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<mailto:poliorkitis@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
i'm OK too
________________________________
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 23:07
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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<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 9:11:28 PM
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
