Re: [eia] Battle of Leopoldstadt resolution

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    Jim's new suggestion is slightly different from mine.  In my suggestion, 
the reinforcers would have the *option* of declaring war (or else they 
return to the area they started in).  Jim wants to *force* the reinforcers 
to declare war.  As Mike points out, this becomes sticky in the case of 
enforced peace.
    I prefer giving the reinforcers the option of declaring war and staying 
or not declaring war and returning.

kdh

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Gorman" <mpgorman@xxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] Battle of Leopoldstadt resolution


> At 11:42 AM 8/28/2006, you wrote:
>>I like solution #2 best.  This seems similar to the FORCED WAR 
>>DECLARATIONS
>>rules (4.6.4.2) for attacking a neutral minor.
>>
>>I agree that a MP cannot fight a MP they are not at war with (w/ the naval
>>exception that Joel pointed out).  I think each side should decide via
>>escrow whether to attempt to reinforce or not.  After that, if both decide
>>to reinforce and both do so successfully then they do so with the 
>>knowledge
>>that they each *must* declare war on the other per 4.6.4.2 This states 
>>that
>>"If two or more MPs do not back down ...each *must* declare war on all MPs
>>also attacking... (unless already at war with them)".
>>
>>As a benefit, 4.6.4.2.1 states that this "costs the same as declaring war 
>>on
>>*one* MP".
>
> How will this interact with enforced peace?
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia 

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