Re: [eia] PPs for a victorious multinational force

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    Oops.  Now I see the problem.  I simply switched the wording from a. and
b. of how to determine the "lead" country, but now I see that simply cutting
and pasting as I did creates an incoherent result.  Let me try again.
Here's what the relevant portion should say:

Determining which country is the "leader" of the multi-national force:
  a.. The "lead" country of a multi-national force should be the major
power with the most corps in the stack (including controlled minor free
state corps).
  b..  If there is a tie for largest number of corps in the stack, then the
nationality of the leader in command of the stack 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 in command 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.

Sorry for my sloppiness before,

kdh

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] PPs for a victorious multinational force


>     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
>

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