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

[Michael Gorman <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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