Michael Gorman on Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:46:22 -0600 (CST)


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

Re: [eia] issues to be addressed


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