Re: [eia] limited access revisions

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    Everett, I'm not sure I get your point.  If all peace agreements were
unconditional surrenders, then I'd understand what you're saying.  But since
informal peaces and conditional surrenders do not permit countries to choose
from the C list, I'm not sure I see how your suggestion is helpful.  Again,
maybe I've missed your point.  If so, please clarify.

kdh

----- Original Message -----
From: "Everett E. Proctor" <spiritmast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] limited access revisions


> In that case, you take that into consideration during the surrender, and
> choose condition C.5.
>
> I don't see a problem with this.
>
> -Ev
>
>
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 18:09:55 -0400
> "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >     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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>

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