Re: [eia] issues to be addressed

["J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Kyle's caveat regarding enforced peace and forcible access; the
opportunity to declare war only exists at the time(s) a powers' territory is
violated by forcible access.

As for Limited Access, I don't know.  I'll leave it to others to take up
that cause.

-JJY

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] issues to be addressed


>     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
>
>


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