[eia] supplementing 12.4 - "limited access"

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    I'd just like to remind everybody (in case everyone has forgotten) that
we've had a discussion about 12.4 before.  Here's what I recall about that
discussion:
    - The consensus was that 12.4, as it is currently written, does not
place any real restrictions on the access given to the former enemy after
peace is made.  (This was Joel's recent point.)
    - The consensus was that this unrestricted access can lead to some
undesirable consequences.  (This was Mike's recent point.)
    - The consensus was that all the alternative interpretations of "limited
access" that we had come up with to date had consequences that were just as
absurd as giving the former enemy unlimited access.
    - The consensus was that until we found a superior interpretation of
what constitutes "limited access", we would stick with the unlimited access
rule.  (However, it was resolved that we would keep searching for a suitable
substitute.)

    Now I'm not trying to say that my recollection of the discussion is
official.  I'm just trying to tell you what I remember.  Feel free to
correct me if I'm wrong.
    In any case, for the record, I agree with our earlier consensus that we
should continue to use an "unlimited access" interpretation of 12.4 until
such time as we can agree on restrictions on access that make sense.  (So if
anyone has some suggestions, please feel free to make them.)

    Since JJ asked, below I am including the text of the relevant EiH ruling
that attempts to resolve this issue.  (I will comment on it a bit below the
text.)

4.6.8     Effects Of Peace
When two Major Powers make any type of peace, the following are always done:

4.6.8.1     Peace Treaty Limited Access and Prisoner Exchange
All captured factors (less losses; 7.8) and captured leaders are mutually
exchanged. Any captured Cavalry or Guard Cavalry factors return as Infantry
or Guard factors, respectively.  For every two captured Artillery factors,
one Infantry factor is returned (round down).  The exchanged factors are
placed as reinforcements during the next Reinforcement Phase. This is the
only time captured factors are exchanged, though captured leaders may be
returned at any time at the captor's option.

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.

·         Peace Treaty Limited Access is not considered access for the
purpose of providing a casus bellum, under 4.4.2.

For the purposes of this section, "controlled territory" is defined as:
provinces, ceded provinces, Conquered, Client State or Ally minor countries
of the Major Power in question.


    In general, I think this is a pretty good solution, but there is one
problem I can foresee.  Suppose that France surrenders unconditionally to
Spain.  As part of the Peace Treaty, Spain chooses C.4 - Annex 3
territories.  Spain chooses Gascony and Languedoc, which border Spain.  As
the 3rd territory, Spain chooses Champagne, because Spain happens to have a
corps there at the time the peace is made.  (C.4 specifies that you can only
choose to annex territories that either border the victor's territory or
that contain a corps of the victorious major power.)
    So now Spain controls Champagne and has a corps there.  If we adopted
the EiH rules above, then that corps would essentially be trapped in
Champagne with no way home.  (According to the 4th bullet point, the corps
must move closer to the Spanish capital or Spanish territory.  Since
Champagne is Spanish territory now, any movement through French territory
would constitute a violation of this rule.  And since Champagne is
land-locked, the Spanish corps would essentially be stuck.

    I think this problem can be fixed relatively easily.  We amend the 4th
bullet point of EiH-4.6.8.1 so that it reads:
"However, a Corps that was in enemy territory prior to the Peace Treaty but
that is now in friendly territory (due to the ceding of territory) may move
through the former enemy's territory using the shortest route available
toward that Corps's Major Power home nation capital or other friendly
territory (at the Corps owner's option)."

    Another concern I have is that since these rules specify the path that a
withdrawing army must take, it would be relatively easy for an ally to set
up a "screen" that keeps the withdrawing enemy from returning home.  Fixing
this problem requires that some emphasis be placed on the term "viable" (in
the phrase "shortest viable route").  Just because a route is the shortest,
that does not make it the shortest *viable* route.  I would say that a route
is not "viable" if enemy corps lie along that route.  So the "shortest
viable route" would mean "the shortest route that is not occupied by enemy
forces".
    Of course, this still presents a bit of a problem.  Even if we allow a
withdrawing army to march around enemy forces, this rule could still be used
to punish a withdrawing army - for instance, the allied enemy corps could
place themselves in a position that would force the withdrawing enemy to
make awful forage rolls when going around.  For this reason, I would insist
that the withdrawing army should still have the *option* of taking the
shortest route, even if enemy corps do lie along that route.  A withdrawing
army should not be forced to march through the desert or through marshes
just to avoid a fight with a belligerent allied enemy if they don't want to.

    So anyway, there's my 2 cents.  I think the EiH supplements are a good
starting place for interpreting 12.4 as long as a few caveats and amendments
are made.  If you think that this would be a workable House Rule, please say
so.  If you can foresee other problems with it, please let me know.
Hopefully we can put this issue to rest once and for all.

kdh

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