Re: [eia] Comparing things

[Jerald Jeffrey Young (CPS - Personal) <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I think we're talking past one another here. In what you've quoted above, 
> I'm talking about their being exactly one victor, but potentially multiple 
> losers. That would make combat zero-sum (neglecting the presence of 
> Napoleon).

I understand that your example results in a zero-sum situation when there are 
multiple losers and only one victor; I'm saying that your interpretation of the 
rules does not result in zero-sum when there are _multiple_ victors.  If a 
massive destruction of PPs is bad when multiple countries lose, then a massive 
creation of PPs when multiple countries win should be just as bad.

> I can think of reasons for dividing PPs for victory as well, and I can 
> think of reasons for all the victors to receive the full amount. What I'm 
> most certain about is how PPs work for the losing side.

I'll state again that I think a participant in a battle should be under the 
same PP gain/loss conditions for winning as for losing.  Gaining or losing full 
PPs is undesirable, but better than full PPs victor and only partial PPs for 
loss.

I agree with Mike that both interpretations have problems, but since we are 
more than a quarter of the way in, and the political chart would look so much 
different if we had been playing the back-of-the-book interpretation all this 
time, why not stick with the rule as we've been playing it ?

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