Kyle H on 30 Jul 2002 15:51:05 -0000

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

Re: [eia] Games are supposed to be fun

    Touche, JJ.  I'll give some thought to whether I'm still having fun with this game and get back to you.
----- Original Message -----
From: J.J. Young
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 10:09 AM
Subject: [eia] Games are supposed to be fun

Kyle and Mike,
    If the current rules dispute is now to become heated and personal, I am no longer interested in recieving emails about it.  Please make use of private channels rather than the eia list, or find some other way to leave me out.  I for one will simply vote on my preference.  My suggestion to anyone else who wants to put this behind us is to do the same.
BTW, I am assuming here that my interpretations of the 2 alternate plans were correct, since they were left uncommented upon.
Although Kyle's plan has the simplicity of looking at the map and knowing whether or not there is a siege, I do have a slight preference for Mike's plan, which I think more closely conforms to the rules as written, but with the following caveats:
1.)  A defender in a city should be able to build a sea supply depot there whether the attacker outside is laying siege or not.
2.)  All or none of the attacking corps that end up surrounding a city must lay siege to that city.