Re: [eia] limited access revisions

["J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Here's something to consider; maybe no seiges of cities in FET should be
allowed by _either_ side, former enemies or allies.  After all, the owner of
the territory is no longer involved in the war, and wants its citizens left
out of the fracas.  There's no reason why that restriction should apply only
to the former enemy.  Kyle, would that help address the imbalance you
perceive ?  What do the rest of you think of this logic ?

-JJY

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 12:18 AM
Subject: RE: [eia] limited access revisions


> 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
>


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