J.J. Young on Thu, 8 Jul 2004 23:56:23 -0500 (CDT)

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

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

OK, sorry I said anything.  It's easy for me to talk about keeping my orders
straight when I only have 4 corps in my army.


----- 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
> >of original orders (including the typo) and the original forage rolls
> >stand.  I feel this way because a reasonable amount of time passed
> >Joel's orders and Kyle's orders, and because it has not been our custom
> >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
> >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
> while keeping their same battle rolls.  Thus allowing them to commit
> 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