RE: Important Supply Chain Restriction

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Important Supply Chain Restriction

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> RE: Important Supply Chain Restriction

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Important Supply Chain Restriction - 1/15/2008 5:29:54 PM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zaquex

The most common mistake is to forget you need a fleet together with the depot in the supply source.

Its not clear from your post if you have a fleet in Istanbul or the other possible source.

If you fill this requirement it might be a bug.

I don't have the rule book handy to quote, but no, you don't need a fleet with the depot. You need a fleet in one of the two ports (the one with the depot or the one where the depot is to be built).

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to zaquex)

Post #: 31

RE: Important Supply Chain Restriction - 1/15/2008 10:14:36 PM

zaquex

Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

Tracing Sea Supply
In order to trace supply across sea areas there must be one of a major power�s depots in each of the two friendly controlled ports between which supply is to be traced. At least one of these ports must contain a fleet(s) of the major power and that port must be a supply source or be able to trace a valid supply chain via depots to a supply source. Neither port may be blockaded. If these conditions are fulfilled, the ports are valid links in a supply chain. The effect of this is as if the depots were in adjacent areas (regardless of the number of sea areas actually between them) for all purposes

Thats not how i would read this, I understand rules written like this creates alot of discussion but still, unless there are some�ships at the source there is no valid supply chain is what it says.�

< Message edited by zaquex -- 1/15/2008 10:16:40 PM >

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 32

RE: Important Supply Chain Restriction - 1/15/2008 11:05:36 PM

KenClark

Posts: 87
Joined: 1/11/2008
Status: offline

Zaquex, in EiA it didn't matter which port had the fleet. Just one of them had to have it.

(in reply to zaquex)

Post #: 33

RE: Important Supply Chain Restriction - 1/15/2008 11:10:59 PM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

It doesn't say "... and that port must be a supply source <period>". What it says it it either has to be that, OR be able to trace avalid supply chain. Since sea supply can be part of a valid supply chain, it counts to have the fleet in the new depot location.

This makes sense when compared with invasion supply: You don't have to have both a fleet at sea AND a fleet in a port with a depot. No, all you need is the fleet at sea, and a depot in an unbesieged port (that can trace supply).

However, I can see how you could read it that way, too. Aren't these rules wonderful? We used to have this kind of discussion (about ambiguous rules) nearly every time we got together.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to KenClark)

Post #: 34

RE: Important Supply Chain Restriction - 1/15/2008 11:13:52 PM

Trin

Posts: 25
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline

KenClark, that might be true, but I have to admit that I certainly interpret the quoted rule as meaning the fleet must be in the supply source port

"At least one of these ports must contain a fleet(s) of the major power" - matches the fleet in either port concept, but
"and that port must be a supply source or be able to trace a valid supply chain via depots to a supply source." - certainly reads to me that a fleet must be in the supply source port

If this is the case, perhaps its a change. If this isn't the case, then the rules/manual should probably be editted to make it a little clearer.

(in reply to KenClark)

Post #: 35

RE: Important Supply Chain Restriction - 1/15/2008 11:22:05 PM

Trin

Posts: 25
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline

Jimmer, I have difficulty with your interpretation since the rule goes on to say

"If these conditions are fulfilled, the ports are valid links in a supply chain."

In other words, once the pre-conditions are met, THENthe second port becomes a part of a valid supply chain. Its a circular logic to allow the second port to satisfy its own preconditions by deeming it part of a valid supply chain because....it would be part of a valid supply chain if its pre-conditions are met....

Damn that's hard to put into simple english...so hard that I fail at this time of the morning. Oh well, maybe you get my drift.....

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 36

RE: Important Supply Chain Restriction - 1/15/2008 11:43:56 PM

zaquex

Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenClark

Zaquex, in EiA it didn't matter which port had the fleet. Just one of them had to have it.

I no longer own a board game manual so I cant check the exact wording or how I would interpret it. In the board game it was always a question of interpretion.

In the computer game though, I see no other way to interpret (Edit) it than that the fleet must be in a valid supply source or a port in a valid supply chain, if the connecting port was a supply source or part of a valid supply chain there would be no need for sea supply in the first place and as Trin said: "Its a circular logic to allow the second port to satisfy its own preconditions by deeming it part of a valid supply chain".(end edit)

(Edit) More important its also how it works in EiANW 1.0 (end edit) - i just tested it.

< Message edited by zaquex -- 1/16/2008 9:03:15 AM >

(in reply to KenClark)

Post #: 37