RE: [eia] limited access revisions

[Jerald Jeffrey Young (CPS - Personal) <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

To me, the whole point is to restrict the former enemy's ability to wage war on 
FET, so that the former enemy will avoid walking into another battle.  Keep in 
mind that Joel and I (if I'm speaking for him correctly) are only proposing 
that reinforcements should not be available in FET from depots, not regular 
supply (food) of troops already in FET.

It seems like restricting the marching opf troops into FET doesn't mean very 
much or make much sense if factors can just be sent in as reinforcements 
instead.

It seems we now have a tie on this issue.  Others ?

-JJY


Quoting Danny Mount <mount.23@xxxxxxx>:

> I agree that no other existing corps should be allowed to enter into FET,
> but I disagree that we should restrict reinforcements by supply-chain.
> Think about a situation where a corps need to move through or out of FET and
> is walking into another battle.  This seems to put them at a serious
> disadvantage.  So I think that if the valid supply-chain is there then why
> should we be the ones to basically declare that supply-chain invalid.
> 
> Danny
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> J.J. Young
> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 8:59 PM
> To: public list for an Empires in Arms game
> Subject: Re: [eia] limited access revisions
> 
> 
> I agree with Joel here.  When I speak of restricting new corps going into
> FET, I'm talking about corps already existing outside of FET marching into
> FET carrying factors that weren't there before.  I don't care about
> restricting the placement of new corps markers in FET, as long as they are
> using preexisting factors.
> 
> I have no problem with the placement/removal of leaders into FET.
> 
> I am for the restriction of any new _factors_ into FET after peace is made,
> either by marching in or by supply-chain reinforcement.  It seems Joel
> agrees, and Kyle disagrees.  Other opinions ?
> 
> -JJY
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joel Uckelman" <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 6:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [eia] limited access revisions
> 
> 
> > Thus spake "Kyle H":
> > >     That is *not* what I was picturing.  I was thinking that no new
> mobile
> > > units (such as corps and cossacks) could enter FET after a peace
> agreement
> > > was reached.  I did not think that peace would stop a country from
> > > reinforcing normally across valid supply lines.  Hopefully no one thinks
> > > that peace would prevent new leaders from arriving to take command.  In
> a
> > > similar vein, I would not think that peace would stop supply lines from
> > > functioning to reinforce depleted armies.
> > >     If I'm in the minority here, I'm willing to accept that.  But I just
> > > wanted to make it known that I was not thinking of reinforcements to
> > > existing corps as new land forces entering FET.
> > >
> > > kdh
> >
> > Corps, division, company, etc. are just organizational units. In reality,
> > there's no reason to care how many formerly enemy corps are in operation
> in
> > one's territory independently of how many soldiers they contain. (That
> > may not carry over exactly to the game, since the way forrage works might
> > make me wish there were a single ten-factor corps in my territory instead
> of
> > ten one-factor corps.) Any reinforcement of a corps in FET necessarily
> > involves more soldiers entering FET, and that is presumably what a real
> > power would be concerned with, not with how the soldiers already in FET
> > are organized.
> >
> > In my view, there's no problem with constructing new corps in FET so long
> > as the factors in them come from corps already in FET; the problem arises
> > from putting more *factors* in FET.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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