Re: [eia] restricting limited access

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    As usual, Mike makes some excellent points.  He's right that there should be no differentiation between victor and vanquished in the limited access rules.  (That point started to dawn on me right before I sent my email - hence that little note I added about 'victorious' and 'surrendering' being unnecessary terms - but I didn't understand the full force of it until I read Mike's email.)  Both parties are on equal footing as far as limited access is concerned regardless of who surrendered to whom.  So the language needs to be changed to put all parties on an equal footing.

    He's also exactly right when he says that we need to be careful so that we don't inadvertantly make it impossible for France and GB to keep fighting as they are right now.  I agree with that point, too.  However, I'm leary of saying that the party to the peace treaty cannot initiate battles.  Because that means that (in this case) Britain could attack France but not vice versa.  That doesn't seem quite fair or reasonable.  I'll give it some more thought and see if I can come up with a solution that satisfies me.

 

kdh

   

    One thing to note is that there is no differentiation between the two powers involved in the peace agreement in the original rule,  Both nations have the limited access with the other nation.  If you make the access one way then you immediately strand any forces of the defeated power that are within the victorious power's areas.
        Otherwise, this seems a reasonable rule since the enforced peace makes it effectively impossible for the nations that just made any kind of formal peace to do anything about their former enemy's forces fighting within their territory, and that very much makes no sense.
        I would amend the may not engage in battle to may not initiate battle. 
        In our current situation where peace was made with most, but not all of a coalition, Britain could theoretically use its access agreements with the other victorious powers to attack French forces within their borders even if they are no longer at war.  In that case, I would not think the French would automatically be retreated in order to avoid them engaging in battle of any kind.  That can't happen in this case, but if there had been a French Corps in Lombardy and Britain went before France in the land phase, I would think they could attack that corps even though the French Corps has no access agreement to take part in battles on Spanish soil.

Mike