Michael Gorman on Sun, 28 Nov 2004 23:23:54 -0600 (CST)

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

Re: [eia] PPs for a victorious multinational force

At 01:14 PM 11/28/2004, you wrote:
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


----- 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
> 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
> 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
> (This concept will be fleshed out more below.)
>   b.. Count the number of corps that participated on the losing side of
> 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.)
> the *lesser* of these two numbers.

Wait a minute, the number of corps the winners have aren't supposed to have any impact on the maximum victory points won in the battle. In this method if a small force defeats a huge one it's considered a minor victory. That doesn't make any sense at all.


eia mailing list