Re: [eia] Comparing things

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

> (A further consideration in favor of single victory/split defeat is that
> it keeps the PP for battle [neglecting the effects of Napoleon] zero-sum.
> The victor can't gain more PP than the defeated lose. The way we've been
> doing it, if France defeated everyone else in a single battle, the
Coalition
> could collectively loose 18PP, while France could gain at most 3PP,
causing
> a dramatic destruction of PPs. There are clearly examples of non-zero sum
> PP transactions---e.g., ceding is negative-sum and successfully defending
> a fortress in an assault is positive-sum---but my intuition is that combat
> ought to be zero-sum if anything is.)

But Joel, how does your interpretation give us a zero-sum result if the
combined allies _win_ the battle ?  The PPs gained by one side are then much
greater than the PPs lost by a single loser.  I wish it did give us a
zero-sum result; that's what I want to see, each participant in a battle
gaining or losing PPs according to their contribution.  But neither what we
are doing now nor what you are proposing reach this goal.  Given two flawed
choices, I prefer to stick with the one we've been playing for 35 turns.

Additionally, I believe the PPs risked by a battle partipant should be the
same for winning or losing; that is, you stand to either gain or lose the
same number of PPs.  I would prefer a system where this PP stake would
depend on your contribution, but since no one has proposed a way of
achieving this (and I don't see one, either), at least our present
interpretation has a participant risk the same number of PPs to be gained if
they win, and lost if they lose, even if this stake is the total PPs for the
battle.

-JJY


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