Re: [eia] EIH response

["Everett E. Proctor" <spiritmast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

So if we were to adopt this rule, then no coalition member would have been able to have combined movement this month.


(If G.B, Prussia, Austria and Turkey are the Coalition, does that make
France and Russia the Regime?)


On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:16:14 -0500
"Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>     Here is the only response I got from the EIH mailing list about our combined movement snafu.  It is from one of the big-wigs, and since there was no further discussion on the list, I take it that his viewpoint did not meet with any dissent.  His conclusion was that GB and Austria should be forced to go separately and only Spain, Turkey, and Prussia would be considered to have combined movement.  I am not advocating that solution in this instance, but his reasoning is interesting, so I'll let you all read it for yourselves.  (His response follows.  My original question is below that.)
> 
> kdh
> 
> Hi Kyle,
> 
> For reasons I am about to explain, combined movement orders must 
> always be a closed set. Example|: for {A, B, C, ..} to combine, all 
> of {A, B, C, ..} must order combined movement with all of the others.
> 
> Why? Example:
> A, B allied
> B, C allied
> A, C at war.
> 
> A cmw. B
> B cmw. A&C
> C cmw. B
> => A,B,C combine?! 
> 
> Now we run into a potential situation where A and C are moving 
> combined and thus are both the phasing powers during combat. 
> Obviously, this is impossible, so the correct effect of the above 
> orders is: no-one combines! 
> 
> This would be true even if A,C where allied. B cannot change his 
> orders after they are revealed and as they are now they cannot be 
> carried out. The whole purpose of writing it down and revealing it is 
> that you're not sure of what the other powers will be doing. So if 
> allies screw this up, intentionally or by failing to coordinate, 
> they're simply out of luck. The rules offer them no alternatives. B 
> does not have the option of ordering combined moves with (A or C), 
> only either A, C or (A and C). A little complicated to, but I'm sure 
> that if you think it through, you'll see this is the only fair 
> solution.
> 
> In this particular case: Sp, Pr, Tu combine; Br, Au both move 
> seperately. 
> 
> regards,
> Ragnar 
> 
> --- In eih@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Kyle" <polysorbate80@xxxx> wrote:
> >    Hi guys.  I could use a little help/advice.  In our game, we do 
> > the Declaration of Combined Movement Step of the Political Phase 
> > simultaneously, meaning that we all reveal our intentions at once.  
> > In the past this has not been a problem, as we all figured out what 
> > we wanted to do during diplomacy.  However, apparently this month 
> > there was a miscommunication of some sort.  GB, Spain, Prussia, and 
> > Turkey all chose to combine movement with one another.  However, 
> > while Austria offered combined movement to all of those countries, 
> > only GB expressed a desire to combine with Austria.  To rephrase:  
> > GB chose to combine with all of Austria, Spain, Prussia, and 
> > Turkey.  And Austria also offered to combine with all of those 
> > countries, but Spain, Prussia, and Turkey did not return the favor.
> > 
> >    So how should we handle this?  Should Austria be counted as one 
> > of the countries combining movement (under EiH rule 7.3.13/EiA rule 
> > 7.3.8)?  Or should Austria not be counted as one of those countries?
> > 
> > Thanks in advance for your response,
> > 
> > -Kyle.

-- 
Everett E. Proctor <spiritmast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Play Sanctum: Online CCG
http://www.sanctum.nioga.net/


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