Re: [eia] errata rules

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

I am in favor of scrapping optional rule 12.8; I don't see any reason why a
ruler could not grant access to a neutral power if desired.  This would
remove any need to go back and change the situation in Spain (although I am
willing to do so if we decide to keep 12.8).

I am against the forcible access rule as it applies to other major powers; I
think the offender should just have to declare war if they want access which
is denied.  However, I can see it working in the cases of minor countries,
since they would be more easily overawed and intimidated.

Did I forget to comment on anything ?

-JJY
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] errata rules


>     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
>


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