Re: [eia] PPs for a victorious multinational force

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    Yes, if you read the email I sent, I included this amendment.

kdh

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] PPs for a victorious multinational force


> 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
>

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