Re: [eia] restricting limited access, take 2

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    Hi all.  I finally have a bit of time to respond to the email that's
been piling up in my mailbox.  In this email, I'll be continuing the
discussion about how to handle the Limited Access rules.  Those who have no
opinion or are just not interested are excused.  :-)

Mike wrote:
> One option is to dump the optional rule until we can figure out how to
work
> it.  Yeah, it's nice to use all the options, but this particular rule
> doesn't look like they bothered to finish writing it.  It has a spirit,
but
> no mechanism to carry that spirit out.

    I agree with Mike that the Limited Access rules are poorly fleshed-out.
And although I hadn't considered the possibility of dropping them, Mike is
right to point out that it should be kept in mind as a fallback position.  I
also strongly agree with a point Mike made in a previous email, namely, that
enforced peace is an important aspect of the game and should not be
sacrificed under any circumstances.  That is, whatever fix we come up with
for the Limited Access rules should not endanger the certainty of an
enforced peace.

    So, to clarify, it seems like we have two options.  Either we find a
satisfactory way to allow limited access that restricts initiation of combat
(via a House Rule that elaborates on Rule 12.4) or we jettison 12.4
altogether and play using the default rules for force repatriation.  In
general, I'm against jettisoning 12.4 unless there's no other choice because
I think the rules for force repatriation are overly simplistic to the point
of straining believability.  But if we can't find a suitable alternative,
then we will have no choice.
    So what kind of House Rule might we come up with?  Well, I went to take
a look at how Empires in Harm dealt with the problem.  I'll include the text
below, but to summarize, they basically require forces to take the shortest
path toward friendly-controlled territory.  (In order to facilitate this
solution, they allow garrisons to stand down and reappear in the closest
friendly-controlled city that can accommodate them.)  In essence, this is a
mixed solution:  it uses the force repatriation rules for garrisons and the
shortest route method for corps.  I think this solution is slightly
inelegant, but it does the job.  (Notice, though, that it is still possible
for a country to use the limited access to attack enemies as long as those
enemies lie along the shortest escape route trajectory.)  Here's the text so
you can read it for yourselves:

In addition, when peace is made, the former enemies have a period of
automatic "limited access" to get their forces out of the former enemy Major
Power's controlled territory.

·         By the end of three Land Phases after peace is made, all garrison
factors must be out of the other Major Power's controlled cities. In the
case of a victor that chose peace condition C.5, the requirement is reduced
to getting garrisons out of the capital cities during this period. Upon
conclusion of a peace agreement garrisons also have the one time option of
taking "honors of war" to be placed in the nearest friendly city, that can
hold the factors.

·         By the end of six Land Phases after peace is made, all Corps,
Fleets, depots and depot garrison factors must be out of the other Major
Power's controlled territory. This requirement can be ignored by a victor
that chose peace condition C.5.

·         In this six-month period, embarkation on ships for the purpose of
naval transport is always allowed through port cities in the former enemy
Major Power's controlled territory with no permission required.

·         Each Land Phase, Corps must either move closer towards their
capital or friendly controlled territory, using the shortest viable route,
or not move at all.



Let's call this hybrid approach "Option 1".



    Another possibility is the potential House Rule that I sent out to
everyone a few days ago (the Take 2 version).  That approach was to simply
say that forces using limited access (call them Stack A) cannot initiate
combat.  So if Stack A ends its movement in a space occupied by enemy forces
(call them Stack B), the two forces simply co-exist in the same space
without fighting (kind of like a flag of truce).  [There is already some
precedent for situations in which enemy forces co-exist in the same space -
cossacks, freikorps, and guerillas can be in the same space as enemy forces
without initiating combat.]  Stack B, on the other hand, is free to attack
Stack A on its turn if it sees fit to do so (because the owner of Stack B is
there under conditions of Voluntary Access rather than Limited Access).
However, after thinking about it a bit, I have changed my mind about
*requiring* Stack B to attack if it ends its turn in the same space as Stack
A.  I think Stack B ought to be allowed to use the flag of truce to its own
advantage if it wants to/needs to.  (Of course, this option of declaring an
attack or not declaring an attack would only be applicable when Stack A is
in foreign territory under conditions of Limited Access.)



Let's call this "Option 2".



    (If anyone has alternative proposals for House Rules to submit, please
feel free to do so, and we'll add them to the list of options.)



    Lastly, there is always the option of jettisoning rule 12.4 entirely and
simply using the force repatriation rules.  But as I said before, I think
that should be a last resort.  Let's call this "Option Omega".



    Obviously, I prefer Option 2, but I'd be willing to go with Option 1 as
well if people preferred it.  If we can't agree on anything, then we'll go
with Option Omega.



Comments?  Suggestions?  Opinions?



kdh



P.S.  Sorry about the strange formatting after the Empires in Harm quote.
All I can say is that Outlook Express is retarded.


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