Important Supply Chain Restriction

[DodgyDave]

so to reinforce a corps, we just need a depot to be in a conq or FS, even for our own troops? thought i had to make a link from france out to like prussia, where i am fighting right now

[frayaka]

Thanks Monadman

and what about this ?

New case :
Depot in Munich
Napoleon and 6 corps are waiting in Linz just beside that depot.
One month later, Linz is not in valid chain supply ???

[dude]

ORIGINAL: Monadman

CHANGE
Section: 10.3.3 Depots In Supply Chains
Subsection: Supply Chain Restrictions
Changed the second line (second bullet) to read:

For a major power to place a new depot outside of it’s own territory, an unbesieged corps of that major power must be in that area and not have moved or foraged during the current land phase.

For those of you who ask: why? Because it was designed for the old EiA-like game and is considered as a way for the program to simulate the original EiA step format that required that depots be placed before movement and supply.

Richard

... but to clerify this a bit more... you can move the corps or forage AFTER the depot is placed correct? I've been able to so I've assumed this is not a bug. It's just ment to simulate the pre-movement phase depot placement rule in the boardgame correct? If this is so you may want to revise your rule text because it makes it sound like you can't move or forage at all with the corps to be able to place a depot. "...and not have moved or foraged during the current land phase BEFORE the depot is place."

Dude

[Monadman]

ORIGINAL: frayaka

Thanks Monadman

and what about this ?

New case :
Depot in Munich
Napoleon and 6 corps are waiting in Linz just beside that depot.
One month later, Linz is not in valid chain supply ???

Click on the depot in Bavaria. In the status panel, does it say it is part of a valid supply chain?

Richard

[Monadman]

Whoops, clicked the "ok" button with out adding my response.[:'(] See next post.

Richard

[Monadman]

ORIGINAL: dude

ORIGINAL: Monadman

CHANGE
Section: 10.3.3 Depots In Supply Chains
Subsection: Supply Chain Restrictions
Changed the second line (second bullet) to read:

For a major power to place a new depot outside of it’s own territory, an unbesieged corps of that major power must be in that area and not have moved or foraged during the current land phase.

For those of you who ask: why? Because it was designed for the old EiA-like game and is considered as a way for the program to simulate the original EiA step format that required that depots be placed before movement and supply.

Richard

... but to clerify this a bit more... you can move the corps or forage AFTER the depot is placed correct? I've been able to so I've assumed this is not a bug. It's just ment to simulate the pre-movement phase depot placement rule in the boardgame correct? If this is so you may want to revise your rule text because it makes it sound like you can't move or forage at all with the corps to be able to place a depot. "...and not have moved or foraged during the current land phase BEFORE the depot is place."

Dude

Correct, place the depot first and then you can move or forage.

Richard

[frayaka]

ORIGINAL: Monadman

ORIGINAL: frayaka

Thanks Monadman

and what about this ?

New case :
Depot in Munich
Napoleon and 6 corps are waiting in Linz just beside that depot.
One month later, Linz is not in valid chain supply ???

Click on the depot in Bavaria. In the status panel, does it say it is part of a valid supply chain?

Richard

Yes it is..my corps are supplied from this depot

[Monadman]

ORIGINAL: frayaka

ORIGINAL: Monadman

ORIGINAL: frayaka

Thanks Monadman

and what about this ?

Click on the depot in Bavaria. In the status panel, does it say it is part of a valid supply chain?

Richard

Yes it is..my corps are supplied from this depot

Okay - got it. Oddly enough, it occurs when there is more than one corps in Linz, but not when there is a lone corps there.

Thanks

Richard

[Tater]

Depot question...

I landed in Tripolitania (2 Corp)...I cleared the area and took the capital (port city). I placed 1 factor as garrison. I used invasion supply.

Next turn I move the fleets into the city and I already had Depots in two other Turkish ports including Istanbul. Yet, during the land phase the game would not let me build a Depot in that port city area of Tripolitania...why not?

I had already existing depots at ports...
I have friendly corp in a friendly controled port area...
I have fleets in port...

What am I doing wrong?

[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.

[Jimmer]

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).

[zaquex]

Tracing Sea Supply
[font="helveticaneue condensed,helveticaneue condensed"]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
[/font]

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. 
[font="helveticaneue condensed,helveticaneue condensed"][/font]

[KenClark]

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

[Jimmer]

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.
&nbsp;
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).
&nbsp;
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.

[Trin]

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.

[Trin]

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.....

[zaquex]

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.