Οld? You were discussing it yesterday :p
I agree with your point (corps were also able to control the straights - IF
they had arti ~ well, they all had arti...).
The fort thing was to point that Copenhagen doesn't really control the
straights but a fort (two actually) up North.
________________________________
From: eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 29 June 2018 14:31:26
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: moving via Danish sea crossing arrows
thank you Theo. This discussion a bit old now and I would prefer not to re-open
the subject game wise - the decision is that we follow as written.
Academically now, just to say that it was not only forts but corps too that
had artillery, (although it is not evident in EiA) and could fire on ships so
who controls a territory also plays its role. Besides if you think that only
'forts' should dominate and it is that much obvious/clear/realistic that makes
you wonder why the discussion, then what do you have to say for when it is the
other way around: the fort is under siege and the attacker can also transfer
troops between areas, if he has corps (not garrisons) in both places.
This is just to show you why the debate happened since you seem surprised :)
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 2:13 PM, T. B.
<scotland_above_all@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:scotland_above_all@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Don't see anything wrong with the rules and they do seem pretty realistic to me.
PS
Note 1
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.
Errr, nope. They did this all the time.
Note 2
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.
Errr, what? :P
a. It's historically accurate (although the fort that controlled the straights
between Zealand and Sweden is further up north in Helsingor).
b. Why would we assume it's unintentional?
________________________________
From: Laertes Papaspyrou
<bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: 29 June 2018 09:04:04
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tiron; Highlander Scotland
Subject: Re: [eiagreek] Re: moving via Danish sea crossing arrows
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<mailto:ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
To: "eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
<eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>;
"eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
<eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Laertes Papaspyrou
<bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>; Tiron
<strategija@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:strategija@xxxxxxxxx>>; Highlander Scotland
<scotland_above_all@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 9:26:23 PM
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > on
behalf of Yannis Sykamias <ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 11:11
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 10:46
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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