James Helle on Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:26:03 -0500 (CDT)

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

RE: [eia] access adjustments ?

I feel that placing access agreements at the end of the political phase
("J") makes a certain amount of sense if you consider that it would take
some time once a war is declared on a minor to  make the decision to sponsor
said minor, consult with allies (or any interested parties), and publicly
declare the granting of access.  I don't know how much time a political
phase represents  , but I find that the delay in allowing other major powers
access is not all that unrealistic or unreasonable to me.  So basically, if
a minor is sponsored in February then access will be effective at the end of
the March political phase.  I, for one, do not want a separate escrow that
is going to hold up the game more than it already is bound to be.

-----Original Message-----
From: eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
Michael Gorman
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 7:08 PM
To: public list for an Empires in Arms game
Subject: Re: [eia] access adjustments ?

At 02:51 PM 4/13/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>     I think that adjusting Voluntary Access in response to Minor Country
>Control was justified in this particular instance because there was so much
>action with regard to Minor Countries being attacked.  But let's not forget
>that usually Voluntary Access decisions are made and sent in with the
>Political Phase escrow.  (In the last game, a Voluntary Access amendment
>rejected because it was not made at the proper time.)
>     So I just want to make sure everyone is aware that we are making an
>exception to the rule in this case, but we shouldn't expect to be able to
>make such Voluntary Access amendments all the time.
I think this is a poor solution.  We found in our last game that minors
were going neutral with great regularity.  One bad war and you can start
losing control of minors from going into instability.  Having to guess what
will happen in a previous step of the political phase and write your orders
without knowing something that you might be supposed to know before you
make that decision is a problem.  We haven't even addressed the question of
where in the political phase this step is supposed to be placed, which
would then decide if you should know minor control before deciding access
or not.
If it is step J, then I think we need a third escrowe for the political
phase so you can base your access decisions on what may have changed
previously in the phase.

I already think the access in the political phase is a bad idea, putting it
effectively after declaration of war and before everything else, which is
where everything in the second escrowe sits, is just asking for too many
what if access decisions.


eia mailing list

eia mailing list