Re: [eia] limited access revisions

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    Danny is right.  We are already putting the country who is leaving FET
at a disadvantage by saying that it cannot lay siege to enemy allies that
are still in FET.  Sometimes those enemy allies will just be remnants that
are not looking to continue the fight (as is the case right now with the
British in Spain).  But I can foresee other instances where the enemy allies
will very much want to continue the fight against a retreating enemy.
Allies of the former enemy will be able to bring new corps into FET, they
will be able to fully utilize their supply lines to get reinforcements after
battles, and (if my previous suggestion goes through) they will get
automatic protection inside cities as well.   Allowing allies of the former
enemy all of these privileges while withholding them from the country whose
forces are in the process of withdrawing from FET seems extraordinarily
one-sided to me.
    For example, suppose Russia had advanced further into Austria before
Austria surrendered.  Suppose there were a Russian army at Pest, supplied
from Nemirov.  Russia has been fighting Austria and Prussia together, but
now Austria surrenders and Russia remains at war with Prussia.  What JJ and
Joel are saying is that the remaining Prussian army should have the right to
pummel the retreating Russians month after month.  The Prussians would have
the right to bring in new corps, reinforce old ones, and even hide
automatically in Austrian cities.  But the Russians would just have to take
their losses without any hope of reinforcements until they reach the Russian
border.  That does not seem fair to me at all.
    As Ariel Sharon recently insisted, a country has a right to
self-defense!  If you deny corps that are withdrawing from enemy territory
the right to reinforce, that makes them easy targets for enemy allies.  This
suggestion makes enemy allies way too powerful, especially in combination
with my previous suggestion.  In fact, if JJ's position on reinforcements
carries the day, then I'll have no choice but to change my vote to "no" on
my own proposal.  If retreating armies aren't allowed to reinforce, then it
would be too unbalanced to allow enemy allies to hide in FET cities
automatically.

kdh

----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny Mount" <mount.23@xxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 7:35 AM
Subject: RE: [eia] limited access revisions


> 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