Re: [eia] limited access revisions

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    Since we did not ever officially revise the limited access rules, we
were operating under the rules in 12.4 as written.  I'm not sure why you
would have thought that those rules did not allow French troops to continue
moving into Spanish territory.  I guess what I'm saying is, I don't know
what you would have been thinking would *disallow* me from marching to
Madrid.  (We had talked about fixing the 12.4 rules, but we never did.  This
was well known and no secret.)  Again, I'm happy to abide by some sort of
ruling (if we can agree on one) that would restrict this sort of activity
for everyone.  But in the absence of some sort of house rule, I don't know
why you would have thought that I couldn't continue to pursue your forces
further into Spain.

    Yes, I waited until after the British reinforcement phase in order to
try to clarify the rules about limited access.  But this was not because I
was trying to catch you in a state of ignorance.  Rather, I waited because I
knew that any effective discussion of the rules would force me to reveal my
plans.  So there was nothing nefarious going on here.  I just assumed that
you thought I wouldn't be willing to take the hideous forage penalties
necessary to get to Madrid in one turn.  I was unaware of your state of
ignorance.

    Your assumption that I couldn't continue further into Spain just seems
like a rules mistake to me.  And we have all made rules mistakes that have
cost us.  Once upon a time I forgot a rule saying that I could move my
fleets into port after winning a naval battle in a blockade box.  That rules
mistake cost me a corps as well as all of southern Italy.  On another
occasion I forgot that I needed a garrison at Amsterdam in order to use the
harbor defenses.  That mistake cost me a fleet.  I don't see how this
situation is any different for you.  If you thought there was a house rule
governing this situation when there was not, then that is simply an
unfortunate error on your part which may end up costing you, just as my
errors cost me.  (And other peoples' errors have cost them throughout the
game.)

    But before we get into some sort of bitter tit for tat, let's recall
that my whole point in starting this discussion was to establish a new rule
that would help to prevent pursuit of allies in FET after a peace treaty.
I'm willing to adopt and abide by such a rule if we can come up with one
that can receive the support of the majority of players.  I think my
suggestion - simply disallowing sieges after peace is made - makes a great
deal of sense.  It does not require us to place restrictions on the exit
path of the troops in FET while simultaneously protecting the former enemy's
allies.  (Joel provided some examples of how neutral parties sometimes come
under fire in war time.  However, none of Joel's examples were from the
Napoleonic era, and so, in my view, they are of little value in establishing
the military etiquette of this time period.  But even if Joel were to find
an example from the Napoleonic Wars themselves in which a country laid siege
to a neutral city, I'd still be in favor of this rule because it is so
simple and would work so well to accomplish the result we are trying to
achieve while placing minimal restrictions on all the countries involved.
Sometimes historical accuracy suffers when crafting game rules.)   Of
course, if you don't like my suggestion, I'm open to alternatives.  (But
it's hard for me to imagine that we'll be able to come up with anything that
accomplishes what we want to accomplish quite so simply.)  However, if we
cannot establish such a general rule that will be in force for everyone,
then I'd be foolish not to take advantage of the current situation.  That's
the way I look at it.

    So in sum, let's work together to come up with a rule that we can all
agree on.  And, if we can't please everyone (which seems likely given our
lengthy and ultimately unproductive previous discussion), then we'll fall
back to majority rule.  Either way, the goal here is not to screw JJ over,
but to achieve a rule we can all live with that prevents exactly what we are
talking about.  However, in the absence of such a rule, I cannot agree to
Britain's attempts to amend its reinforcement orders.

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 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] limited access revisions


> 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
>

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