Re: [eia] dice re-roll policy

["J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Both sides of this issue make good points, I think.  Having spoken a lot to
Jim about what he wanted to do this turn, I feel certain that his plans to
beseige Vilna and Brest-Litovsk were set in stone, and he would have done
exactly what he did regardless of the results of the dice.  But I also can
see that not every future situation is going to be as cut and dried as this
one.  So I'm not much help in resolving this, because I see both sides and
don't have a strong preference either way.

-JJY

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Gorman" <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 12:01 AM
Subject: RE: [eia] dice re-roll policy


> My concern is this.  We will probably screw up land orders again at some
> point this game.  I'm uncomfortable with the idea of people reworking land
> orders with fore knowledge of how their battles will go.  I don't know if
> it made a difference for Prussia or if it will ever make a difference, but
> being able to rework your land orders with the knowledge that this or that
> roll will go your way or not go your way seems a bad idea.
> I don't expect people to try to milk that and intentionally screw up their
> orders so they can make their rolls and then change the orders, but it's a
> rare turn where you don't have several options on how to execute a given
> goal for that month.  If you know that choosing one path will completely
> screw you and choosing another will give you a big win, can you honestly
> ignore that knowledge when you pick which option you will take?
> Suppose the rolls in question were a foraging roll.  You had a forage
> value of three or four but ended up getting a six.  Then someone points
out
> that you screwed something up and need to change your foraging rolls.  You
> might have turned down an alternate plan that would have had the corps
that
> foraged so badly supplied by a depot.  What do you do?  If you switch to
> your alternate plan, it now looks like you switched away from foraging to
> save the factors and used knowledge you never should have had.  If you
> don't switch, then you intentionally force yourself to turn down a plan
you
> had already made because your mistake caused you to know something you
> shouldn't know in advance.   If you instead say that since the last order
> set was invalid, the rolls that went with it are invalid, then you can
make
> your new orders in the absence of either the benefit or the impediment of
> fore knowledge.
> With a siege.  Suppose Prussia had blown the Vilna siege roll.  They found
> out it was going to cost more to attack Vilna then planned and decided
they
> would never launch that attack then.  What do you do?  If you back out of
> the siege, then you appear to be using the knowledge that the siege failed
> to not bother launching the attack.  It wouldn't matter if that attack was
> only being launched assuming a certain supply situation, it now looks like
> it was withdrawn because it failed.  Similarly, knowing it will succeed,
it
> would be very hard to pull that attack back even if it might cost a little
> more.  After all, you know you will win before you even move.
>
> It's the writing of orders with foreknowledge of the results that has me
> so adamantly opposed to just letting people roll and then correct moves
> without rerolling.
>
> Mike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>
>


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