Re: [eia] supplementing 12.4 - "limited access"

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    Ok, after giving it some additional thought, I've decided that -
although we could save the spirit of 12.4 with lots of amendments and house
rules - it's really not worth the bother.  I reluctantly agree with Mike and
JJ that we should just dump 12.4 and return to the "force repatriation"
rules (in 4.4.6.2).  What they lack in realism, they make up for in
simplicity and convenience.  As much as it pains me to say it, I think it's
time to dump an optional rule.

kdh


----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 12:47 PM
Subject: [eia] supplementing 12.4 - "limited access"


>     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
>

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