Re: [eia] you're absolutely right

[Michael Gorman <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>    I see now that I should have ommitted the word "gentlemanly" in my
> previous email.  I sincerely apologize if that word gave people the
> impression that I was trying to imply that you are *not* all gentlemen!
> That's not what I was trying to communicate at all!  What I was trying to
> say with that word is that we have adopted a bit of a cut-throat style (at
> least in my view) that says people can't go back to fix things.  As we can
> see in this case and in other similar cases, that style sometimes leads to
> hard feelings and powerful disagreements.  And so for that reason alone, I
> wish were able to operate under a different set of rules.  But I do
> understand *why* we are doing what we're doing.  As you say, Danny, if we
> were to try to run the game in the way that I prefer, we would be taking
> even longer to get things done than we are right now.  And I see that that's
> not a good option.

We're playing nations at war.  Russia is currently being attacked by a huge 
force and if the coalition attacking is allowed to rewrite every error they 
make, I might as well just unconditionally surrender now and not bother 
playing the rest of the game.  The game is won and lost on errors and if we 
allow infinite rewriting then the game devolves from strategy to a simple 
punch fest.  I'm bigger than you, I cannot make errors, so I win.

Also, we are assuming Prussia meant to combine with Austria.  I haven't 
seen anything posted here indicating the absence of Austria in the Prussian 
orders was unintentional.  It's a higher risk move for them to go alone, 
but it also has the potential for higher gain.  Depending on how the land 
phase goes, dividing Austria and Prussia might look like a hideous error or 
a brilliant move.

Mike


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