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 aDanish 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 RigaNo depots
will be built on the fleets as depot creation is simultaneousXXX 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. Absolutely2. 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
arrowsAs 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 ??
- do we agree that Danes can move via1st crossing arrow, because of no fleet
presence on the sea area? or they would be able to move anyways?
- 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 extramovement point to use a
crossing arrow. Corps, freikorps and/or cossacksmay not use a crossing arrow if
an enemy eet occupies the surrounding seaarea.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 areextremely 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 inDenmark or the one connecting the Copenhagen
and Malmo areas if enemycorps and/or garrisons are located in both land areas
connected by thearrows. 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 alli've noticed 2+1 issues after
russian turn
- is allowed to build a depot in a blockade box?
- is allowed invasion supply without depot in a friendly port?
- 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
