Re: [eia] political points after a battle

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    No, JJ, I agree with your original point that this way of doing things
doesn't make any sense.  When I assigned PPs before, I just hadn't thought
out the consequences of what I was doing.  But your original point was quite
right.  It doesn't make any sense for the rewards of combined combat to far
exceed the risks.  That just goes against the spirit of the game.
    BTW, that's why I offered 2 alternatives - the EIH version (which I
think is a good interpretation of the EIA rules as written - see below) or
JJ's original version (which we have apparently already used in the past
without knowing it).  The alternative JJ is proposing (and which I was
inadvertently invoking) seems bizarrely unfair to me.
    Below, JJ cites emphasis of particular words to back his new
interpretation.  But I think a different emphasis could just as easily back
the EIH interpretation:

+1/2 PP: Gain by THE VICTOR for each corps participating...

If you emphasize these words, it seems to indicate that there is only one
single victor for any given battle.  And EIH uses the leader in charge to
determine which side was "the victor".
    So, I don't think that additional emphasis on a word here or there will
settle this question.  For the record, I think the EIH rules make the most
sense here.  But I'm willing to go with JJ's original interpretation (win
all/lose all) if people prefer that.  After having considered the
consequences, I'm deadset *against* the interpretation that I was originally
invoking (inadvertently).

kdh

----- Original Message -----
From: "J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] political points after a battle


> I found this on an EiA FAQ page on the web...
>
> "
> 4.7.5.2.10.1.3 Political Point gains/losses from combat with combined
forces
>
> How do you distribute PP's to allies who won/lost combats while there
forces
> were combined?
>
> From the back of the rule book (emphasis added):
>
> -1/2 PP: Lost by the loser for each of HIS corps participating...
>
> +1/2 PP: Gain by the victor for EACH corps participating...
>
> This seems to agree with the article "Grand-and Grandiose-Strategy" by
Bruce
> Milligan, found in Vol. 23 No. 4 of the Avalon Hill General.  Milligan
talks
> about contributing one or two corps to a battle so that you can gain full
> PP's if you win, but lose only 1 if you lose.
> "
>
> Which I guess agrees with what you're saying.  I'm surprised, but it's
fine
> with me.
>
> So to be explicit:  combined winners each gain all the PPs based on the
> number of corps on the losing side, but combined losers each lose only the
> PPs based on their own corps, and not their allies.
>
> This is _very_ advantageous for combined movement !
>
> -JJY
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 9:27 PM
> Subject: [eia] political points after a battle
>
>
> >     JJ, I thought I was just straightforwardly applying the wording on
the
> > back cover of the rulebook:
> >
> > "-1/2: (Rounding up to a maximum of '-3'.)  Lost by the loser for each
of
> > his corps participating on a field or limited field combat's losing side
> > (7.5.2.10.1.3, 7.5.4.2.3.3)."
> >
> > It did not even occur to me that there was another interpretation.
> >     EIH uses different wording, so I'm not sure consulting their email
> group
> > would be relevant or appropriate.  If you are interested, though, here's
> > what the EIH rule says:
> >
> > 7.5.2.10.1.3  ... If forces of more than one Major Power are present,
the
> > commander of the victorious side gains any and all political points,
while
> > each Major Power on the losing side loses political points based on the
> > number of its Corps present.[75]
> >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ----
> >
> > [75] For example: a four Corps Ottoman force defeats a force containing,
> two
> > Russian Corps, one Austrian Corps and three Spanish Corps commanded by a
> > Spanish leader. The Ottomans would gain "+3" political points (six Corps
> on
> > the losing side), while Russia would lose "-1" political point, Austria
> > would lose "-1" political point, and Spain would lose "-2" political
> points.
> > If the Ottoman force was defeated, Spain would gain "+2" political
points,
> > while the Ottoman would lose "-2" political points.
> >
> >
> > Is this the way we want to do things (the EIH way)?  Or should we use
JJ's
> > method (where all combatants on the losing side lose the full amount)?
> I'm
> > happy either way.
> >
> > kdh
> >
> > > >     Political results:  The Spanish/British side breaks and is
> retreated
> > > to
> > > > Viborg.  Spain loses 2 PP and GB loses 1 PP.  Russia gains 3 PP.
> > >
> > > Is this how political points are gained and lost for allies combined
in
> > the
> > > same battle ?  I thought each combined ally gained or lost the full
> amount
> > > of PPs (-3, in this case).  If not, then what would have happened if
we
> > had
> > > won the battle ?  Is the PP change only divided up among allies in a
> loss,
> > > or for both losses and victories, and if for both, then how do you
divy
> > the
> > > points up when you win ?
> > >
> > > I am willing to go with whatever system we decide on, but I thought I
> knew
> > > what that system was and I guess I don't.  If nothing else, the
bigwigs
> at
> > > EiH would know what the standard way of handling it should be.
> > >
> > > -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

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