Re: [eia] supplementing 12.4 - "limited access"

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thus spake "Kyle H":
>     Ok, after giving it some additional thought, I've decided that -
> although we could save the spirit of 12.4 with lots of amendments and house
> rules - it's really not worth the bother.  I reluctantly agree with Mike and
> JJ that we should just dump 12.4 and return to the "force repatriation"
> rules (in 4.4.6.2).  What they lack in realism, they make up for in
> simplicity and convenience.  As much as it pains me to say it, I think it's
> time to dump an optional rule.
> 
> kdh

I prefer the EiH rule in this case--I think it makes a lot of sense. But
I agree with Mike that 12.4 has some bizarre consequences. (I'd thought
of a few more myself---an ally that made peace could prevent their former
enemy from defending cities from an ally still at war simply by filling
them to capacity.) Ditching 12.4 is second best, IMHO, but it beats using
12.4 by a lot.
 
_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia