Re: [eia] proposal

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

My first thoughts on this proposal are that it is a good one.  However, I
would switch the priorities of the criteria for choosing the "lead" victor.
I think the most corps involved should be first ("a"), then commander of the
force should come second ("b").  I like the idea of a small force with a
leader acting as "military advisors" to a larger force controlled by an
ally.  But I don't think the advisor/leader's country would necessarily get
the lion's share of the credit.  For example, the Turkish troops at
Gallipoli in WWI were commanded by a German military advisor, but the battle
is remembered as a Turkish victory, not a German one.  I think that having
the most corps in a battle is the most important criterion, and the
nationality oif the commander should be the tiebreaker.

-JJY

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 12:08 PM
Subject: [eia] proposal


>     Although I have been arguing for my side in our recent rules debate, I
see the basic unfairness of forcing a country that contributed 1 corps to a
battle to lose 3 PPs when the whole multi-national stack loses.  I
sympathize with Joel's pleas, and I have been thinking about what could be
done to reach some middle ground.  So I assembled a list of premises that I
think we can all agree on that I hope can be the foundation of a more
equitable arrangement.
>   a.. We all agree that the rules as they are written with regard to PP
gains and losses after a battle need some sort of amendment/clarification
(one way or the other).  I think that the lesson to take from this
observation is that whatever rule we decide to adopt, we will be choosing it
on the basis of what makes the most sense to all of us.
>   b.. What we have been doing seems very lopsided at times.  It does not
make a lot of sense that a country that contributes one corps to a much
larger multi-national force should lose the full 3 political points if that
multi-national force loses.
>   c.. As an ideal, we would like to aim towards a system for gaining and
losing PPs after a battle that is approximately zero-sum.
>   d.. If we take the interpretation that Joel and The General advocate, we
have a good and workable way to split up the PP's when a multi-national
force loses, but no way of splitting them up effectively when a
multi-national force wins.
>   e.. JJ has made the point more than once that, in the absence of a clear
consensus on this issue, we should just continue playing the way we have
been.
> >From these premises, I conclude that if we could only come to a mutual
agreement about how to split up PPs for a victorious multi-national force,
then we could also adopt the proposal that Joel has been advocating for when
a multi-national force loses, and we could all be happy.
>
>     While I do not think it is possible to construct a system for PP gains
that is perfectly zero-sum, I don't think we need to strive for perfection
here.  If a few PPs are created or lost here or there, we can live with
that.  (After all, PPs are created all the time when someone wins a siege
battle.)  Here's what I think would be a reasonably equitable way to
distribute PPs to a victorious multinational force:
>
>   a.. Choose one country as the "lead" country of the multi-national
force.  (This concept will be fleshed out more below.)
>   b.. Count the number of corps that participated on the losing side of
the battle, and count the number of corps that the "lead" country of the
victorious side had in the battle.  (Any corps that starts the battle with
more than 19 factors should be counted as 2 corps for this purpose.)  Choose
the *lesser* of these two numbers.
>   c.. Multiply this number by 1/2 and round up.  The result is the number
of PPs gained by the "lead" country of the multi-national force (to a
maximum of 3).  All other victorious countries who had corps in the battle
gain exactly 1 PP (regardless of how many corps they had).
>
> Now, of course, we would need rules to determine which country is the one
that "leads" the multi-national force, but these should not be hard to
develop.  Here's what I suggest:
>
> Determining which country is the "leader" of the multi-national force:
>   a.. If the stack is commanded by a leader, the nationality of that
leader determines the "lead" country of the multi-national force.  (If
Swedish Bernadotte is in command, then the major power controlling Sweden
would be the "lead" country.)
>   b.. If the stack has no leader, then the "lead" country would be the
major power with the most corps in the stack (including controlled minor
free state corps).
>   c.. If the stack has no leader and contains an equal number of corps on
both sides, then the "lead" country is the one whose corps contain the most
regular factors.  (By "regular" I mean factors whose morale is 3 or higher.)
>   d.. If the stack contains no leader, has an equal number of corps, and
also has an equal number of regular factors in those corps, then the "lead"
country would be determined by competitive die rolls.
>     So in most big multi-national battles, this would result in the "lead"
country getting 2 or 3 PPs and all other participants getting 1 PP.  This
makes sense to me.  The "lead" country gets most of the credit for winning
the battle in the press, but the other participants get some of the glory,
too.  Let's look at a few examples of how this would work in practice.
>
> EXAMPLE 1 (in which no PPs are created or destroyed):
>     Suppose that Charles had fought and won the recent battle against
Napoleon outside Milan (but let's ignore the complicating presence of
Napoleon).  The victorious side would have had 3 Austrian corps and 1
Turkish corps led by Charles.  Since Charles was in command, the Austrians
would have been considered the "lead" country.  So we would then count the
losing French corps.  The result would be 5 (because 2 of those corps have
more than 20 factors).  Next we would count the victorious Austrian corps.
The result would be 3.  We would choose the lesser of these two numbers
which is 3.  We would multiply 3 by 1/2 and round up.  The final result
would have been that Austria would gain 2 PPs for the battle and Turkey
would gain 1 PP.  Since this would normally be a 3 PP battle for the winners
anyway, this distribution of PPs seems to work just right!
>
> EXAMPLE 2 (in which PPs are created):
>     Suppose Blucher commands a stack containing 3 Prussian corps, 1
Austrian corps, and 1 British corps.  This multi-national stack defeats the
same stack of French corps discussed in Example 1.  In this case, Prussia
would be the lead country.  We would count 5 for the French corps and 3 for
the Prussians and choose the lesser number, which is 3.  3 times 1/2 rounded
up would be 2 PPs for Prussia, and 1 PP each for Austria and GB.  In this
case, the victors are getting a total of 4 PPs while the loser is only
losing 3 (again, assuming we ignore Napoleon).  But even though a PP is
being created, it seems equitable for all of the countries involved.
>
> EXAMPLE 3 (in which PPs are destroyed):
>     Suppose GB contributes Wellington and one British corps to a stack
that also contains 5 Austrian corps.  Suppose that this multinational force
defeats the same stack of French corps described in Example 1.  In this
case, GB would be the "lead" country because Wellington is in command.  We
would count 5 for the French corps and 1 for the British and take the lesser
number, 1.  1 times 1/2 rounded up would give the British 1 PP for the
victory and the Austrians would also gain 1 PP.  In this case, 1 PP is
destroyed because the French side is losing 3 PP (without Napoleon) while
the victors only gain 2.
>
>     Again, I would remind my reader that we are not shooting for
perfection.  Sometimes PPs will be destroyed, sometimes they will be
created.  But over time, these relative gains and losses should pretty much
even out.  (In fact, I imagine that the gains will outnumber the losses.)
Let me say one more time, that I do not claim that this proposal is perfect.
But I think it is workable and not too very far off from realistic.  I think
it is a good compromise solution.  It allows losers to split PPs when they
lose and winners to split PPs when the win in a way that is semi-realistic.
After all, those who are in charge get the lion's share of the glory in the
real world, too.  Think about it:  If you ask yourself, who was the victor
at Waterloo, I bet you'll think first of the British.  That's because their
guy was in charge.  The Prussians (and the Austrians?) get some glory, but
they are not as well remembered.
>
>     Please give this proposal some serious thought before rejecting it out
of hand.  I think it is a way for all of us to get what we want: a system
that makes more sense than the one we currently have.  Once you've
considered it carefully, let me know what you think.
>
> kdh
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>


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