Re: [eia] political points after a battle

["J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

BTW, the emphasis in the FAQ quote I sent was added by the answerer; I was
just quoting them.

We can do whatever we want, of course, but I got the impression that the
interpretation which Kyle originally had is semi-official, with articles
being written about it in The General, etc.  But if we're going outside of
the pale, then here's the interpretation I prefer:

I would prefer the gain all/lose all interpretation, for two reasons.
1.)  It seems unfair to me that in a situation where one ally sends a heap
of corps into a battle, and another ally sends only one corps and a leader,
the player who committed the most force gains nothing.  This seems against
the spirit of the game (remember that passage in the "general hints" 15.8,
where it suggests that one player offer the services of a leader to a
prospective ally-this doesn't seem to me like they're interpreting the rule
in the EiH way.
2.)  I can imagine a situation where it is unclear who is in command.
Suppose an equal number of Prussian and Austrian corps, with no leader,
fight a battle together.  Since they have identical corps tactical ratings,
who's the commander ?  Do they dice off for it ?  How does this make sense ?

Anyway, that's my opinion.  Hopefully we can discuss this and still keep the
game moving at the same time.

-JJY
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 6:19 AM
Subject: Re: [eia] political points after a battle


>     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
>
>


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