----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 5:46 AM
Subject: Re: [eia] corps-on-loan
I agree that repatriation is
unrealistic. But so is the prospect that a French
corps-on-loan might march all the way to Constantinople for no good
reason. So is the fact that by leaving the French corps on his extreme
eastern border (as Jim seems prepared to do), the Prussian king would be
inviting a foreign army to ravage its people all the way home. ...
So it's not as if one rule is "realistic" and the other is "unrealistic";
rather it's a matter of deciding which kind of unrealistic rule we prefer to
abide by.
Since no one has piped up in
support of my suggestion, I'm willing to seek a compromise. What I most
want to avoid are the following situations: Jim uses voluntary access
agreements to march my corps-on-loan to Jerusalem. If Jim remained at
war with Russia he could conceivably march my corps-on-loan to Saratov or
Astrakhan.
Before I suggest my
(compromise) solution, let's recall that it's not as if this corps is a corps
of mindless zombies. Obviously, they have enough free to stop fighting
in the middle of a combat once they've lost half of their strength. That
tells me that there are some lengths to which they will not go in the service
of their temporary masters. On the other hand, I do not want to restrict
the ability of the temporary master to use the corps as he wishes. After
all, marching the French corps to Astrakhan could be a legitimate military
mission - it is a provincial capital.
So here's the compromise I
suggest. At the moment the corps-on-loan reverts to its original owner's
control it is repatriated to *its previous temporary master's
territory*.
In my case, this would mean
that if the corps were in Astrakhan or Jerusalem in April of 1805, then it
would be repatriated to *Prussia*. At this point, the corps would still
have to march across Prussia to get home.
The purpose of this rule would
be to eliminate the ability of temporary controlling powers to abuse the rules
and send the corps-on-loan to far-off lands for no reason. I know that
there is a lot of resistance to the "oddity" (as Mike puts it) of a corps
moving faster than it usually does. But what about the oddity of a
French corps marching to Jerusalem for no apparent reason? Do you really
think that the commanders of that corps would obey that command? Is that
"realistic"?
In any case, if I can't get
automatic force repatriation, then I hope I can at least get repatriation to
the previous controller's country. This rule would eliminate whatever
incentive currently exists to abuse the rules and send corps-on-loan to
far-off lands for no reason.
kdh
I was thinking bringing a corps on
loan into your country would count as voluntary access so you could not
refuse the corps the right to return home. Repatriation would stop
someone from stranding the corps on a desert island though.
I think
access works though on the basis that in a long game, you can probably get
away with an abuse of that sort once and then you'd better never lose a war
to the nation you did it to. The whole point of not doing instant
repatriation was to avoid the oddity of having the troops move faster than
it is possible to move troops under ideal conditions. Repatriation is
inherently unrealistic as the troops can't go as fast as they might under
it. If a country wants to get the other corps out, they can always
dump it off near the border.