Re: [eia] limited access revisions

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

You of course have the right to have things done this way.  The one comment
I would make is that Great Britain is being put at a disadvantage because of
the timing of your bringing up the limited access issue.  My reinforcement
orders are the only ones that had gone out before you would like this to be
decided.  Not that I'm saying this was intentional; I'm not.  But if it is
fair to say that having seen French plans brought wanting Wellington at
Madrid into my mind, it might be fair to say that seeing the British
reinforcements may have helped bring resolving the limited access issue now
into your mind.

Also, I thought you would have no objection because of your original offer
to abide by the old interpretation, anyway.

-JJY
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] limited access revisions


>     Actually, yes, I would object.  I don't mean to be difficult, but the
> only reason that I revealed my thought process was because I thought the
> British reinforcement phase was over.  If you do not think that I should
be
> able to attack you at Madrid, then please try to persuade our fellow
players
> to adopt house rules (like the one I proposed) which would prevent such
> activity in general.
>     Again, I'm sorry if it seems like I'm being a pain in the butt, but if
I
> hadn't said anything about my plans, then you wouldn't be asking to place
> Wellington at Madrid.  So it seems a little unfair to me.
>
> kdh
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 3:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [eia] limited access revisions
>
>
> > If it turns out that we decide it is legal for the French with Ney to
> attack
> > Madrid (I didn't think it was), then I would like to add to my
> reinforcement
> > orders the placement of Wellington at Madrid.  Any objections, Kyle ?
> >
> > -JJY
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Gorman" <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 12:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: [eia] limited access revisions
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >     The basic problem is that not restricting the exit path would
> allow
> > > > the country that is supposed to be withdrawing from FET to abuse the
> > > > rules and hunt down allies of the previous enemy.  This new rule
that
> I
> > > > am proposing would allow forces in FET to exit by whichever path
they
> > > > choose while also reducing the incentive to abuse the limited access
> > rules.
> > > >
> > > >What do the rest of you think?
> > > >
> > > >kdh
> > >          I think that since making peace with an enemy while an ally
> > > remains at war with them is grounds to allow the still belligerent
ally
> to
> > > force the now non-belligerent ally break the alliance means that the
> rules
> > > expect that doing so can screw over your ally.  In that light, I think
> we
> > > don't need to restrict such impolite behavior as attacking forces in
the
> > > lands you have made peace with.
> > >
> > >          Another way to look at it is that while Spain is no longer at
> war
> > > with France, in the example of interest to Kyle, it is not neutral.
As
> > > Spain has granted access to British forces to use Spain as a base of
> > > operations to attack France, Spain is at best a non-belligerent and at
> > > worst an undeclared belligerent.  As such, France would be justified
in
> > > striking at Spanish assets to the extent that they are supporting the
> > > British military.  Thus, if Spain lets the British troops shelter in
her
> > > cities, and the British choose to retire into a city and put at risk
the
> > > Spanish civilian population, France should be allowed to attack them
> with
> > > the forces allowed to be in Spain.
> > >          This isn't to say that there wouldn't be political fallout
from
> > > doing so, but France would have some justification in its actions.
> > >
> > >          Yeah, it's annoying to the nation hosting the battles and the
> > > inability of Spain to do anything about it still bugs me some, but I
> think
> > > restricting attack options seems the more troublesome path in the long
> > run.
> > >
> > > 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>
>


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