Lieutenants

[JD Lail]

How serious a bending of the rules do you you all think it would
be to allow a regent to give up an action or actions to allow a
second, third, or fourth Lt. action in a DT ?

Good idea ? Bad idea ? Comments ?

L8R
Don Lail

[Kenneth Gauck]

I never enforced the number of lieutenant actions. I thought it was more
important to strike a balance between acting and reacting. If you provide
10 problems to solve, and allow 2 lieutenants to have a crack at them no
harm done. If the realm is at peace and no random events are applied, one
Lt action is probably too many.

KG

- -----Original Message-----
From: J. D. Lail
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Tuesday, January 26, 1999 11:15 PM
Subject: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Lieutenants


>How serious a bending of the rules do you you all think it would
>be to allow a regent to give up an action or actions to allow a
>second, third, or fourth Lt. action in a DT ?
>
>Good idea ? Bad idea ? Comments ?
>
>L8R
>Don Lail
>
>
>************************************************** *************************
>>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
>

[the Falcon]

> How serious a bending of the rules do you you all think it would
> be to allow a regent to give up an action or actions to allow a
> second, third, or fourth Lt. action in a DT ?

IMC, I only allow 1 lieutenant action per domain per turn. However, all
the other lieutenants that did not take action in a particular, are
allowed to respond to one random event each. Any regents who wants more
than that should turn one or more of his lieutenants into vassals.

- the Falcon