' from Dimitris is probably valid, we try to use
realism when the rules are not clear. In this case they are, they just seem
"off". Maybe we should play by the as suggested from the start (that is -
as the rule is written) and move on. Discussions are to decide on a course
of action that will be used multiple times, it does not matter who favours
at a specific point in time.
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 8:12 PM, Dimitris Stavr. <poliorkitis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
i'd like to add that there are several times that rules seem to lack of
rational.
just to remind that such a case was when a Russian withdrawal started at
Konig and ended near of St. Petersburg. i assume we all share common sense
to think that this doesn't look "realistic" but we followed the rule.
could be not "realistic" that a one ship fleet is able to transfer 10
infantry factors, still we play it and although we might have challenged
it, we play it.
maybe we do so because "it is written" clear.
there are other cases that need interpretation, like the Turkish
withdrawal out of Vienna, or the raising of Austrian Insurections, or older
discussions about leader's modifiers, and besieged/occupied cities (i
slightly remember these issues but i bet Yannis has a better memory!).
please allow me to insist that this is not such a case, and one of our
initial thoughts to chos to play Empires in Arms rather than Empires in
Harms was that EiA rules are more simple (!). please lets keep them simple.
finally i suggest once more to resolve this issue and start playing my
turn which includes naval movement as well.
------------------------------
*From:* eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > on
behalf of Yannis Sykamias <ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Thursday, June 28, 2018 11:11
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: moving via Danish sea crossing arrows
Makis this is you??? For some reason we receive emails without clarifying
on behalf of whom!
Anyway, yes the point is valid. I assume in your example you assume that a
respective friendly corps pre-exists in the middle-island, correct?
However, the peculiarity of this case is that the garrison holds a
beach fort. So, there might be the case that the guns from the fort prevent
an enemy fleet to blockade all the land area that allows for crossing
(assuming there are friendly guns on the other side as well), thus allowing
for a space of friendly passage.
Similarly, the besieger may have a friendly passage (possibly a bit more
distant to the fort) if he also holds both sides of the islands.
I am not saying that i agree with this approach, i am just trying to be in
the spirit of the rule since the rules in every case it is demanded they
clarify for the need of unbesieged garrisons while in this case it is just
a garrison....
------------------------------
*From:* eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >
*Sent:* Thursday, June 28, 2018 10:46
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: moving via Danish sea crossing arrows
I thought about it a bit more. I came to the conclusion that by
interpreting it as the rule says letter-by_letter, it leads to weird
situations:
In our example we have that Kopenhagen is under siege, so there are Danish
inside, and Russians outside. Friendly troops to Denmark want to move over
to relieve, but a Russian fleet is present in the area. According to the
rule, if followed on the letter, both islands have friendly garrisons so
the Danish troops they may pass - yes?
Then consider it the other way.
Kopenhagen is under siege, so there are Danish inside, and Russians
outside again. But now a *Danish fleet* holds the sea area, and *Russians*
want to move over to Copenhagen to reinforce the siege. Can they do it?
According to the rules, the answer is yes yet again, because there are
friendly corps in both areas.
How can this be? Both the besieged troops and the besiegers, satisfy the
condition of moving troops along, which means both control the island
against fleets? This is fishy...
I believe that the rule concerns *who controls the actual area*, not the
city inside. In case of a siege, control of the island passes to the
besieger.
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Dimitris Stavr. <poliorkitis@xxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:
i'm OK too
------------------------------
*From:* eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > on
behalf of Makis Xiroyannis <makis.xiroyannis@xxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 27, 2018 23:07
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: moving via Danish sea crossing arrows
i am ok with that Dimitri
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 9:54 PM, NIKOLAOY DHMHTRIOS <nikolad1@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
To speed things up (if no-one objects)
I will build a depot in Riga
No depots will be built on the fleets as depot creation is simultaneous
XXX in Oslo and Copenhagen will forage
Στις 2018-06-27 21:39, Yannis Sykamias έγραψε:
I am on the same page with Makis on this. We have to check...
------------------------------
*From:* eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > on
behalf of Makis Xiroyannis <makis.xiroyannis@xxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 27, 2018 9:11:28 PM
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: moving via Danish sea crossing arrows
1. Absolutely
2. I too have doubts. The wording of the rule only mentions "garrisons"
and not "unbesieged garrisons" where in other cases it mentions so.
Therefore following the letter of the rule, you can pass through. But I
have doubts it was intended, so whatever we decide will work from now on.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 8:54 PM, NIKOLAOY DHMHTRIOS <nikolad1@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
If no fleet is in the sea area there is no problem with moving over
crossing arrows
As for a besieged garrison allowing the use of a crossing arrow despite
the presence of an enemy fleet in the area I have my doubts
Στις 2018-06-27 20:50, Dimitris Stavr. έγραψε:
what about this ??
1. do we agree that Danes can move via 1st crossing arrow, because of
no fleet presence on the sea area? or they would be able to move anyways?
2. do we agree that Danes can move via 2nd crossing arrow, because of
Danish garrison presence in Copenhagen?
------------------------------
*From:* eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > on
behalf of Dimitris Stavr. <poliorkitis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 27, 2018 20:11
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] moving via Danish sea crossing arrows
7.3.1.3.3 Sea Crossing Arrow Movement: It always costs an extra
movement point to use a crossing arrow. Corps, freikorps and/or cossacks
may not use a crossing arrow if an enemy eet occupies the surrounding
sea
area.
Russian fleets are in blockade boxes, so Danes can move from Hamburg to
the island and then
12.2.1.2 DANISH/SWEDISH SEA CROSSING ARROWS: These areas are
extremely narrow and could be dominated even by the guns of the period.
A eet in the sea area cannot block any of the sea crossing arrows in
Denmark or the one connecting the Copenhagen and Malmo areas if enemy
corps and/or garrisons are located in both land areas connected by the
arrows.
according to the above, Danish corps is on the one side of the crossing
arrow that connects the island with Copenhagen, and danish garrison is in
Copenhagen is on the other side. so Danes can move to Copenhagen.
------------------------------
*From:* Dimitris Stavr. <poliorkitis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 27, 2018 20:01
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* issues after Russian movemnt
hello all
i've noticed 2+1 issues after russian turn
1. is allowed to build a depot in a blockade box?
2. is allowed invasion supply without depot in a friendly port?
3. a corps moving via Danish sea crossing arrows, can reach Copenhagen
if it is under siege?
i will send 3 different mails, with distinct subjects amd with my
initial arguement, to discuss each one if it is necessary
