Re: [eia] issues to be addressed

[Michael Gorman <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 06:30 AM 3/30/2004 -0800, you wrote:
> Or when the Spanish army was stuck in Naples with no way out.  I am going 
> to have to change my stand on this rule and go along with Mike.
> -Danny
>
> "J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> One example where forcible access would have been important in the last
> game is when France ceded Lombardy. This cut off reinforcements from
> reaching the rest of French-controlled Italy, which Britain was able to
> capture (& give to its allies, mostly).
>
> -JJY
So, pretty much these two seem to be sensible uses of the ability.  Major 
power national borders aren't impenetrable force fields.  The only thing 
keeping you from crossing them are politics and it costs you politically to 
violate them and potentially starts a war.

I'm assuming we're not going to get to use this since so many people seem 
opposed, I just don't understand why.  It seems a pretty logical rule to me 
that has built in its own restrictions, it's expensive and can drag you 
into a war you may not be ready for.

The two uses here both seem to be arguments in its favor as far as I can 
tell.  If you were France would you really care how grumpy Austria would be 
or if you'd lose several nations in the name of protecting Austrian 
happiness?  If you were Spain would you be willing to lose your national 
capital or not offend Austria? In both cases it seems a reasonable decision 
for a nation to say Austria can do what it feels is right, I'm going 
through and protecting my holdings.

Other than that it makes it harder to treat Europe as a series of islands 
rather than a single land mass, what's the reason not to have this rule?

Mike


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