Re: [eia] a question about trade

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    Well, at first I thought I agreed with JJ and Joel, but Mike is making
me re-examine my position in a new light.  While Mike justifies his position
based on historical realism, I will restrict my comments specifically and
purely to the rules as they are written.  (References to history and realism
are good when filling in gaps in the rules, but if the rules themselves
suffice to cover a given situtaion, then it is preferable to rely on them.)
    B.6 says that the "Loser should not trade with Great Britain or with
America, at the victor's choice.  If the loser does trade in defiance of
this, the victor may declare war on the loser..."  12.9 states that "if
peace condition B.6 is applied to stop a major power's American trade, this
counts as a major power denied trade with America..."  However, 8.2.1.2.1.5
states that "a major power may not conduct any trade if its national capital
city is occupied by unbesieged enemy factors."
    Wow, this is really a tough one!  I can see it going either way.  You
could say that B.6 has been applied and is still in force, even though Spain
is unable to trade this economic phase.  Therefore, GB should still make its
roll for war with America.  Or you could say that since the application of
B.6 is not what stopped the American trade in this instance, 12.9 does not
apply.  In other words, everything boils down to what it means to "apply"
B.6.  If France is the one that "applied" B.6 at the end of its war with
Spain, then B.6 is still in force and GB needs to roll for war with America.
On the other hand, if B.6 is "applied" by Spain when it chooses whether to
trade with America in defiance of the ban, then since the decision to
violate the ban cannot be made while the capital is occupied, GB would not
have to roll.
...
    Hmmm.  I'm not sure *what* to think about this any more.  Please put me
back in the undecided column.  I reserve the right to weigh in at a later
time if my opinion solidifies on one side or the other.

So, so far we have JJ and Joel against GB having to roll for war, and Danny
and Mike in favor of GB having to roll.  Any other opinions?

kdh

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Gorman" <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: [eia] a question about trade


> At 09:06 AM 3/21/2004 -0500, you wrote:
> >After your second email, Mike, I'm not sure which side of the argument
you
> >agree with.  Spain did have condition B.6. imposed on it by France.  But
my
> >assertion is that B.6. is not the reason for the lack of trade with
America
> >in this case, and so 12.9 does not kick in.
> >
> >I see a country's submission to B.6., that is, the turning away of
American
> >shipping, as an act of government, just like the act of imposing tariffs
and
> >duties to collect income from trade.  When a country's capital is
occupied,
> >it loses the ability to make those kinds of actions.  The government's
> >policy, whether of collecting money from trade or of turning trade away
in
> >accordance with B.6., cannot be enforced while the capital is occupied.
> >
> >So in other words, I don't picture the trading ports as being empty when
the
> >capital is occupied.  On the contrary, the merchantmen are whooping it up
> >and trading like mad, because there are no officials coming around to
> >collect the government's share.
> >
> >-JJY
>
> Occupying the capital does not cause civil disorder.
>
> The central government cannot make effective use of income but the local
> officials are all still there and Spain is in control of its ports.
> Collected taxes might get lost somewhere in the system of local officials
> but society does not fold up and go home because the capital is
> occupied.  In your situation Britain should get trade income from all the
> Spanish ports since anyone can trade with them now and that clearly is not
> the case.
>
> So I would say that occupying a capital does not constitute denial of
> trade.  Occupying a capital also does not waive condition B.6 which can
> exist independently of that situation.  I had forgotten B.6 was an issue
in
> this situation but if it is, then it is still illegal for America to trade
> with Spain and that will continue to annoy Americans.  So Britain would
> still have to roll for war with America.
>
> There is a clear line in the game when a national government collapses and
> Spain is no where near that line.  So it does not seem reasonable to me to
> now assume that the Spanish government doesn't exist within territory it
> still controls.
>
> Mike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>

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