Re: [eia] rule change proposal - new corps

["J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am mildly opposed to the rule change, as I foresee it being overused, with
corps splitting into smaller segments for relatively trivial reasons.  As
written, the rule places a restraint (but not a restriction) on how many new
corps will be placed.  This tends toward a "fewer, bigger corps" game, which
I think is good.

-JJY

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: [eia] rule change proposal - new corps


>     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
>
>


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