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

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

> >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.
>

    I agree with Mike here.  I briefly considered Joel's suggestion, too,
but quickly realized that it wouldn't work well.  Take my current situation
for example.  My corps is only one space into Spain.  Joel's solution would
force me to take my forces off the board for a month to move a grand total
of one space north into French territory when I could have moved 4 spaces
into French territory if my forces had stayed on the board.  Mike's point is
also well-taken.  There will be times when the bulk of one's entire army
ends up in enemy territory at the end of a war.  It would be very unfair for
that army to disappear from the map for any length of time.  (For one thing,
the disappearance of an army would allow remaining enemies to move much
faster and farther than they would have otherwise.)

    I am also coming around to the rest of Mike's point of view (reprinted
below).  Basically, nothing that restricts movement or combat will be
workable because it will change too many other game rules.  What makes
limited access "limited" is the fact that you have to have garrisons out in
3 months and corps out in 6.  And those are some very strict deadlines.  I
think anything else (like refraining from attacking remaining enemies in
FET) have to be taken care of diplomatically.  For instance, a country can
state in the peace negotiations that peace is contingent on the victor's
willingness to leave the former enemies allies untouched on the way out.  Of
course, a player can renege on such agreements, but it would be wise not
to...

    Anyway, that's the viewpoint I've come to.

kdh

> 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
>

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