Re: [eia] unforseen political wackiness

["Bill Jaffe" <billj@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm OK with these changes.

Bill Jaffe
Wargaming since Tactics (1958), and playing 18xx since 1829
billj@xxxxxxxxxxx
 

-----Original Message-----
From: eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of J.J.
Young
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 5:33 AM
To: public list for an Empires in Arms game
Subject: [eia] unforseen political wackiness

I just realized that Mike and I have done things in the economic and DOW
phases that will have weird consequences in the political phase.

Russia ceded Hesse to Prussia, although Prussia is in the Instability Zone
and will lose Hesse in the April political phase.  This was not what I
intended.

France declared war on Kleves for the new month, and unless Mike has
something lined up that we don't know about (an alliance with Spain is only
thing I can think of), this DOW will put France back into the Instability
Zone and cause Flanders to go neutral in the political phase.  I doubt this
was what Mike intended.

What I propose is this:  since Mark and I had already agreed to the ceding
of Hesse before the March political phase (when we allied), what if we say
that Russia had declared Hesse to be a free state in March ?  This will
allow Prussia to retain possession of Hesse in April (assuming he kept it a
free state when ceded).  On the downside, Russia would not have gotten
Hesse's money/manpower for the March econ phase.

On the French side, we let Mike reconsider his DOW against Kleves, which
allows Mike to keep Flanders, but doesn't allow him to attack Kleves yet.

What do you guys think ?  Is this too much meddling ?

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


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