| Michael Gorman on 17 Apr 2003 15:56:01 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [eia] political points after a battle |
At 07:38 PM 4/10/2003 -0400, you wrote:
Yes, you are right that 10.3.3 does not apply to the situation we are
describing. But of course, neither does 12.4 (which specifically deals with
the effects of a Peace Treaty).
So basically we are asking ourselves what model makes the most sense for
the situation in which a minor country reverts to neutrality. Should a
corps have to be dispatched to go back and pick the garrison up (as
described in 12.4)? Or should we just use the "force repatriation" model
(as found in 10.3.3 and 4.4.6.2)?
I thought the force repatriation model made sense because when a minor
country reverts to neutrality, I imagine that as a coup in which the major
power garrison is expelled from the country. It's hard for me to imagine
that the locals would allow the garrison to sit there for months on end...
Plus, the force repatriation model avoids the oddness of having a foreign
army march into a formerly controlled country without reclaiming it.
But at the end of the day, I really don't care that much. The model
provided by Rule 12.4 is fine by me.
kdh
I do not see it as at all clear that you can dispatch a corps to pick up a garrison after a war without gaining voluntary access for that corps. As the corps is not in the country at the time of the access, it could be seen as needing an independent agreement from the rules for voluntary access, the 10.x series. But do any of the rules for voluntary access apply to the peace treaty access? I don't know and the rules seem uncharacteristically unhelpful in this case.
There are clear rules for how to handle voluntary and unconditional access. But the 12.4 access is undefined.
Mike _______________________________________________ eia mailing list eia@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia