Re: [eia] French leaders

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    I want to apologize for the rather terse tone of my email below.  I'm
tired after a long week of work, and I didn't realize how what I was writing
"sounded" until I re-read it.

Sorry,

kdh

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 10:16 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] French leaders


> > As this will be rather a precedent setting decision some other things
> that
> > will be allowed if leaders can fight nations whom they are not at war
with
> > are things like renting out your generals.
>
> Let's not get carried away here.  A)  This would not set a precedent,
> because the precedent was already set last game when I used Massena with
the
> Tunisians to fight the Turks.  B) The game would not come crashing down
> around us as Mike seems to suggest.  There are very specific rules about
> where a leader can be placed and what types of corps a leader can command.
> A leader cannot command a stack unless a corps of that major power is
> present in the stack.  So Mike's "mercenary" generals idea is a bit
> far-fetched.
>
>     Ok, now that we are back in reality, I find that Mike's is the
stronger
> side of this argument.  The rules say that the controlling power's
"forces"
> cannot be used against the minor country's enemy.  That language itself
was
> not convincing either way.  But the FAQ that Nate unearthed has tipped the
> balance in Mike's favor, at least as far as my vote is concerned.  So, for
> the record, I agree with Mike that French generals cannot fight the
> Prussians/Danes without a declaration of war by France.  (It follows that
my
> use of a French general to fight the Turks in the last game was an error.
> But since the Turks won that battle anyway, I don't feel to bad about it.)
>
>     The question remaining in my mind is: what can we do to make this
> situation more fair for France?  Clearly Jim was laboring under a
> misconception of the rules.  If the misconception were entirely of his own
> making, he would have no one to blame but himself.  But since we played it
> that way last game, I think we are all responsible for Jim's
misconception.
> Therefore, it is incumbent on all of us to find an equitable solution.
> Perhaps we could give Jim the option of redoing his political phase
(thereby
> allowing him to declare war on Prussia if he wants to)?  Jim, do you think
> that would be fair?  Or do you have another suggestion of how we can help
> you reach a solution that you think is fair?
>
> kdh
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>

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