Michael Gorman on 31 Mar 2003 05:28:01 -0000

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

Re: [eia] I don't still have a problem

At 11:05 PM 3/30/2003 -0600, you wrote:

On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:42:00 -0600
Michael Gorman <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> At 12:45 PM 3/30/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> > > So how have you guys resolved this problem in your face to face games?
> > > If you tell me that you ended up writing down whether or not you were
> > > going to have simultaneous movement and then revealing it simultaneously,
> >then I'll concede.  Otherwise, I'll prefer to use whatever method you
> > > used to resolve this *problem*.
> > >
> >
> >     I honestly don't recall.  JJ, do you remember how we did combined
> >movement in our face-to-face games?  Of course, I'm not sure that what we
> >did in face-to-face games should dictate what we do in online games, or that
> >what we did in the past was the right way to proceed.  But I'm still
> >curious...  Do you remember, JJ?
> The one face-to-face game I played with you guys we wrote every step of the > political phase down in secret and revealed simultaneously. Until Everett
> pointed out that it was not clear in the rules that that was the correct
> way to do it, I had been assuming it was.
> I think Everett and I are going to settle into that agree to disagree
> category on what makes the most sense.

Yeah.  I would never have thought to do a face-to-face game that way.
But as I said, I'm satisfied as long as Joel puts in the ability to
modify orders before the escrow is released.


I don't think I was completely clear on it. We did effectively do a step by step escrowe. We didn't record all phases and then reveal all, we did each step, but each step was completed in unison. So, you knew the results of the previous steps but not what anyone else did in the current step. Since we also ran time limits on diplomacy, I think that should not be a problem in our current game as people have time to talk.


eia mailing list