Re: [eia] losing players

[jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx]

> My enjoyment from the game came from thinking of it as a long term endeavor.
> Since Joel and Mike have pointed out many reasons why a short term strategy
> is often optimal, I am very much less interested in playing.  So much so
> that I don't think it's worth my while any more.

I think this is a misunderstanding.  I thought that Joel and later Mike were 
trying to say that in the _present_case_, Britain had a big lead and could 
control others' chances to reverse the fortunes of the game by controlling sea 
access.  As a result, the best thing would be to declare GB the winner and move 
on to another campaign.  I did _not_ take their arguments to apply to campaigns 
in general, and in fact my impression is that they think players who follow a 
short-term strategy should and probably will lose.

I am convinced enough by the arguments about the present game that I think we 
should start over, but I feel this is a very, very exceptional case, and that 
in almost all instances one player being in the lead is not sufficient cause 
for ending a campaign.  Does anyone disagree with this ?  If so, I would like 
to know.   

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