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

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    So JJ, when will you and Prussia be going in the naval phase?

kdh

----- Original Message -----
From: "J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 6:43 AM
Subject: Re: [eia] allow me to muddy the waters even more


> >     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
>

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