The letter of the rules as control of the sea area with guns on both sides of
land.
It also requires the presence of forces for this.
I do not understand how a besieged garrison has control over the area and may
use its guns to protect the sea.
Anyway, if you wish to keep just the garrison and not an unbesieged garrison
then let’s have an agreement and when master of lore moves off his cave he may
guide us further....
________________________________
From: eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 11:08:03 PM
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: moving via Danish sea crossing arrows
since opinions differ, let us follow the letter of the rules even though some
are not certain about it
off course we do that no matter who controls Denmark
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 9:58 PM, Dimitris Stavr.
<poliorkitis@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:poliorkitis@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
trying to interprete/imagine what could be intended,
to my view the siege is irrelevant to crossing. it is restricted to the city.
it takes place out of the city walls and besieging forces are not spread all
over the area. so they cannot bother an enemy corps (or friendly to the
besieged garrison) to enter the area and attempt to break the siege.
in addition, even the presence of a navy wouldn't be enough to protect them
frrom incoming army.
on the other hand, assuming that Copenhagen had Russian garrisons. then again
without the presence of navy, Danes could cross the arrow and lay siege.
BUT with the presence of navy, hence the support needed to dominate these
extremely narrow areas then the crossing would not be possible.
to me this is realistic and adds value to the location of Copenhagen
________________________________
From: eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on behalf
of NIKOLAOY DHMHTRIOS <nikolad1@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:nikolad1@xxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 21:38
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: moving via Danish sea crossing arrows
This I really doubt
The game, as has been proven time and again, has simply not been playtested
thoroughly
If a besieged city had the ability to cover an arrow-crossing then the XXX
would have to end up in the city and not in the surrounding countryside behind
enemy lines
Στις 2018-06-27 21:27, Dimitris Stavr. έγραψε:
please consider that we can interprete what was intended as well as what is
written.
relieving the city from a siege could be also an option that was intended to be
included
________________________________
From: eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on behalf
of Makis Xiroyannis
<makis.xiroyannis@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:makis.xiroyannis@xxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 21:11
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on behalf
of Dimitris Stavr. <poliorkitis@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:poliorkitis@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 20:11
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:poliorkitis@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 20:01
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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