Re: [eia] issues to be addressed

[Michael Gorman <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 02:27 PM 3/28/2004 -0800, you wrote:
> 1) I do not think that we should handle the Reinforcement Phase by escrow.

I agree.  The reinforcement phase is explicitly not simultaneous and an 
escrowe is not appropriate.

> 2) I do not think we should include Forcible Access.

I think we should include this.  It's absence was a major problem in 
resolving the use of the limited access at end of wars and including it 
would make it possible for us to come up with a limited access rule as this 
would provide a means, albeit a very expensive one of preventing people 
from cutting off your troops and forcing demobilization.

A political point per space is hideously expensive.  I seriously doubt we 
will see it used much at all as anything other than a last resort.

> 3) I still think that if G.B. occupies Madrid that it automatically should 
> roll for the American War.

I feel that occupying the capital was not cause.  But neither did it waive 
the impact of B.6.  So the application of B.6 would cause a roll whether or 
not Spain was able to trade due to the occupation of Madrid.

> 4) Corps on loan should be repatriated.

If we use repatriation, it certainly makes sense.

> 5) I am satisfied with Kyle's word choice for repatriation.

Returning to allied territories that have given you access makes 
sense.  Repatriation can hps things far enough without potentially causing 
units to grow gills and swim across the seas to get to a patch of land they 
own.

Mike


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