Re: [eia] PPs for a victorious multinational force

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

I seem to recall some debate and modification of the criteria used to select
the "leading victor".  Specifically, I think we decided to make number of
corps the first thing to be looked at, then the army leader as the
tie-breaker.

-JJY

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 11:35 AM
Subject: [eia] PPs for a victorious multinational force


> > > This was our first battle with combined allies in this game.
> > > As I understand the rules for PPs we agreed upon, the "most
> > > prominent" ally in the battle (to be determined by number of
> > > corps involved, ties to determined by the nationality of the
> > > army leader) receives PPs equal to _half_ of the usual number
> > > of PPs gained by a single victor, fractions rounded up.
> > > Other allies involved in the battle gain +1 PP each.  Is this
> > > correct ?  If so, the both Great Britain and Austria gain +1
> > > PP, France loses  -1 PP.
> >
> > How can more than one PP be awarded?  Shouldn't JJ receive one and I
> > none?
> >
>
>     For Nate's benefit (and to refresh all of our memories), we decided in
> the last EIA game that the rules for dividing PPs for a multinational
force
> were open to competing interpretations.  After much debate and discussion,
> we ended up accepting the following house rule on PPs for a victorious
> multinational force.  (JJ's description of the rule we adopted is not
> completely accurate.)  What follows is the proposal we adopted for
assigning
> PPs to a victorious multinational force after a field combat.
>
> kdh
>
> <snip>
>     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 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).
>   b..  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.)
>   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.
>
> <snip>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>
>


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