Re: [eia] [escrow] July 1806 Political Orders

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

> At 11:37 AM 7/25/2006, JJ wrote:
>>So the French army can leave Prussia to invade Austria, march to Linz, 
>>say,
>>seven spaces from Paris, then march back through Prussia to attack Russia 
>>a
>>year later.  And then return through Prussian territory a year after that 
>>to
>>attack Austria again.  As long as they never return to French territory, 
>>the
>>four French corps that entered Prussia have access through Prussia forever
>>and ever, amen.
>>

    Everything you said there is correct in theory, but there are a lot of 
practical considerations that make such a lengthy series of campaigns 
unlikely.  Still, I do not shy away from the fact that what you said above 
is a theoretical consequence of the rules.  However, if this theoretical 
consequence of the rules is unlikely to ever happen in an actual game, then 
that does not make the rules "broken."  As Mike says below, for his own 
practical reasons, he does not intend to use the rules in the way JJ 
describes, and I doubt anyone ever would.  (That's probably why the 
designers did not bother with a lengthy, complicated ruleset that would 
attempt to rule it out).
    Voluntary Access is kind of like inviting a vampire (or a relative) into 
your home.  Once they're in, it's a pain in the ass to get them out unless 
they choose to leave (or you choose to use force to evict them).  So like 
Mike said below, perhaps we should all be a bit more circumspect about 
granting access in the first place.  Once you lay your territories prostrate 
to a foreign power, they can use them as they will until they choose to 
leave.  So be wary of inviting foreign powers in.

kdh

Mike wrote:
> I'm advocating us using some spirit of the rule logic to say okay, the old
> agreement was to go across Prussia for a joint attack on Russia.  Yes, it
> would make life easier if Prussia had made that an explicit part of the
> agreement when it was issued, but the two of us certainly know why we put
> the agreement in place.  Yes, we did discuss what might happen if Austria
> attacked, but that was never an important part of the access
> agreement.  The agreement was based on the idea of a war with Russia.  As
> such, I would say that if I use the fading bits of the old agreement to
> march south into West Galicia, it would be reasonable to say okay, you've
> decided to do that, West Prussia, East Prussia and Masovia are simply no
> longer on your way back to France, there's no reasonable way you can say
> you need to return via them when you still have access to Silesia.  Posen
> might be arguable, but the other three certainly not.  I've gone beyond
> what the agreement was for so it shouldn't cover me forever.
>
> I think we're going to be stuck using some judgement on this one and keep
> in mind that you might want to be careful of what kind of access you grant
> people in the future.  I think this is the first time I've seen major
> rewriting of an access agreement that wasn't caused by war so I don't 
> think
> we should spend too much more time on this argument as it's likely going 
> to
> remain an abnormal situation.
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia 

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