Re: [eia] errata rules

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    Now that I take a closer look at this rule, it only applies to forces
that find themselves in neutral territory due to ceding or reconquest.  So
the breaking of an alliance (nullifying the conditions for voluntary access)
would not be included in this rule, as it is written.  However, I think that
in the future this rule should be extended to situations where the lack of
an alliance makes voluntary access impossible.  (One might speculate that
this optional rule was written without taking optional rule 12.8 into
account.)
    Since combat has already begun between the Spanish and the Portuguese at
Gibralter, and since the British lingered so long in Spain before
withdrawing, perhaps it would be unfair to suddenly (and retroactively)
apply this rule to the current situation.  After giving it a second thought,
I think we should let the current situation play out as is, but we should
apply these errata rules to future situations involving the loss of
voluntary access.
    Or, alternatively, we could just scrap optional rule 12.8 altogether.
That might make more sense, and I would be in favor of it.  (At the
beginning of the game, I was in favor of using all of the optional rules,
mostly for the sake of completeness.  But, as we are not using 12.4, I no
longer feel compelled to keep 12.8 either, which seems kind of artificial
anyway.)
    Let me know what the rest of you think.

kdh

> 10.3.1.2.1.3 [A]: Neutral forces that previously had access in territory
> that
> has changed control (i.e., due to reconquest or ceding) can be given
> voluntary
> access under any new conditions granted by the new controlling major power
> (unconditional access _must_ be given if peace condition C.5 applies
between
> the involved major powers).  If no access is given or available, the
neutral
> forces must be handled as with force repatriation (see 4.4.6.2 and/or
option
> 12.4).
>
> This resolution is in line with what I had been thinking.  If you don't
have
> an access agreement, then you should be forced to leave foreign territory.
> We had sort of settled on the position that the only way to remove forces
> that had been previously granted access was via a declaration of war, but
> the errata rule above seems to indicate otherwise.  Since we are not using
> rule 12.4, this errata rule would indicate that such forces must be
> repatriated.  The relevance of this rule to our current game situation is
> that the Spanish garrison at Gibralter should have been repatriated, and
the
> British depots in Spain should have been removed as soon as the alliance
was
> broken by GB.
>     At this point, it would not be difficult to go back and correct these
> mistakes, if we want to.  This would make the trivial combat at Gibralter
> moot and it would allow Spain to use its original set of land orders
(rather
> than the orders as amended).  In addition, Portugal would gain another
> garrison factor (for the one that was decommissioned at San Sabastian).  I
> am in favor of fixing this set of errors since it is so easy to do.
>

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