|
I agree with both of Mike's points. The
proposed rule should apply equally to both sides making the treaty; victor,
loser, or informal. Also, I think the "cannot attack or be attacked"
should read "cannot initiate an attack", but that they could defend themselves
while in the period of restricted access.
-JJY
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 1:26
PM
Subject: Re: [eia] restricting limited
access
- Proposed House Rule: Limited Access. Rule 12.4 indicates
that victorious powers have 'limited access' to the territory of the
surrendering power after a peace treaty is signed. [Note: if an
informal peace is made between 2 powers, then there need not be a
'surrendering' power and a 'victorious' power. However, I will
continue to use these terms as a matter of convenience.] The access
is limited in the sense that any garrisons still in the surrendering
power's territory 3 full months after the peace treaty will automatically
be decommissioned, and any corps/fleets still in the surrendering power's
territory 6 full months after the peace treaty will also be automatically
decommissioned.
- This House Rule adds an additional restriction to
limited access: victorious corps may not engage in battle (of any kind) in
territory* controlled by the surrendering power during the period of
limited access unless voluntary access is granted by the surrendering
power or war is declared again between the victorious power and the
surrendering power. This means that victorious garrisons, corps,
and fleets cannot attack or be attacked while in the surrending power's
territory. If victorious forces are still at war with another power
that is also in the surrendering power's territory, these forces are
considered to be under a flag of temporary truce. (That is, treat
them as if they are not enemies while in the surrendering power's
territory during limited access.)
- These are the only restrictions imposed by the
limited access mentioned in Rule 12.4.
-
- * Territory controlled by the surrendering power includes land spaces,
city spaces, ports, and blockade boxes.
-
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
|