J.J. Young on 29 Mar 2003 14:48:01 -0000

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

Re: [eia] fixing the political phase

Unless there are problems with this procedure which I can't see (and which
others will probably point out), it sounds fine to me.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 9:43 AM
Subject: [eia] fixing the political phase

> Everett wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>     There is definitely some merit to what you're saying.  And as you may
> recall, I was initially in favor of having 2 political phase escrows
> (Political Phase A and Political Phase B) for much the same reasons.
> However, without having a concrete proposal to consider, it is impossible
> decide whether what you are suggesting is better than our current practice
> (which is far from perfect).  I think we would all agree that if your
> proposal required us to go through each step of the political phase
> individually, that would not be an improvement on our current system just
> because it would take far too long.  So let's see if we can't come up with
> an alternative that preserves some of the original intent of the rules at
> minimum cost in extra time.
>     First of all, let's recognize the value of simultaneity.  Resolving
> steps simultaneously cuts down on the gamesmanship involved in waiting to
> see what others do before committing yourself.  If everyone goes at once,
> then that helps to move things along.  I conclude that simultaneity is a
> good thing wherever you can get it.
>     It seems to me that the Declaration of War step is perhaps the most
> crucial step in the Political Phase.  And I think Everett is right that
> of what happens afterward depends on knowledge of its outcome.  For that
> reason, I think it should have its own escrow.  Now, here's the question:
> would there be any harm in combining the rest of the Political Phase into
> one escrow?
>     Here's how I think we ought to deal with Political Phases from now on.
> 1.)  First, we send out an escrow just for Declarations of War.  (This
> should not take very long as there is only one thing to decide.)
> 2.)  When that is revealed, we immediately resolve Calls to Allies (if
> necessary).  This could be done either in a sequence or with a separate
> escrow.  But in either case, it wouldn't come up very often at all.
> 3.)  Then we send out a separate Political Phase escrow that handles steps
> D. through I.  In this second escrow, people would sue for peace, state
> which countries they wish to ally with, state which minor countries they'd
> be willing to sponsor, state which alliances they wish to break, state
> minor countries become free states, and state which countries they'd be
> willing to combine movement with.
> 4.)  When we see the results of that second escrow, we could roll for
> control of minor countries (if necessary) and work out peace conditions
> necessary).
>     I think this is a relatively streamlined procedure that would not cost
> us much in terms of time, but would make better sense out of the whole
> political phase process.  What do the rest of you think?
> kdh
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia

eia mailing list