RE: [eia] limited access revisions

["James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

As do I.

-----Original Message-----
From: eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
Everett E. Proctor
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 5:54 PM
To: public list for an Empires in Arms game
Subject: Re: [eia] limited access revisions


I strongly disagree that you should be allowed to attack and lay siege
to cities that you have just accepted a surrender from.

-Everett

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 19:59:52 -0400
"Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>     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 necessari
ly
> > > > 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
>

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

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