Re: [eia] Turkish land phase, July '05

["James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Are you talking about me again, Mike?  :)    Well, for what it's worth here
is my opinion.  I don't think that anyone is trying to gain an unfair
advantage here, but I don't see this as an obvious "this is what was
intended" scenario.  In the same situation I would ask that the original
orders stand.  Chalk it up to miscommunication with the front lines or
something.  It seems a simple enough mistake, with the E and the W right
next to each other, but once both sides have moved and dice have been rolled
we should try not to revise our orders unless an illegal move was made which
demands some amount of correction, and even then making the least amount of
changes possible while trying to preserve the obvious intent.  (deep breath
here!).  Ultimately, I think the decision is up to Joel and Kyle (or
affected persons in the future).  And, please, whatever feathers are ruffled
in the process, let's remember to remain civil!
JRH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Gorman" <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] Turkish land phase, July '05


> At 05:02 PM 7/8/2004 -0400, you wrote:
> >Barring the two of you working something out, my opinion is that both
sets
> >of original orders (including the typo) and the original forage rolls
should
> >stand.  I feel this way because a reasonable amount of time passed
between
> >Joel's orders and Kyle's orders, and because it has not been our custom
to
> >ask for changes after the game has moved on in a way that was affected by
> >those changes.  Kyle could choose to be generous and allow both sides to
> >redo their orders, but that would be up to him.
> >
> >Again, that's just my opinion (not trying to get anybody miffed; sorry if
I
> >did).
>          Actually, it has been our custom to allow major changes after
> things have passed.  In the past it has been allowed to have some complete
> a turn, make their battle rolls and then rework their entire movement
phase
> while keeping their same battle rolls.  Thus allowing them to commit
forces
> knowing if they would win battles and what their forage losses would
> be.  The basis then was that clearly they intended to do things this way
> but had missent the orders.
>          I would say this is a far smaller change than has been allowed in
> the past.
>
> Mike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>

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