James Helle on 27 Nov 2003 02:35:49 -0000


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: [eia] access


Wow!!  Did this subject take a nasty turn or WHAT?  Kyle, I agree with you
that Prussia is not adversely affected and I really don't mind if you add
your access agreement.  It's easy to forget or misunderstand all the house
rules and decisions we've made over the last year or two {or even remember
that we made a rule on a particular subject!}.

-----Original Message-----
From: eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
Kyle H
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 3:35 PM
To: public list for an Empires in Arms game
Subject: Re: [eia] access


    Can you explain to me how Prussian interests are affected by adding an
access agreement to the French Political Phase?  I find it difficult to see
what objections you might have, especially considering that you did not take
your reinforcement phase until *after* the announcement was made.
    JJ makes the point that by releasing the access agreement late, some
countries who had taken their reinforcement phases might have made different
choices if they had known about the access.  But Austria and Turkey both
published their reinforcement phases *before* the Political Phase escrow was
even made public.  So apparently, their reinforcement orders weren't going
to change regardless of what happened during the Political Phase.  The only
countries who released reinforcement orders between the release of the
Political Phase escrow and my access announcement were GB, Spain, and
Russia.  Presumably, Spain and Russia are not adversely affected, and since
JJ has already said that he is willing to let it slide, I don't see how
anybody else could possibly have a legitimate beef.
    Here's how I see the situation:  I forgot to include a statement that my
new ally should have access to French territory.  When I spotted the mistake
(the day after the escrow was released), I corrected it.  The only person
who might have been adversely affected by the change (JJ) said he didn't
mind.  So what's the problem, Jim?  Explain it to me.  Are you trying to say
it's not OK to correct mistakes?  Should I put Bernadotte back on the board,
too?

kdh

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 9:35 PM
Subject: RE: [eia] access


> I will.  It was agreed that granting access to another major power was a
> political act and would be done in the political phase.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> J.J. Young
> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 7:55 PM
> To: public list for an Empires in Arms game
> Subject: Re: [eia] access
>
>
> >     Until further notice, Spain and Russia have unfettered voluntary
> access to all French territories.
>
> I'm not going to be a hard-case about it and say you can't do this, but
> didn't we decide that access changes would only be made during the
political
> orders ?
>
> -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
>

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

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