[eia] previous emails regarding political points after battle

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    As I said in my recent email, we have all discussed this issue of who gains and loses political points before (April of 2003).  I thought you might like to see what we said.  It all started when I inadvertently applied the interpretation that Joel is now advocating - I said that the losing players would only lose political points in accordance with the number of *their* corps that were present.  JJ was initially surprised by that interpretation, but it quickly won him over.  He found support for it in an article in The General magazine.  After quoting from the website he had found, he then wrote:

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 !

Mike wrote in response:

I find this interpretation quite odd as in all other ways a combined force is considered one army. To now split them into two armies seems very strange.

Then I wrote:

    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).

Then Joel wrote:

We've had naval battles in which fleets from more than one power were 
involved on a side. How did we handle political points then? Whichever way 
we decide, both of these situations should be handled the same way.

Then JJ replied:

With naval battles in the past, both combined allies recieved the full PPs for 
the victory (I don't believe we've yet had a naval battle where combined allies 
lost).  Anyway, who is "in command" in a naval battle ?  This is another 
example of why I'm strongly against the interpretation of giving PP gains for a 
win only to the commander's country.

Then I replied:

   The win-all/lose-all option is fine by me.  And it keeps us consistent with 
what we've done in the past.  (We wouldn't have to go back and change 
anything.)  
   Thanks to JJ for bringing up this issue so that we could all consider its 
implications.  So the political results of 2nd St. Pete are that Russia gains 
3 PP, GB loses 3 PP, and Spain loses 3 PP.

After that, there was no more discussion on this issue.  (From this point on, we turned our attention to trying to revise the rules in 12.4.)

    So anyway, I just wanted to remind people how we had talked about this issue before.  At that time we decided that everyone on the winning side wins the same amount, and everyone on the losing side loses the same amount.  To do something different for garrisons now would be inconsistent with the basic principle we agreed to last year.

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