Re: [eia] limited access revisions

[Michael Gorman <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 04:16 AM 10/9/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> > Well, that may be so, but the only reason
> > you'd be foolish not to demand an unconditional surrender is because of the
> > unbalanced rules.
>
> No, the reason is because you've over-extended your forces and have left
> enemy forces between your forces and your home nation.  This is
> frequently a disadvantage in many wargames.
>
> -Everett

I'm going to have to point out that the way this game is balanced 
unconditional surrenders should be quite rare.  One of the things I like 
about EinA is that it encourages limited wars in the style that Europe 
actually fought wars.  Wars to the complete defeat of an opponent weren't 
really that common and unconditional surrenders are typically going to cost 
more than they are worth in this game.

Using an unconditional peace term which is unlikely to be available in most 
wars as a way to balance something really doesn't work since that term will 
seldom be available.   There has been only one unconditional surrender in 
the game thus far and that was only because all the terms that would be 
chosen were negotiated in advance, so it was a very conditional 
unconditional surrender.  No one has come even close to winning a true 
unconditional surrender and it is unlikely we will see more than a few of 
them in this entire game.

Mike



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