Re: [eia] limited access revisions

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

I am not trying to initiate any kind of bitter interchange.  The intention
of my email was to explain why I thought it was appropriate to ask for a
change in my orders.  Kyle is free to decide on this request however he
wants.

I have always been in favor of _some_ kind of restriction on the continuance
of war on FET between former enemies and allies.  Drawing the line at
besieging a city and preventing the entry of supplies to the local
population seems like a reasonable proposal to me.

One point I would like to clarify; the restriction, which seems generally
agreed to, against any additional forces entering FET after peace is made,
applies to reinforcements as well as corps, correct ?  In other words, a
corps in FET cannot be beefed up by reinforcements sent from the other side
of the border.  Is this the general view ?

-JJY
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] limited access revisions


>     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
>


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