Questions...

[kevinj]

I tend to make my decision independently, based on how it fits whatever plan I might have. Then, if my opponent commits a general that he didn't want to just because I have, I wouldn't be unhappy.

[TERRYFROMSPOKANE]

Well, this is the problem we used to have on occasion.

"I won't put my general in the front rank just yet."
"I think I'll go ahead and put mine in."
"Well, if you are going to put yours in, then I'll put mine in as well."
"I was only going to put mine in to gain an advantage since you said you weren't putting yours in."

This doesn't happen often, but the poker chips ended these discussions - as would extrapolating the rule on page 106 beyond the JAP.

Terry G.

[nikgaukroger]

I have to say that usually I've not found any issue with this in practice - players seem to pretty much know in advance where they need to put their generals in (if not, you ought to ).

If I were umpiring and was asked to rule I think I'd use the JAP rule as guidance and apply it.

[ShrubMiK]

Well, this is the problem we used to have on occasion.

"I won't put my general in the front rank just yet."
"I think I'll go ahead and put mine in."
"Well, if you are going to put yours in, then I'll put mine in as well."
"I was only going to put mine in to gain an advantage since you said you weren't putting yours in."

This doesn't happen often, but the poker chips ended these discussions - as would extrapolating the rule on page 106 beyond the JAP.

Terry G.

I've never encountered that sort of situation. To me it seems like it is one thing, and perfectly acceptable, to want to put off making a decision pending more information (what is the other player going to do)...but to make an actual decision and then revoke it seems several steps too far. Seems simple enough to me to forbid changing your mind in that direction (in similar vein to not allowing a charge declaration to be cancelled after the enemy has decided whether to evade - which would lead to an equally infinite loop), and that would remove the problem.

(And anyway it seems totally illogical to me that any player should be willing to risk his general (and accept the certain disadvantage of him being tied to one conflict for some time) in order to gain an advantage, but not to prevent the opponent gaining that advantage instead?)

I can't help but smile at the irony of you advocating use of poker chips as a solution to the perceived problem, whereas the way I play it is much more in the spirit of the way poker bidding works (the first player to speak can pass if their decision is dependant on what opponents might do, and there is always a chance to react to the opponents, although without being able to wiggle out of a commitment already made)