James Helle on 29 Mar 2003 16:17:01 -0000

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

Re: [eia] you're absolutely right

I admit I see the game somewhat the same way Mike does.  If this were a war
in real life the mistakes we make (which could possibly be made by military
leaders conducting a war) would have the potential to be very costly!  Case
in point is the very real war going on in Iraq.  Now there is a growing
consensus that we underestimated the enemy and did not commit enough troops.
As a result our supply lines are very vulnerable and the forces outside
Baghdad are waiting to get resupplied and for more forces to be in position
to attack before we can proceed!  The three to four weeks this may take will
turn out to be very costly in several ways.  I don't want to start a debate
on the progress of the war but I think it is a good example of how mistakes
can play out over time.  I prefer to, as much as possible, limit "do
overs"(ironic coming from me, I know)!  We each have access to the rules and
I think the best solution is to put more effort into researching the rules
as they apply to our specific actions, myself included.  Does this muddy the
waters more than they are?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 5:46 AM
Subject: Re: [eia] you're absolutely right

> Mike wrote:
> > 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
> > punch fest.  I'm bigger than you, I cannot make errors, so I win.
> >
>     I honestly don't see the game the same way you do.  I don't see it as
> being won or lost on the basis of errors - or at least not the kind of
> errors I'm talking about.  (I've been talking about correcting stupid,
> obvious errors, not the kind of hindsight errors where I say to myself in
> September "Gee, I wish I hadn't attacked the Papacy back in March.")
>     I see this game as being won or lost on the basis of strategy,
> diplomacy, and a bit of luck.  If I thought this game were all about who
> makes the fewest stupid errors, then I wouldn't really be interested in
> playing it.
>     Oh well, it doesn't really matter...
> kdh
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia

eia mailing list