Makis this is you??? For some reason we receive emails without clarifying
on behalf of whom!
yes its me, strange I receive your emails properly
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?
correct
[....]
I understand your points. It could be that if it was THAT special case,
there would be a mention of that. Of course, I am not sure. Just trying to
find a solution that seems reasonable so that we move on :)
It would be nice if everyone posted an opinion so that we can go with the
majority, but so far Tiron, Laertis and Theo have not commented.
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Yannis Sykamias <ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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
