Re: [eia] Access

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

I agree with Jim that, in general, the political phase is when we handle
actions taken by governments that set the stage and the ground rules for the
military moves to follow.  And I think changes in access definitely qualify.
The way I see it, an order for access change, even for single corps, would
have to come from or at least be approved by the national government in
question.  And so I think the political phase is the best fit for these
orders in the flow of the game.

-JJY
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 9:45 PM
Subject: RE: [eia] Access


> I disagree 100%.  To grant access to your land to another army can only be
> catagorized as a political action!  I don't feel that it *must* be done
via
> escrow, but that is how we are doing all our other political actions so I
> think it should be included therein as I, for one, do not want to create
yet
> another step that we have to wait on.  I think the "Declaration of
Combined
> Movement" step can easily be modified to the "Declaration of Combined
> Movement/Grant Access" step.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> Michael Gorman
> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 7:12 AM
> To: public list for an Empires in Arms game
> Subject: 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.
>
> Mike
>
> ----- 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
> to
> > control this is to place limitations on the access.  Per 10.3.1.2.2 the
> > granting power may limit the provinces access is given to and prohibit
> > garrisons and depots.  Also, note that the granting power may *charge
> money*
> > 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
> within
> > 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
> 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