Michael Gorman on 10 Oct 2003 03:11:01 -0000


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [eia] allow me to muddy the waters even more


At 09:44 PM 10/9/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Thus spake "J.J. Young":
> You've got it backwards.  I am suggesting that France should have _more_ of
> a say in where their forces could be repatriated to, not that Spain should
> have a say; in other words, they wouldn't neccessarily have to go to the
> closest French-controlled areas, but perhaps could be placed somewhere else
> along the border between French and Spanish territory.  This would allow us
> to sidestep some ridiculous outcomes of repatriation.
>
> But as I said, I haven't thought this through completely yet, for instance
> how to apply it to cases where the territories of the two former enemies do
> not actually touch. Does anyone think this is a worthwhile avenue to pursue
> for a compromise solution ?
>
> -JJY

I still think the best solution that doesn't involve complex movement
rules would be to specify a destination for each corps and garrison,
count the areas they'd have to travel to reach that destination, and
have them appear as reinforcements there on the turn that they would
if they had marched. That eliminates the weird teleportation results
direct repatriation yields, and it avoids the problems with fighting
another power in FET.
But it would be a complete disaster in my situation. Suppose I had won the battle at Lemberg and nearly my entire army was within Austria. Suddenly my whole army would vanish from the board while I'm still at war. Not something I'd be really fond of.

My opinion is that we cannot restrict the ability of corps to fight and remain within the bounds normally possible for access agreements and the land combat rules. You cannot normally tell a force in your country it cannot fight once you've given it access. You cannot normally tell a force in your country it cannot besiege your cities once you've given it access, nor can you restrict its right to besiege your cities in an access agreement. The fact is, any level of access in this game lets someone do whatever they damn well please inside your nation once they have access. And you can't revoke access from a corps that has already used it. You can stop new markers from entering, but that's it.

I think we need to compare this to normal access and then the fact that they actually have to leave becomes a big deal. Right now, all these access agreements that Britain uses set to drop if anyone allies with France won't mean a damn thing if someone sets up a base in British territory and then allies itself with France. They don't have to leave and they are free to do whatever they wish unless Britain goes to war with them and kicks them out. New corps counters can't enter British territory, but any counters that used the access have it until they return to their home nation. If they pass through and go to a different nation, they retain that access right even though they left. Access in normal circumstances is huge and once given, you have no control over the forces you've given it to. Just saying that a corps has to leave in some number of months is a big restriction.

It's not perfect to just say it's open season until the limited access runs out, but it's simple, it's easy to understand and it's no worse than what you accept when you grant normal access to someone.

Mike



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