Michael Gorman on Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:54:34 -0500 (CDT)

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

RE: [eia] access adjustments ?

At 10:30 PM 4/14/2004 -0700, you wrote:
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.

At the other end, how hard are we trying to make access?

Access isn't in any phase in the base rules. We've already restricted it a lot by putting it into the political phase. My concern is that we are moving towards making the game unplayable in the name of making it fast. There seems to be some assumption being made that access agreements are supposed to be difficult, but that's something we made up. The game rules allow them to be made on the fly and so don't need any concerns about when nations get controlled. What we're seeing now is a house rule having problems and the response is to make it even harder to use. I think we're going the wrong way.

I don't want to have playing a nation who makes allies become such a pain in the ass that I can't stand writing orders. What does this complication add to the game besides being annoying? And saying it will only be annoying sometimes doesn't waive the question of what does it add? What are we gaining by making it harder to administrate an alliance? We're adding a layer of complexity to the game and so far it looks like an unnecessary complication to me.

It isn't realism because it's unrealistic to think a nation would have to announce all its access agreements to the world and then be incapable of breaking them at the last minute. So you're at best trading one kind of compromise on realism for another compromise.

I question the gain in speed since it slows down the political phase by requiring more things to be worked out in diplomacy before people answer the escrowe. It prevents interruptions of the land and naval phases by shoving those interruptions into an earlier phase rather than by getting rid of them.

People seem very attached to the idea that access decisions must be in the political phase and must be escrowed so there has to be something we're gaining from this. I just don't get it what it is.


eia mailing list