Michael Gorman on 2 Dec 2003 15:10:42 -0000

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

Re: [eia] Access

All this is true, but what I still don't see is why we need to add access
into the political phase rather than just handling it when it comes up.  If
someone wants to grant a long term access agreement, toss it in with your
political orders by all means, but I don't think you should have to do that.

My problem with requiring it anyhow is that it does favor certain kinds of
agreements since you have to decide access well in advance and then
publicize it well in advance.  I don't see the reason to have to decide far
in advance and lose the right to change your mind until the next turn or to
have to tell everyone else about it in advance.  Sure, they might like to
know, but tough luck, you have to wait and see.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 10:32 PM
Subject: RE: [eia] Access

> I understand Mike's hesitation to allow another power access because it
> cannot be rescinded once they are in your borders.  I think the only way
> control this is to place limitations on the access.  Per the
> granting power may limit the provinces access is given to and prohibit
> garrisons and depots.  Also, note that the granting power may *charge
> for this access.  This may be the deterrent to a power overstaying it's
> welcome!  {Technically there is no rule that says you cannot state: "free
> access is granted for the months of Jan, Feb, and Mar.  Beginning in April
> there will be a $2 charge per month for each Turkish controlled corps
> Prussia's borders"}.  I think *any* condition that is *agreed upon* by the
> parties involved should be legal and binding as long as it is publicly
> announced.

eia mailing list