[eia] email segregation

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

Damn.  I just realized that I deleted (after reading it; no judgement on
content intended) the email Kyle sent regarding our current discussion, but
which also had France's naval reinforcement orders tucked into an obscure
paragraph.  Since as history monkey, I like to keep the emails recording all
events in the game, I would request that everybody keep their _orders_ on
separate emails from other issues.  Thanks, all.

-JJY

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] combined movement problem


>     I agree that under no circumstances should we take this combined
> movement snafu to have the consequence that GB, Spain, Prussia, and Turkey
> cannot combine their movement.  They are all on each other's lists, and so
> their clear desires to combine with one another must be respected.
However,
> the group is less clear about its desires to combine with Austria.
> Unfortunately, that leaves Austria as the odd person out.  (If it's any
> consolation, I'm sure that Austria's allies won't let that mistake happen
> again!  And if you like pseudo-real-world explanations, you could explain
> this event by saying that the Austrians initially had trouble adapting to
> the immense military bureaucracy required to coordinate the actions of 5
> different nations.)  I don't see any other solution but to leave Austria
out
> of the British Coalition's combined movement.
>
> Let me see what they say about this on the EIH mailing list...
>
> kdh
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joel Uckelman" <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 8:36 PM
> Subject: [eia] combined movement problem
>
>
> > I need to know how combined movement is going to be handled before I do
my
> > reinforcements. While I agree with Everett that combined movement is
blind
> > only out of expedience, the rule also is insufficiently explicit. I
> propose
> > the following criteria for dividing groups for combined movement, giving
> > the first priority over the second:
> >
> > 1. If two powers did not mutually request combined movement, they cannot
> > move together.
> >
> > 2. The powers should be divided in a way that minimizes the number of
> > unfulfilled preferences for combined movement.
> >
> > Thus, on the supposition that Spain was requesting combined movement
with
> only his allies he knew to be in the war:
> >
> > Austria may combine movement with neither Prussia, Spain, nor Turkey.
> > That leaves only Great Britain for Austria to combine with. Should
Austria
> > and Great Britain combine, however, no one else can combine with Great
> Britain. Thus, 6 preferences cannot be fulfilled---3 of GB's, one each for
> Prussia, Spain, and Turkey.
> >
> > Combining GB with Prussia, Spain, and Turkey yields only five
unfulfilled
> preferences: 4 of Austria's, and 1 of GB's.
> >
> > If we accept the criteria I suggest, I believe that would dictate that
> Austria moves alone, as I see no way to reject fewer than 5 expressed
> preferences.
> >
> > --
> > J.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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