Re: [eia] restricting limited access, take 2

[Michael Gorman <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 06:15 PM 11/17/2002 -0500, you wrote:

        What you aren't looking at that makes me favor restricting the right to declare battles is that Austria is powerless to aid an allied army in its own territory.  It can't come to the defense of a British force even though it is allied with them and that British force is being hosted within its borders.  The restriction balances the issue that the enforced peace prevents nations under a formal peace from doing anything to the forces of their opponent unless a very small list of unusual circumstances occur.
 
I'm not sure I understand this comment.  Could you please clarify?  (I'm not even sure what the comment is in reference to.)

        

I'm
referring to the status of Austria in your example.  If Austria has
just made peace with France, that doesn't mean they now like France and
don't mind the French attacking the British WITHIN Austria.  If
France can attack the British forces within Austrian territory during an
enforced peace, there is nothing the Austrians can do about it. 
That is every bit as serious an issue as what the French forces can and
cannot do on the way out of Austrian territory.  If France has the
right to freely attack British forces within that time frame, then the
Austrians should have the right to defend those forces that they are
hosting within their borders.  However, if we allow that, the whole
concept of the enforced peace which is extremely important for game
balance falls apart.

        As far as the French force entering a British occupied space, I would say they could not enter that space since their presence there would initiate a battle and they are not allowed to do so.
 
I would be adamantly opposed to anything that restricts a country's ability to leave foreign territory.  If we go with your suggestion, it would be theoretically possible for Britain (in our previous example) to set up a screen which would make it impossible for French forces to leave the country, thus forcing them to be decommissioned.  I am adamantly opposed to anything that would have this consequence.
 
kdh

        

This
is true.  It would be hard to block more a few garrisons, but if the
country you allegedly are at peace with chooses to completely screw you
over, they would have the ability to do so by not giving you access to
get your troops out of such a situation.  I'm not sure how you can
justify allowing an attack by a force under the limited access of this
optional rule without having a rule to allow the nation the attack is
occurring in to declare war and void the enforced peace.  As the
enforced peace is a pretty major part of the game balance, I'm not
comfortable tossing in new exceptions unless we really need them for the
game to make sense.

Mike