[eia] rule change proposal - new corps

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    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