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

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

>     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

Since a majority opinion (JJ, Joel, Jim, Everett) seems to exist in favor of
at least some limitations on reinforcements and combat on FET during limited
access, the two viewpoints are irreconcilable, I think.  Therefore I again
say we should just use repatriation, which will make everyone equally
unhappy, as opposed to 2-3 really unhappy ones.

-JJY


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