Re: [eia] a try for a simple solution to 12.4

["J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike makes some points which I think are good.  I was never all that gung-ho
about guaranteeing garrison retrieval; I proposed the "honors of war" type
solution because  I thought that the proposed rules for how a corps could
move in FET to retrieve a garrison were getting needlessly complicated.
This is removed if corps can move as they like within FET, restricted by the
time limit.

The only restriction I would strongly propose for forces already in FET when
is peace is made would be the crossing of national borders.  I don't think
that forces in a FET minor country should be able to cross into the FET home
nation, or vice-versa, or into a different FET minor country, unless this is
the only way of getting out of FET.

I am emphatically in agreement with Mike, Joel, and Everett that under no
circumstances should forces not in FET at the time of peace be allowed to
enter FET without voluntary access.  Not to retrieve garrisons, not to pass
through into an enemy's territory, not for any reason.

I think Joel and I had come to about the same conclusion as Mike in deciding
that allowing a fleet to wait for corps pickup in a FET port wouldn't be a
big deal, and should be allowed, up to the 6 month time limit for corps, and
if there is a corps in FET to be picked up.

-JJY

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Gorman" <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] a try for a simple solution to 12.4


>
> >Taking that into account, here's a modified proposal:
> >
> >1. At the time peace is made, any garrisons in formerly enemy territory
are,
> >at the owner's option, repatriated to the nearest city in friendly
territory
> >that can hold them.
>
> I'm not entirely happy with this as that can involve a lot of movement
> points if you're invading Russia or Turkey from the west.  Part of the
> difficulty you're supposed to have in invading those nations is getting
> back out in a timely manner.
>
> In western Europe, this solution will likely never involve more than a
> turn, maybe two of movement points, but in Astrakhan or Armenia, it's 4-5
> months of movement to get to the Austrian and Prussian borders.  You
barely
> have enough time to walk corps out without naval transport.  If you have
to
> zig-zag and collect garrisons, you don't have time at all.  Hand waving
> that you can do it doesn't make much sense when it isn't actually possible
> to get all those garrisons without more corps markers to do it.
>
> I think we're working too hard to protect garrisons.
>
> Maybe this means that you delay peace one turn so that an economic phase
> will pass in the three month period and you get to buy new corps
> markers.  Maybe this will mean people will have to look at negotiating
> armistices and cease fires rather than just final peace agreements.  I
> don't see this as a bad thing at all.
>
> If everyone knows how the peace time access is run, then everyone can know
> if they can afford to make peace in a given month and this becomes a
> non-issue.  I think it's only a problem because we don't yet have a rule
in
> place on how to run peace time access.  Once we write the rule, then the
> issue of garrison extraction becomes just one of the many logistical issue
> you have to deal with when fielding an army and really, it's not likely to
> be a big issue very often.  And if it is, there's already a surrender term
> in the game meant to deal with it.
>
> >2. A ground unit in formerly enemy territory may move only by satisfying
one
> >of the following conditions, using movement points as the distance
metric:
> >  a. The ground unit ends its move nearer to the nearest accessible
friendly
> >area.
> >  b. The ground unit ends its move nearer to the nearest of the former
enemy's
> >ports.
> >  c. The ground unit ends its move nearer to the nearest enemy area, and
the
> >nearest enemy area is nearer than the nearest friendly area.
> >  d. The ground unit begins its move in an area that can be reached
> > overland by
> >an enemy unit from that enemy unit's current location during that enemy
unit's
> >next move.
>
> I don't think there needs to be a nearest requirement.  A lot of the
> concerns about forcing particular paths go away if you drop that and let
> forces go to the most useful border rather than the nearest.  Yes, it
opens
> rooms for abuses and diplomatic nastiness, but that's just part of the
> game.  The supply chain risks of using this option to invade someone else
> should be sufficient constraint.
>
> >3. No land unit may cross into formerly enemy territory without an access
> >agreement.
>
> This I fully endorse.
>
> Oh, the one uncertainty I have in this reading is whether or not ceded
> territory counts as formerly enemy?  My feeling is that it does, but I
want
> to make sure I'm in agreement with others on that point.
>
> This would allow corps in ceded territory to be covered by this access
> which would solve the stranding issue if a corps gets isolated by ceding
of
> discontinuous minor states or provinces and also prevent my reservation on
> point 1 from having all the corps involved in the attack suddenly
departing
> enemy territory by having it become friendly.
>
> We had talked about modifying B.7 to cover some of this, but I then
> realized that under our modified reading, Britain cannot be forced to cede
> territory under B.7 as it is adjacent to no one.  It also would mean that
> in joint efforts like the attack on Russia, nations not on the Russian
> border could never be allowed to have provinces ceded to them under B.7
> since they would never be adjacent.  Spain, for example, if it did not
> control Sweden, would have no adjacent provinces in Russia and thus could
> not have territory ceded to them with an unconditional surrender.
>
> Currently, neither Britain nor France have adjacent territories so they
> cannot have Russian provinces ceded to them.
>
> Britain can never have provinces ceded to them unless they have minor
> states and in no case can  anyone take British territory without an
> unconditional surrender.
>
> So, I'm going to ask that we rethink our ideas on modifying B.7 at this
> point as well.
>
> >4. A fleet owned by or allied to a power that made peace may enter a port
in
> >former enemy territory if a land unit allied with that power is in the
port
> >or could enter the port later during the turn.
> >
> >5. A fleet that enters a port under 4 must embark during the next naval
phase,
> >carrying, at least one land unit if possible. A fleet that enters
> >Constantinople without an access agreement must exit the Dardanelles into
the
> >area through which it entered.
>
> I think this is fine but it should be no problem if a fleet remains in por
t
> if it is possible in the new turn that a corps could arrive.  This deals
> with JJ's concern that someone could delay a corps one month and tack a
big
> delay on the corps getting out of the country by forcing the fleet to
> depart and return.  Yes, someone could choose to park their fleet in a
port
> and never pick a nearby corps up.  But, so what?
>
> So, I think we should strike point 1 and remove the nearest requirements
in
> point 2.
>
> Yes, I know you guys have talked for a while about point 1, but until I
sat
> down and read the entire proposal as a unit and thought about how it would
> work in possible future wars, I thought it was fine.  Then I decided I
> really didn't like it and went back to thinking that choosing the time for
> a peace treaty so you can buy more corps counters will solve almost all of
> these problems with the already existing diplomacy phase.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>



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