Michael Gorman on 4 Dec 2003 15:46:02 -0000

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

Re: [eia] Access

Where you put your troops is entirely political.  In this game, war is most
definitely politics by other means.

You declare war publicly because it is a public declaration made for all the
world to see.  A surprise initiation of war would be a  major violation of
the political manners that hold nations together.  Real nations don't just
randomly initiate wars and the mandate that you must announce it is one of
the rules that imposes on the players some of the sensibilities that
national governments have.

Look at the attack on Pearl Harbor.  What made it enrage Americans so much?
Was it the attack itself, not really, far more violent battles were fought
throughout the war, it was the surprise attack without a declaration of war.
Even the Japanese were enraged with their diplomats for failing to deliver
the declaration in advance as they had been ordered to.  It was a major
violation of the rules by which nations dealt with each other.

Me letting your troops move through my land is an act between our two
nations.  Now, there are lots of tell tales that are public that would tell
other nations access is likely to exist, an alliance for example.  But
unlike a declaration of war, access is something that may be revoked or
granted at the last minute and that would be common for such agreements.
Most nations aren't happy about allowing even allied troops onto their soil.
Similarly I'm firmly in favor of the forced access rule.  The price in
political points is sufficient that it's very unlikely to be used and border
incursions without declarations of war are hardly a shocking concept.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 9:21 PM
Subject: RE: [eia] Access

> The land movement phase is political.  The combat phase is political.  The
> economic phase is political.
>       No, the land movement phase is an action phase where troops move.
> combat phase is just what it implies.  Combat depends on the moves taken
> the land movement phase.  Just as the land movement depends on the access
> agreements reached in the political phase.
> What I have yet to hear an argument for is why I have to publicize my
> discussions with other nations about access in advance...?
>       Why do I have to declare war on someone in the political phase?  Why
> can't I just surprise them in the land phase?  As you said the other day
> "Sure, they might like to know, but tough luck, you have to wait and see".

eia mailing list