Kyle H on 18 Mar 2003 14:00:01 -0000


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [eia] rule change proposal - new corps


    Well, we seem pretty much split down the middle on this issue.  Mike,
JJ, and Joel have voiced opposition to the proposal, while Jim and Danny
have voiced support.  I think it is clear that since we lack consensus (let
alone unanimity) on this issue, the rule should not be changed.
    However, I do find it interesting that the people who supported the idea
were the ones who are playing Empires in Arms for the first time.  Perhaps
rather than committing to a rule change, we could instead make a more
personal commitment to try to be understanding when one of our newer players
makes a costly error like the one we've been discussing.  I'm sure we would
all agree that this is a complicated game with a steep learning curve.  That
being the case, I would hope we would all be willing to show a little
sympathy when new people make a costly error due to their unfamiliarity with
the game.  But of course, that's a personal decision; it's not something we
need to vote on.

    In any case, let it be known that the proposed rule change has been
defeated.

kdh

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] rule change proposal - new corps


> I think it's a good idea, also.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Danny Mount" <mount.23@xxxxxxx>
> To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 1:57 PM
> Subject: RE: [eia] rule change proposal - new corps
>
>
> > Kyle,
> > As you have so eloquently spoken up to this rule, I too have had
thoughts
> > about this.  Since I am the last to join and learn about this game I
have
> > had thoughts about how one could make a mistake in over or under
> calculating
> > this number.  I think it is a great idea and I am in favor of supporting
> it
> > if the rest of the members are as well.
> > -DEM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: eia-admin@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-admin@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Kyle
> > H
> > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 3:26 PM
> > To: eia@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [eia] rule change proposal - new corps
> >
> >
> >     Ever since I wrote the email below, I've been considering whether we
> > should stick with the current rule that says that if you didn't have the
> > foresight to pay for an extra corps counter in the previous economic
> phase,
> > then you are screwed if you don't have an eligible corps in which to
place
> > newly produced units.
> >     Here's my concern:  I hope I'm not offending anyone by saying this,
> but
> > I think it would take a person of extraordinary honesty to actually own
up
> > to making this kind of costly book-keeping error.  I like to think of
> myself
> > as an honest person, but if I were ever to end up in the position where
I
> > would lose a cavalry factor because of my failure to put another $1 into
> my
> > corps maintenance in the last economic phase, I can imagine that I would
> be
> > sorely tempted to fudge the numbers a little.
> >     Let me put the point a slightly different, more general way:  I
think
> it
> > is a bad idea to have a rule that severely penalizes a player for what
is
> > essentially a minor book-keeping mistake, *especially* when there is no
> > mechanism for oversight or verification.
> >     So here's what I propose:  a pay-as-you-go system for corps
creation.
> > During an ecomonic phase, a player would only pay maintenance for the
> corps
> > that are currently on the board.  However, whenever a player places a
new
> > corps on the board (which would always be during a reinforcement phase)
he
> > would immediately have to pay $1.  This proposal essentially makes
paying
> > for corps exactly like paying for depots - you pay to place them, and
you
> > pay if they are still on the board during an economic phase.
> >     The merits of this proposal are that the player would still pay the
> same
> > amount that he would otherwise pay for new and old corps markers, but
> > without the possibility of finding himself in a situation where he is
> forced
> > to choose between painful honesty and a minor accounting fudge.  Again,
> > please understand that I am not accusing anyone in this group of having
a
> > disposition to play dishonestly.  Quite the contrary, I am quite
confident
> > that we are all a group of honorable, honest men.  Still, why should we
> > allow a rule that would tempt even the most honest among us into
> dishonesty,
> > especially when that rule is highly bureaucratic in nature?
> >
> > I'm interested to know what you all think.
> >
> > kdh
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 9:44 AM
> > Subject: Reinforcement phase rules reminder
> >
> >
> > >     As you are considering your reinforcement orders, keep in mind
that
> > > August is the first CAVALRY REINFORCEMENT month.  The cavalry that you
> > > purchased in March MUST be placed in an eligible corps this month.  A
> > corps
> > > is eligible if it is either a) inside the home nation or b) within one
> > space
> > > of a depot that is part of a valid supply chain starting inside the
home
> > > nation.  (If you purchased a cavalry factor for a minor country, in
> order
> > to
> > > be eligible the corps would need to be either in the minor country or
> > within
> > > one space of a depot that is part of a valid supply chain starting in
> the
> > > minor country.  Don't forget that the contents of minor country corps
> are
> > > public knowledge in our game.  When factors of any kind are added to a
> > minor
> > > country corps, don't forget to update us.)
> > >     Notice that Prussia currently has no eligible corps.  QUESTION:
> > Suppose
> > > Prussia purchased a cavalry factor in March.  What would happen to it
> now
> > > that there is no place to put it?  ANSWER:  There are two
possibilities.
> > If
> > > Prussia was thinking ahead and paid for an extra corps marker in June,
> > then
> > > Prussia could place the new corps marker in a city inside the home
> nation
> > > and then immediately place his new cavalry factor inside that new
corps.
> > > However, if Prussia did not pay for an extra corps marker in June,
then
> it
> > > would be screwed.  Jim's only option at that point would be to convert
> the
> > > cavalry factor (permanently) into an infantry factor and place it with
a
> > > city garrison inside the Prussian home nation.  (That would be a waste
> of
> > > $12 for each converted cavalry factor.  That hurts no matter who you
> are!)
> > >
> > > Hope this rules reminder helps keep everyone on the same page!
> > >
> > > kdh
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 4:26 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [eia] Political Orders
> > >
> > >
> > > >     As far as I know, the game is not in any official timeout.  At
> > present
> > > > we are waiting for Everett to reply to the escrow and submit his
> August
> > > > political phase orders.  Once he has done that, we will begin the
> > > > reinforcement phase.  While we wait, I hope everyone is looking
ahead
> to
> > > > their reinforcement and naval orders so that we can resolve those
> phases
> > > as
> > > > quickly as possible.
> > > >
> > > > kdh
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Danny Mount" <mount.23@xxxxxxx>
> > > > To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 4:19 PM
> > > > Subject: [eia] Political Orders
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Hey guys!
> > > > >
> > > > > Have the Political Orders been sent out of the system yet?  I have
> yet
> > > to
> > > > > receive them if they have.  Is the game in a "timeout" or
something?
> > > > >
> > > > > -DEM
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>

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