Re: [eia] small rules question

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thus spake "J.J. Young":
> 
> There have been several instances in the game when an ally has paid =
> supply for an allied corps, even though the two allies had not combined =
> movement (and therefore the supplier paid out money at two separate =
> times in the turn).
> 
> What if the supplier has a total cost for his own supply that has an =
> extra $0.5, and the supply for the ally also has an extra $0.5 ?  Do =
> both totals round up, or does the supplier pay one "grand total" at the =
> end of all the land phases, and calculate any rounding up then ?
> 
> This is a small point, and I won't cry me a river whichever way it goes. =
>  But it occurred to me and I thought I'd check what the consensus was.
> 
> -JJY

I can think of two reasons for rounding:

1. We avoid dealing with fractional money.
2. Rounding simulates a small amount of waste in the supply chain.

Two seems less plausible to me than one, since the only times you get
fractional supply cost is when you're on top of a depot---arguably the
point at which supply distribution would be the most efficient. If we
take the first to be the reason for rounding, then it makes sense to
round only after totalling supply cost. (There's another example in the
game of applying effects after totalling---that's how the PSA works.)

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