Re: [eia] Spanish Land Phase, 4/07

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    The way I see it, you found the mistake *after* Danny's naval and land
orders were already published.  Hence, they are grandfathered in.  And it is
only to be fair to everyone else that we extend the same rules to everyone
for the rest of the turn.  That is, the way I'm looking at it, Danny's turn
was already done when you discovered the mistake.  But it is not fair to
spring a rules change on the rest of us mid-turn.  That's why I was
suggesting that the same interpretation be continued for the remainder of
the turn.

    You may be uncomfortable leaving the rules the same for the rest of the
turn, but I'm uncomfortable *not* doing so.  (I'm not sure where that leaves
us.)  I'm also uncomfortable with retroactive movement changes.
    In my view, the fairest thing for everybody is to let everyone's orders
stand as written but to apply the same rules to everybody, at least for the
remainder of the turn.  (It's certainly not fair to have one set of rules
for those who went earlier in the turn and a different set for those who had
the misfortune of going later!)

    Of course, once this turn is over, I'm quite happy to begin applying the
rules as written.

kdh

----- Original Message -----
From: "J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] Spanish Land Phase, 4/07


>
> >     In this case, I think that our previous interpretation of the rules
> > should apply for the remainder of this turn.  So Spain keeps its fleets
> > where they are and gets to supply the corps in Damietta via sea supply.
> But
> > even under our old interpretation of the rules, Naples would not have
been
> > eligible for sea supply this turn.  So the corps at Naples loses 2 (not
> 3 -
> > thanks JJ) factors due to foraging losses.
> >     However, we are all aware that next turn the sea supply rules will
be
> > enforced as written.  If Danny wishes to move his fleets, that will be
his
> > choice.
> >
> > kdh
>
> I am uncomfortable with "letting things slide" with an incorrect rule for
> the rest of a
> turn.  This was not the case when we discovered the previous mistake about
> Languedoc; as soon as we discovered the correct rule, it went into effect,
> and Spain no longer collected the manpower.
>
> If we want to stay within the confines of April, in a way that changes
> nothing that has happened or could
> have happened, then Danny could have moved the I fleet to Palermo this
turn,
> and build a depot there to provide sea supply.
> Or else Danny could just have the 4 corps at Damietta each forage at 5-.
>
> I feel a small change like this in April's orders would be less of a
liberty
> than letting an incorrect rule stand after we've found out about it.
>
> -JJY
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>

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