RE: [eia] optional rules

["James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't have any really strong feelings about how PP are awarded, to be
honest, and will go along with the majority.  I just don't understand how a
MP who sends one or two corps could stand to gain three PPs, but only be
concerned about losing one.  Seems unbalanced to me, but I see your point
also.

I would really like to be bidding by weeks end.  Joel, do you have
Sterling's phone number?

-----Original Message-----
From: eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
Joel Uckelman
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 10:20 AM
To: public list for an Empires in Arms game
Subject: Re: [eia] optional rules


Thus spake "James Helle":
> 7.5.2.10.1.3  (PP Gains/ Losses):  I believe the primary force (decided
> first by leaders present [in descending rank] and secondly by majority of
> forces) gains or loses 1-3 PPs per the rules.  Smaller allied forces
> attached to the primary force should gain or lose only 1PP.  The problem I
> have with the method Joel proposes is that an ally that sends 1 or 2 corps
> stands to gain up to 3PPs, but only stands to lose 1PP.  This seems very
> wrong to me.  (I'd donate a corps to as many battles as I could and avoid
> ever being the primary force, if possible!)

What you're objecting to is precisely the point of the mechanism, though.
It's
for balance, to encourage the powers that France is (supposed to be)
pounding
on to stick together and keep fighting.

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

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