Re: [eia] issues to be addressed

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    I don't know if I've made it clear before, but I am in favor of Forcible
Access.
    I agree with JJ and Mike that a generous interpretation of this rule is
that violating another country's national borders gives the offended nation
the opportunity to declare war despite an enforced peace.  However, let's be
clear that this opportunity only lasts so long as the borders of the nation
are being violated.  The enforced peace does not go up in a puff of smoke -
there are just specified instances when the enforced peace can be
over-ridden.  Once those opportunities are gone, the enforced peace takes
precedence again until it has run out.  Do we all see this issue the same
way?
    Does this mean that the Limited Access rules are back on the menu, boys?

kdh

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Gorman" <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: [eia] issues to be addressed


> At 06:30 AM 3/30/2004 -0800, you wrote:
> >Or when the Spanish army was stuck in Naples with no way out.  I am going
> >to have to change my stand on this rule and go along with Mike.
> >-Danny
> >
> >"J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >One example where forcible access would have been important in the last
> >game is when France ceded Lombardy. This cut off reinforcements from
> >reaching the rest of French-controlled Italy, which Britain was able to
> >capture (& give to its allies, mostly).
> >
> >-JJY
> So, pretty much these two seem to be sensible uses of the ability.  Major
> power national borders aren't impenetrable force fields.  The only thing
> keeping you from crossing them are politics and it costs you politically
to
> violate them and potentially starts a war.
>
> I'm assuming we're not going to get to use this since so many people seem
> opposed, I just don't understand why.  It seems a pretty logical rule to
me
> that has built in its own restrictions, it's expensive and can drag you
> into a war you may not be ready for.
>
> The two uses here both seem to be arguments in its favor as far as I can
> tell.  If you were France would you really care how grumpy Austria would
be
> or if you'd lose several nations in the name of protecting Austrian
> happiness?  If you were Spain would you be willing to lose your national
> capital or not offend Austria? In both cases it seems a reasonable
decision
> for a nation to say Austria can do what it feels is right, I'm going
> through and protecting my holdings.
>
> Other than that it makes it harder to treat Europe as a series of islands
> rather than a single land mass, what's the reason not to have this rule?
>
> 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