J.J. Young on Fri, 30 Jul 2004 13:22:35 -0500 (CDT)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [eia] Spanish Fleet Rolls

My own gut feeling is that combined allies should get the bonus PP for being
under the command of Nelson or Napoleon.  But I'm not strongly attached to
this view, since Nelson will always be British and its unlikely Napoleon
will ever command my troops.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] Spanish Fleet Rolls

> > I believe that Turkey does gain a PP for Nelson. The stack was commanded
> by
> > Nelson and Turkey was on the victorious side, which is all that
> > requires. (That's also how we've interpreted it in the past.)
> >
>     While it is true that that is how we have done things in the past, it
> also true that in the past we were giving everyone on the same side the
> number of political points when they won or lost a battle.  Toward the end
> of the last game, we reached a consensus about how to assign political
> points to a multi-national side at the end of a battle that allowed us to
> distinguish different contributions for different countries.  This is the
> first time the issue of the presence of Nelson/Napoleon has come up since
> the rule change took effect, so I don't think that precedent necessarily
> holds sway in this case.
>     As I stated in the previous email, my belief is that the spirit of our
> rules change allows us to distinguish between the British being commanded
> Nelson (or the French being commanded by Napoleon) and allied countries
> being so commanded.  I see no reason why the Turkish people would take
> because their forces were victorious under Nelson.  So I think it makes
> sense to say that the Nelson/Napoleon effect applies only to GB/France
> (respectively).  No allied corps/fleet should be affected by it.
>     If we went through all the trouble of changing the rules about how PPs
> are assigned to a multi-national force so that we could distinguish
> different contributions by different countries, why should we stick with
> unreasonable position that all members of the multi-national force are
> benefitted or harmed by the presence of a certain country's leader?
> kdh
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia

eia mailing list