Re: [eia] issues to be addressed

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thus spake "Kyle H":
>     Hi guys,
>     Here are a few standing issues that I'd like to have addressed =
> before we begin our new game.
> 
> 1.)  Should we handle the Reinforcement Phase by escrow?  My vote is =
> yes.

I vote no. 

The particular order given for reinforcement is important. It forces powers
whose military oganization or intelligence was somewhat lacking to set up
prior to their potential adversaries who were better prepared. That's why
France sets up last in the land phase and Britain in the naval phase, as the
preeminent land and naval powers, respectively; and why Spain goes first in
both, being generally ill-prepared on land and sea. This isn't to say that
Spain's spies aren't able to find out what France's military preparations
are; rather, the Spanish organizational structure isn't nimble enough to
effectively use that information, while with the roles reversed, the French
would be.

> 2.)  Should we include Forcible Access this time?  (This is an errata =
> rule that allows a major power to access foreign territory without an =
> access agreement at a cost in political points.)  Last time we didn't =
> adopt it because it seemed unfair to change the rules in the middle of =
> the game.  So what do we think about using it for the *whole* game?

I'm still not sure what I think about this. It lets you go tromping through
someone else's territory, and the only recourse it allows them is to 
declare war on you, which would mean starting a war with the enemy alredy
at hand. It seems like one use for forcible access would be to get another
power to declare war on you by putting your troops in such an annoying
position that your enemy feels it necessary to dislodge them.

Forcible access w/r/t minors makes some sense to me---the major powers
had a long history of violating the neutrality of the minor German and
Italian states---but I'm uncomfortable with forcible access through
major power home provinces. It seems to me that if Napoleon marches
to Vienna without permission, that's an act of war, and so should require
a formal declaration.

> 3.)  How should we interpret B.6 when GB occupies the capital of a =
> country that has had B.6 imposed on it?  (Aside from this, should we =
> make more fundamental changes to B.6?)

Whether a capital is occupied or not shouldn't have any bearing on the
effect of B.6, and shouldn't count as denying trade. Occupation is denying
the government income from duties, but it isn't hindering trade, which is
what the Americans care about.

> 4.)  I still believe that corps on loan should be repatriated when their =
> term of service runs out.  Since we are using repatriation for =
> everything else, it seems weird to continue using limited access for =
> corps on loan.

I didn't realize that corps on loan weren't repatriated. 

> 5.)  JJ's arctic circle scenario can be resolved by adding the following =
> phrase to the end of the first sentence of rule 4.4.6.2:  "...that is =
> within 2 spaces of a friendly-controlled city."  (Maybe we already did =
> this and I just forgot?)
> 
> kdh

What was this, again? It's been a while...

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