Everett E. Proctor on 29 Mar 2003 13:25:01 -0000

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

Re: [eia] you're absolutely right

On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 06:40:13 -0800
"James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> It sounds to me as if  Prussia and Austria combining movement is the real
> issue here.  With that in mind let me state that I had no intention of
> combining movement with Austria.  And since Russia moves before ALL the
> coalition members it is really a moot point the way I see it. 

No,  Russia moves whenever France moves, which moves whenever it wants.
Russia can choose to move before all of us, after all of us, or split up our movement.

Besides, the main point of combined movement wouldn't be to go after or
before Russia, but to be able to combine our forces in one attack.

In this particular case, I don't really care.  There are advantages
either way.  Seriously, I'm perfectly happy to not have combined
movement, I am arguing because I don't want my acceptance of this to set precedence.

I did have a different assumption of how/why the escrow was in effect
than Mike and Kyle did.   I recall that at first we weren't going to
have an escrow, then Joel arguing that it would be a good idea in a case
where A declares a war on B and B declares war on C.  B may not have
declared war on C if it knew it was going to be attacked by A. And I
also recall (maybe incorrectly) Kyle arguing that the escrow was o.k.,
but he wanted to make sure that we could go back and change things that
came after declaration of war if, indeed, war was declared.

I think that makes more sense, and the game was obviously designed so
that everyone would know who as at war with who when those later steps
came around, and I would prefer to keep it that way.  The rules go out
of their way to explain how the *declaration of war* is supposed to be
secret and simultaneous, not the entire political phase.  In fact, much
of it doesn't make sense to be in the escrow:  Call to Allies, the Peace
Step, Minor Country Control.  3 out of the 7 steps after declaration of
war, by necessity, *must* be retroactively changeable, so it seems
simpler, and logical to allow all the steps after the Declaration of War
step to be so.

Or do away with "political phase" escrow and make it a "declaration of
war" escrow.

> Let's move
> on, pleasse

We are, we are waiting for Spain's Reinforcement phase.


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Gorman" <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 8:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [eia] you're absolutely right
> >
> > >    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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia

Everett E. Proctor <spiritmast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Play Sanctum: Online CCG

eia mailing list