Re: [eia] limited access revisions

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    Well, since the majority prefers JJ's interpretation of how to handle
reinforcements after a peace treaty, I think that a former enemy's allies
will already be potentially at too great an advantage to also allow them to
use the former enemy's cities as free "bases" where they cannot be
threatened but from which they can raid the retreating enemy's supply lines.
I hereby withdraw my suggestion that players leaving FET should not be able
to lay siege to cities containing enemies on the way out.  (And if someone
else should re-introduce it, my vote will be no.)

kdh

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 9:58 PM
Subject: RE: [eia] limited access revisions


> Well, here is my two cents.  I agree with everyone else that 12.4 through
> 12.4.3 are somewhat vague in wording.  However, 12.4 does clearly state
> that:
>     "Instead (of force repatriation), when peace is made, the former
enemies
> have a period of automatic limited access (and here's the kicker!) to get
> their forces out of the former enemy power's territory".
> Although it does not prohibit any other actions it is clear that the
*only*
> express purpose of the limited access is to leave! I oppose any rule that
> allows any further troops to enter a FET whether by crossing a border into
> the FET, by reinforcements through a valid supply chain, or any other
> method.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> Kyle H
> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 3:10 PM
> To: public list for an Empires in Arms game
> Subject: Re: [eia] limited access revisions
>
>
>     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