Re: [eia] impasse

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thus spake Michael Gorman:
> 
> On the bidding front I found it fascinating to see the lessons we each took 
> from the last game.  One of my big lessons as Russia was don't start the 
> game at war with Turkey as you need about twice Russia's starting army to 
> confidently invade Turkey while maintaining defenses along your other 
> fronts.  What I found ironic was that Joel, who had been Turkey, took away 
> the exact opposite lesson and immediately played Russia and started at war 
> with Turkey.

That's mainly because when I played as Turkey I had some fairly aggressive
goals, which demanded that I post a lot of my cavalry abroad. Because I
didn't have the forces available in the Balkans, the proper way to defend
Turkey---that is, with massed cavalry---had not occurred to me by the time
we started the current game. So, I agree with you now.
 
> So, what people think is reasonable and what they consider a high bid or a 
> low bid is really going to vary.  From this game, you might conclude that 
> JJ seriously underbid Britain as he's on pace to coast to a victory several 
> years early and has eliminated all serious naval threats so Britain is 
> pretty much unassailable.  Or you might conclude it was a fluke and he got 
> lucky.  Which is right, well, we won't know that until we play another game 
> and see how it goes.  But when people are setting up their bids for 
> Britain  next game, we're all going to have to decide if we think that was 
> a fair showing of what a well played Britain can do or was that a fair 
> showing of what a lucky British player can do.

I'm certain that the bids for France and Russia were too high. I don't know
about the bid for Britain. What I do know is that France and Spain must
preserve their navies for as long as possible, otherwise Britain has too free
a hand.

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