Re: [eia] dice re-roll policy

["James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

      Mike, I understand your position on this matter.  I think you have
made a very good point in your argument regarding what someone would do if
they knew they had failed a forage roll or a seige (i.e. would they decide
not to do it if they had to rewrite their orders?).  I'm not trying to be an
antagonist in this matter but the reason I am opposed to a re-roll is that I
did not change my actions in my re-written orders.  The only change
affecting the Vilna seige was to move my depot from an open space to a city
in order to create a valid supply source.  My decision to beseige Vilna did
not change.  Regarding B-L, the only reason I changed my troop movement  was
because, after supplying Vilna, I didn't have enough money to fund as many
moves as originally planned.  However, had I realized this in my first set
of orders I would have not moved all my corps so that I could beseige both
cities (i.e. I would have moved my troops exactly as I did to achieve both
seiges).  As Kyle pointed out, though, this is actually in your favor.
      Still, I can see your argument as to whether I would have beseiged
both cities if I had known I would fail my rolls.  My only suggestion to nip
this pre-knowledge is this: if a person needs to make changes to their
orders we hold them to their original actions if they can do so.  So for
example, if I had intended for my corps at Vilna to forage, failed my forage
roll and lost two factors and on top of that did not breach Vilna and then
found out my orders were not valid I would have to find a way to make the
same basic actions  regardless of the losses if there were any way possible
because that was my original purpose.  I feel this is the only answer to the
pre-knowledge scenarios you pointed out.  However, a person should still be
held to their actions even if they win(duh!).
      On a different note, I probably speak for everyone when I say deep
down I'm glad St. P did not fall, given the current atmosphere and the fact
that you weren't aware of the taxation rule.  I was shocked when you moved
your corps out, but I'm glad you get the chance to defend it.  Sorry allies.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Gorman" <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 9:01 PM
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