Danny Mount on 29 Mar 2003 02:43:00 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: [eia] NOT On to the Reinforcement Phase!

I agree with you on almost everything that you have said.  Yet I don't
understand how you are upset about wanting to go back and change "obvious
mistakes" if you want the game to be sped up.  If we take the time to let
people go back and undo their mistakes, which might not be major ordeals,
then wouldn't we be slowing the game down?  I think that we all are
gentlemen playing this game, because if we were not we would have probably
quit a long time ago, but there needs to be a reasonableness to which we
say, "we just need to move on".  Again, I think you have made some excellent
points which we need to take a hard look at, especially everyone taking
their turn at getting screwed.

-----Original Message-----
From: eia-admin@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-admin@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Kyle
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 9:20 PM
To: eia@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [eia] NOT On to the Reinforcement Phase!

> No, we haven't.   We have been letting people go back and change the
> political phase orders depending on what happened.

    The only evidence you use to support this claim is that we go back after
the escrow has been revealed to take care of the Minor Country Control Step.
But we all acknowledged long ago that the Minor Country Control Step would
have to be an exception to the rule of simultaneity, because you can't be
expected to decide whether to sponsor attacked minor countries until you
know which minor countries have been attacked!  And you won't know that
until after the political phase escrow has been revealed.  Again, allow me
to emphasize that we acknowledged this as an exception to the rule a long
time ago (back when we started using the Political Phase Escrow).  Claiming
that the Minor Country Control Step as an instance of how we always go back
to "change" political orders is mistaken at best.

    As Mike pointed out, you guys had a *long* time to get yourselves
organized.  I'm sorry that things didn't work out the way you would have
liked, but c'est la guerre, right?  (Sorry if that's not how it's written -
I guess you can tell that I didn't take French.)  Ask yourself this:  is it
really that crucial?  I'm sure you would have liked to have launched a joint
attack with the Prussians this turn, but is it really so terrible to attack
separately or wait until next month to launch your joint offensive?

    Keep in mind that we've all felt screwed from time to time about not
being allowed to go back and fix obvious mistakes.  Just recently I was not
allowed to go back and fix my naval orders even though that change would not
have had any effect on what had happened since.  Mike felt screwed over when
he was forced to accept die rolls that he thought were bogus.  I'm sure Jim
felt screwed over when he was not able to roll for the siege of Minsk last
month.  (And think about Mike's discovery of the rule about St. Petersburg!
Talk about feeling screwed over!!!  Yikes, that was a whopper!)

    So I think all of us can sympathize with you on this one, but
unfortunately that doesn't change the fact that - like it or not - there was
a screw-up.  Now, I *wish* we were playing in the sort of gentlemanly game
where a spirit of generosity prevailed and players allowed each other to go
back and fix obvious mistakes.  But unfortunately that's not what this group
seems to prefer.  Just different gaming styles, I guess.  <shrug>  Anyway,
until that attitude changes, Mike and I would be suckers to allow you guys
to go back and change things when we don't get that same opportunity.

> And I, for one, will only send out step b. of the the political phase in
> the escrow from now on with everything else being "pending".

    In that case, you would be unilaterally changing the purpose of the
political phase escrow.  I don't think that's the way to go.  If we *as a
group* agree to use the escrow only for the Declarations of War segment of
the Political Phase henceforth, then that's fine, but that's not a decision
that should be imposed on the rest of the group by one person.

> Also, I would strongly recommend people not send out reinforcement or
> other orders out of turn.

    Could you please explain your reasoning for this recommendation?  How
does it make a difference in what order the "Coalition members" take their
turns during the reinforcement phase (when Russia and France both come at
the end)?  Some of us have been taking long enough to send in orders as it
is.  Unless there's a good reason for delay, I hope players will do what
they can to speed things up.


eia mailing list

eia mailing list