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

["Bill Jaffe" <billj@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I like Michael's solution better than the "real rule".

As we say in WIF circles, the EIA-Zen is that the Government of Prussia,
having made a new deal (or as France would say, betrayed the cause), and so
when the Army leaves, they are not welcome back.

That's the way of it to me!

Bill Jaffe
Wargaming since Tactics (1958), and playing 18xx since 1829
billj@xxxxxxxxxxx
 

-----Original Message-----
From: eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Michael Gorman
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 1:26 PM
To: public list for an Empires in Arms game
Subject: Re: [eia] [escrow] July 1806 Political Orders

At 11:37 AM 7/25/2006, you 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.
>
>This is a broken rule.
>
>I'll play the game that way, but this is a broken rule.
>
>-JJY

This is why my original sentiment was that the new access agreement should 
follow my army around closing off access as I go.  I shouldn't be able to 
keep that old agreement around forever, eventually it has to be superceded 
by the new one and since the right to return is phrased as a right to 
return the way I came, I'd say that it's saying I have the right to pass 
through Prussia in order to head back to France, which is going to be 
simplified by me having already been planning on doing that anyhow.  Since 
Prussia is long and narrow, it makes life complicated since there is a 
whole lot of Austria south of it that would not constitute returning to 
France but was also not part of why I was originally given access to go 
into Prussia anyhow I don't think it should keep the old agreement alive.

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