Re: [eia] limited access revisions

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    Actually, yes, I would object.  I don't mean to be difficult, but the
only reason that I revealed my thought process was because I thought the
British reinforcement phase was over.  If you do not think that I should be
able to attack you at Madrid, then please try to persuade our fellow players
to adopt house rules (like the one I proposed) which would prevent such
activity in general.
    Again, I'm sorry if it seems like I'm being a pain in the butt, but if I
hadn't said anything about my plans, then you wouldn't be asking to place
Wellington at Madrid.  So it seems a little unfair to me.

kdh

----- Original Message -----
From: "J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] limited access revisions


> If it turns out that we decide it is legal for the French with Ney to
attack
> Madrid (I didn't think it was), then I would like to add to my
reinforcement
> orders the placement of Wellington at Madrid.  Any objections, Kyle ?
>
> -JJY
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Gorman" <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 12:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [eia] limited access revisions
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >     The basic problem is that not restricting the exit path would
allow
> > > the country that is supposed to be withdrawing from FET to abuse the
> > > rules and hunt down allies of the previous enemy.  This new rule that
I
> > > am proposing would allow forces in FET to exit by whichever path they
> > > choose while also reducing the incentive to abuse the limited access
> rules.
> > >
> > >What do the rest of you think?
> > >
> > >kdh
> >          I think that since making peace with an enemy while an ally
> > remains at war with them is grounds to allow the still belligerent ally
to
> > force the now non-belligerent ally break the alliance means that the
rules
> > expect that doing so can screw over your ally.  In that light, I think
we
> > don't need to restrict such impolite behavior as attacking forces in the
> > lands you have made peace with.
> >
> >          Another way to look at it is that while Spain is no longer at
war
> > with France, in the example of interest to Kyle, it is not neutral.  As
> > Spain has granted access to British forces to use Spain as a base of
> > operations to attack France, Spain is at best a non-belligerent and at
> > worst an undeclared belligerent.  As such, France would be justified in
> > striking at Spanish assets to the extent that they are supporting the
> > British military.  Thus, if Spain lets the British troops shelter in her
> > cities, and the British choose to retire into a city and put at risk the
> > Spanish civilian population, France should be allowed to attack them
with
> > the forces allowed to be in Spain.
> >          This isn't to say that there wouldn't be political fallout from
> > doing so, but France would have some justification in its actions.
> >
> >          Yeah, it's annoying to the nation hosting the battles and the
> > inability of Spain to do anything about it still bugs me some, but I
think
> > restricting attack options seems the more troublesome path in the long
> run.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eia mailing list
> > eia@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
> >
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>

_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia