Joel Uckelman on 5 Dec 2003 05:19:57 -0000

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

Re: [eia] Access

Thus spake Michael Gorman:
> This is probably why the forced access option was created.  If someone tries
> to screw you over like that, you can land anyhow.

If we were playing with forced access, citing the forced access rule
would be sufficient to put asside my objection. We put that to a vote,
and it failed. So now I'm stuck unable to agree with your notion of
voluntary access unless enough people change their minds about forced

One further objection I have:

Turn order does not, in general, represent the temporal order of events.
Example: In some land phase, France moves, and then Prussia moves. It
would be strange to understand this game mechanic as representing a month
in which French armies moved exclusively in the first week of the month,
followed by a week in which Prussian armies were on the march. The phases
are split as they are to facilitate play, not to give the impression that
movement never occurs simultaneously.

The relevance of this to the access problem is as follows: You're
arguing that seeing certain actions during a turn could have an effect
on whether you grant access or how extensive that access is. Fine, but
similar to the example above, there's no reason to think that the
actions which are collected in the political phase all happen on the
first of the month. On the contrary, they presumably happen all throught
the month (or perhaps even in the previous month), and not necessarily
in the order in which they become public. Moreover, the actions to which
you're intending to respond (through access declarations) aren't necessarily
happening in the order in which the actions are taken.

It seems to me that, when considered temporaly, an access declaration in the
political phase could be a "response" to troop movement in the land phase,
despite that the former comes before the latter in turn order.

eia mailing list