Kyle H on Thu, 15 Apr 2004 09:04:27 -0500 (CDT)

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

Re: [eia] access adjustments ?

    I agree with Jim that yet another escrow is a bad idea.  Another step to
slow us down is the last thing we need.  (After all, we've been "playing"
this new game for 3 weeks now and have yet to even start the Naval Phase of
the first turn!)
    Mike asks why we need to make voluntary access decisions in the
political phase.  The answer to that is that people did not like it when we
made access decisions on the fly, because they did not like the prospect of
getting screwed at the last second by some country who grants access and
takes it away right before you are about to move.  We decided that we wanted
to be able to rely on access decisions for at least one full month at a
time.  Now, I recall that Mike was opposed to this at the time.  But that's
the background of the decision for those who are new and/or who have
    This is how we get to JJ's logic.  If Voluntary Access has to go
somewhere, then it should be in the Political Phase.  I agree with both of
these points.  (Voluntary Access should go somewhere, and it should go in
the Political Phase.)

    Here's how I think we should resolve this issue.  Voluntary Access
should be decided in the Political Phase escrow for all territories you
control at the beginning of the turn.  If you want to add Voluntary Access
conditions for countries that are newly acquired during the Political Phase
(i.e., during the Minor Country Control Step or the Peace Step), you can
make these declarations during your Reinforcement Phase orders.  But making
access declarations during the Reinforcement Phase is *only* acceptable for
territories/countries that are newly acquired during the same turn's
Political Phase.  All other access decisions should be made as part of the
Political Phase escrow.
    (Designer's Note:  Folding the new Access agreements into the
Reinforcement Orders is a good way to make sure that everyone knows whether
access has been granted or not.  The 24-hour idea that JJ proposed is a
little too iffy for my taste.)

    I hope this resolution is acceptable to everyone who wants Voluntary
Access to be part of the Political Phase.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] access adjustments ?

> > People seem very attached to the idea that access decisions must be in
> > political phase and must be escrowed so there has to be something we're
> > gaining from this.  I just don't get it what it is.
> >
> > Mike
> Mike makes some very good points, but I'm not sure I agree 100%.  First of
> all, I was, and still am, I think, in favor of having access agreements in
> the political phase because I consider them to be political decisions
> than a military.  Legal access would be worked out between diplomats and
> politicians; if a military commander took things into his own hands to
> a border without sanction, this would be handled under the forced access
> rules.
> But on the other hand, wanting access agreements in the political phase
> doesn't necessarily mean having them in the political phase _escrow_.  Why
> don't we leave a 24-hour (or some other amount of time) grace period after
> the political escrow is released, for anyone who wants to announce an
> change to do so ?  If you are worried that a change in access might change
> your naval orders, you can wait until this period has elapsed.  Otherwise
> ahead.
> Anyway, that's my proposal.
> -JJY
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx

eia mailing list