Re: [eia] rule change proposal - new corps

[jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx]

I agree that patience and understanding are called for towards the brave souls 
who are tackling these rules for the first time.  I first played the game in 
1993, I think, and I'm still making rules mistakes.

-JJY



Quoting Kyle H <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>     Well, we seem pretty much split down the middle on this issue.  Mike,
> JJ, and Joel have voiced opposition to the proposal, while Jim and Danny
> have voiced support.  I think it is clear that since we lack consensus (let
> alone unanimity) on this issue, the rule should not be changed.
>     However, I do find it interesting that the people who supported the idea
> were the ones who are playing Empires in Arms for the first time.  Perhaps
> rather than committing to a rule change, we could instead make a more
> personal commitment to try to be understanding when one of our newer players
> makes a costly error like the one we've been discussing.  I'm sure we would
> all agree that this is a complicated game with a steep learning curve.  That
> being the case, I would hope we would all be willing to show a little
> sympathy when new people make a costly error due to their unfamiliarity with
> the game.  But of course, that's a personal decision; it's not something we
> need to vote on.
> 
>     In any case, let it be known that the proposed rule change has been
> defeated.
> 
> kdh
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 11:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [eia] rule change proposal - new corps
> 
> 
> > I think it's a good idea, also.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Danny Mount" <mount.23@xxxxxxx>
> > To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 1:57 PM
> > Subject: RE: [eia] rule change proposal - new corps
> >
> >
> > > Kyle,
> > > As you have so eloquently spoken up to this rule, I too have had
> thoughts
> > > about this.  Since I am the last to join and learn about this game I
> have
> > > had thoughts about how one could make a mistake in over or under
> > calculating
> > > this number.  I think it is a great idea and I am in favor of supporting
> > it
> > > if the rest of the members are as well.
> > > -DEM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: eia-admin@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-admin@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Kyle
> > > H
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 3:26 PM
> > > To: eia@xxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: [eia] rule change proposal - new corps
> > >
> > >
> > >     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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> 
> 


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