Re: [eia] rule change proposal - new corps

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    As Everett pointed out once before, the rules assume that everyone's
national card will be public knowledge.  So the original intent of the rules
was that there *would* be a way to verify compliance with this and every
other economic aspect of the rules.  *We* have chosen to modify the rules
and keep our national cards hidden in order to create a "fog of war"
atmosphere in the game.  While I think the fog of war makes the game more
exciting, we should acknowledge that this house rule of ours has resulted in
a situation where players will have very poor incentives to own up to costly
accounting errors.  My common sense (as well as my background in economics)
tell me that this is a bad situation to be in, and we should rectify it if
possible.
    In addition, we should also recognize that some of the people playing
this game have significantly more experience with it than others.  Those
people are much less likely to find themselves with no where to place new
units simply because they are more familiar with the game.  That gives those
of us who have played the game before *even more* of an advantage over the
new guys.  That just doesn't seem right to me.

    But unless Mike changes his mind, I don't think we should change this
rule.  In general, I think rule changes should be unanimous.  If someone
voices strong opposition (as Mike has), then we should leave things be.

kdh

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Gorman" <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 2:14 AM
Subject: Re: [eia] rule change proposal - new corps


> I am opposed to changing this rule.  The need to plan ahead is a major
> component of the economic system used in this game.
> You have to make decisions on how much to commit to flexibility in the
> form of corps counters, to supply, to reinforcements to saving for future
> wars.  These decisions impact a lot of the game and throwing portions of
> them out has a big impact and I don't see the benefits of reducing the
> strategic component of the game by allowing people to not have to plan.
> Yes, people can choose to cheat and ignore parts of the rules and there is
> no good way to check on that.  But there's no good way to check on that in
> a face to face game either.  If people are not trusting each other to
> accept the framework of the game, then the problem is not in the rules.
>
> 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