Re: [eia] Battle of Leopoldstadt resolution

["James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

OK.  Well, the problem I see with *all* of our suggestions is the
declaration of war.  Maybe we could simply do this:  7.3.8.3 states that MPs
who have field forces *already in an area* where an attack has been declared
on an ally may choose to stay and declare war on the attacker.  Maybe the
simplest rule is that if there are field forces in an *adjacent area* that
you are not at war with then you cannot reinforce.  You should not be
allowed to declare war in the middle of the land phase on a MP who has not
declared an attack on any of your forces.  What is the consensus on this?

-----Original Message-----
From: eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
Kyle H
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 12:18 PM
To: public list for an Empires in Arms game
Subject: Re: [eia] Battle of Leopoldstadt resolution


    Oh well, so much for staying quiet!  :-)
    Jim, you are the one who wants to *force* the two parties to declare
war.  So *you* are the one bringing in an additional and unnecessary rules
set.  That is, you are the one who is "mixing and matching" rules.  7.3.8
already includes provisions that allow corps who are not currently at war
with an attacker the opportunity to declare war.  So the opportunity to
declare war is already in the rules set that I was suggesting.  You are
trying to put more on top of it by *forcing* the two parties to declare war
(and thereby introducing an additional rules set from 4.6.4.2).
    Aside from the point about mixing and matching rules, the general
problem is that your suggestion cuts off the possibility of just one nation
successfully reinforcing.  You are saying that if they both declare an
intention to reinforce, then they both automatically fail without even
attempting the reinforcement roll.  I think it's a mistake to force a
decision at that point, when it's possible that one corps will successfully
reinforce and the other will fail (based on dice rolls).  The application of
whatever new rule we come up with should only take place in the unlikely
event that both sides successfully reinforce (because if only one side
successfully reinforces, then there's no problem).
    If both sides successfully reinforce and they are not at war with each
other (that was the original problem) *and* they cannot declare war on each
other due to enforced peace (an additional layer added on top of the
original problem), *then* they should have to return to their areas of
origin.  I don't think they should automatically fail to reinforce as soon
as both reinforcement attempts are announced (without a roll).  This allows
exactly the sort of gamesmanship that someone was talking about earlier -
declaring a reinforcement attempt just for the purpose of nerfing someone
else's reinforcement attempt.  I think that's a bad idea.
    My position is make the rolls first, and then deal with the
consequences.  If only one side reinforces, then there is no problem and we
don't need to change anything.  If both sides reinforce successfully and are
not at war with each other, then the must decide to either declare war or
withdraw back to where they started.  (In situations of enforced peace, they
*can't* declare war, so they'd *have* to return to where they started.)

Ok, I'm going to try to be done now.  ;-)

kdh

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] Battle of Leopoldstadt resolution


> If we were to agree to use the Forced Declaration of War rules (4.6.4.2)
> as
> a template for this situation (two or more MP attempting to reinforce
> while
> not currently at war) then I believe the rules in 4.6.4 (the precurser to
> the above rule) would be the most appropriate and fair.  This would keep
> us
> from mixing and matching rules from different sections to make a rule that
> serves our purposes.
>
> In short, both would be unable to reinforce if both were under an enforced
> peace and would be *forced* to back down.  In the case of one MP being
> under
> an extended enforced peace (B2 or C2) while the other was not then the MP
> not under an enforced peace would be allowed to reinforce.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> Michael Gorman
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 10:55 AM
> To: public list for an Empires in Arms game
> 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

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

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