Re: [eia] limited access revisions

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    Again, I'm sure that I don't see your point, but now I'm starting to
think that I'm never going to see it.  If I understand you right, you are
saying that if we adopt the previously proposed rules and rules
interpretations then it's a country's own fault for not getting an
unconditional surrender from their adversary.  That seems like circular
logic to me.  My claim was that a set of (proposed) rules was unbalanced
when taken together.  Your response is that they are not unbalanced because
an unconditional surrender could be used to get around the unbalanced rules,
and any country that fails to secure an unconditional surrender under these
circumstances would be a "fool".  Well, that may be so, but the only reason
you'd be foolish not to demand an unconditional surrender is because of the
unbalanced rules.  (Any set of rules that forces you to demand an
unconditional surrender in order to avoid "foolishness" would seem to be
unbalanced on its face.)

    But whatever...  It doesn't look like it matters any more anyway.

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 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] limited access revisions


> When someone sues for peace, it is your choice whether or not to offer a
> conditional or unconditional peace.   If you are in a position to be
> in a difficulat possition, then either offer a unconditional peace, or
> work out an acess agreement.   You are not being forced into a bad
> position.
>
> If Russia was in the position you described, and then allowed a
> conditional surrender, then Russia is a fool; but it wasn't something
> forced upon him so I don't see a problem.
>
>
> On another note, it seems to me that we spent serveral weeks on this
> situation before, and could not come up with an agreement.  And it looks
> like we are far apart on an agreement still.  I propose that we not play
> with the limit access peace rule, and use the repatration rules.   In
> fact, hadn't we agreed to use those until/if we came up with an
> agreement for limit access?
>
> -Ev
>
>
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 19:51:50 -0400
> "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >     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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>

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