Re: [eia] proposal

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    Ok, if people would prefer to have the number of corps be the
determining factor, we can switch a. and b.  No problem.

kdh

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] proposal


> 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

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