Re: [eia] limited access revisions

["Everett E. Proctor" <spiritmast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In that case, you take that into consideration during the surrender, and
choose condition C.5.

I don't see a problem with this.

-Ev


On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 18:09:55 -0400
"Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>     Danny is right.  We are already putting the country who is leaving FET
> at a disadvantage by saying that it cannot lay siege to enemy allies that
> are still in FET.  Sometimes those enemy allies will just be remnants that
> are not looking to continue the fight (as is the case right now with the
> British in Spain).  But I can foresee other instances where the enemy allies
> will very much want to continue the fight against a retreating enemy.
> Allies of the former enemy will be able to bring new corps into FET, they
> will be able to fully utilize their supply lines to get reinforcements after
> battles, and (if my previous suggestion goes through) they will get
> automatic protection inside cities as well.   Allowing allies of the former
> enemy all of these privileges while withholding them from the country whose
> forces are in the process of withdrawing from FET seems extraordinarily
> one-sided to me.
>     For example, suppose Russia had advanced further into Austria before
> Austria surrendered.  Suppose there were a Russian army at Pest, supplied
> from Nemirov.  Russia has been fighting Austria and Prussia together, but
> now Austria surrenders and Russia remains at war with Prussia.  What JJ and
> Joel are saying is that the remaining Prussian army should have the right to
> pummel the retreating Russians month after month.  The Prussians would have
> the right to bring in new corps, reinforce old ones, and even hide
> automatically in Austrian cities.  But the Russians would just have to take
> their losses without any hope of reinforcements until they reach the Russian
> border.  That does not seem fair to me at all.
>     As Ariel Sharon recently insisted, a country has a right to
> self-defense!  If you deny corps that are withdrawing from enemy territory
> the right to reinforce, that makes them easy targets for enemy allies.  This
> suggestion makes enemy allies way too powerful, especially in combination
> with my previous suggestion.  In fact, if JJ's position on reinforcements
> carries the day, then I'll have no choice but to change my vote to "no" on
> my own proposal.  If retreating armies aren't allowed to reinforce, then it
> would be too unbalanced to allow enemy allies to hide in FET cities
> automatically.
> 
> kdh
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Danny Mount" <mount.23@xxxxxxx>
> To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 7:35 AM
> Subject: RE: [eia] limited access revisions
> 
> 
> > I agree that no other existing corps should be allowed to enter into FET,
> > but I disagree that we should restrict reinforcements by supply-chain.
> > Think about a situation where a corps need to move through or out of FET
> and
> > is walking into another battle.  This seems to put them at a serious
> > disadvantage.  So I think that if the valid supply-chain is there then why
> > should we be the ones to basically declare that supply-chain invalid.
> >
> > Danny
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> > J.J. Young
> > Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 8:59 PM
> > To: public list for an Empires in Arms game
> > Subject: Re: [eia] limited access revisions
> >
> >
> > I agree with Joel here.  When I speak of restricting new corps going into
> > FET, I'm talking about corps already existing outside of FET marching into
> > FET carrying factors that weren't there before.  I don't care about
> > restricting the placement of new corps markers in FET, as long as they are
> > using preexisting factors.
> >
> > I have no problem with the placement/removal of leaders into FET.
> >
> > I am for the restriction of any new _factors_ into FET after peace is
> made,
> > either by marching in or by supply-chain reinforcement.  It seems Joel
> > agrees, and Kyle disagrees.  Other opinions ?
> >
> > -JJY
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Joel Uckelman" <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 6:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: [eia] limited access revisions
> >
> >
> > > Thus spake "Kyle H":
> > > >     That is *not* what I was picturing.  I was thinking that no new
> > mobile
> > > > units (such as corps and cossacks) could enter FET after a peace
> > agreement
> > > > was reached.  I did not think that peace would stop a country from
> > > > reinforcing normally across valid supply lines.  Hopefully no one
> thinks
> > > > that peace would prevent new leaders from arriving to take command.
> In
> > a
> > > > similar vein, I would not think that peace would stop supply lines
> from
> > > > functioning to reinforce depleted armies.
> > > >     If I'm in the minority here, I'm willing to accept that.  But I
> just
> > > > wanted to make it known that I was not thinking of reinforcements to
> > > > existing corps as new land forces entering FET.
> > > >
> > > > kdh
> > >
> > > Corps, division, company, etc. are just organizational units. In
> reality,
> > > there's no reason to care how many formerly enemy corps are in operation
> > in
> > > one's territory independently of how many soldiers they contain. (That
> > > may not carry over exactly to the game, since the way forrage works
> might
> > > make me wish there were a single ten-factor corps in my territory
> instead
> > of
> > > ten one-factor corps.) Any reinforcement of a corps in FET necessarily
> > > involves more soldiers entering FET, and that is presumably what a real
> > > power would be concerned with, not with how the soldiers already in FET
> > > are organized.
> > >
> > > In my view, there's no problem with constructing new corps in FET so
> long
> > > as the factors in them come from corps already in FET; the problem
> arises
> > > from putting more *factors* in FET.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
> 

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