Re: [eia] PPs for a victorious multinational force

[Michael Gorman <mpgorman@xxxxxxxx>]

At 03:07 PM 11/29/2004, you wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
>     This is simply a way of limiting the overall number of political points
> created.  Suppose a combined force of 4 Russian corps, 2 Austrian corps, and
> 1 British corps defeats a force of 10 Turkish corps.  Under the system we
> have already agreed to, Russia would gain 2 PPs (instead of 3), Austria
> would gain 1 PP, and GB would gain 1 PP while Turkey would lose 3 PPs.  So
> the total PPs awarded to the victors would be 4 PPs  (instead of 5) and the
> total lost by the loser would be 3 PPs - pretty close to zero sum (which is
> what we were shooting for).
>     I hope this explanation helps you to understand where we were coming
> from.  You say that it is a minor victory, but I would disagree.  I would
> say it is a major victory spread among many nations.
>
>     BTW, it occurs to me that the house rule I sent out earlier says nothing
> about limiting PP gains and losses to a maximum of 3.  That should have been
> included and was ommitted by mistake.
>
> kdh

Change that to say 2 French corps of 19 factors or less and 1 Spanish corps 
tangling with 6 Turkish corps.  The leading force has 2 corps and since 
that is fewer than the defeated force the victory points they can win are 
based on that.  So France gets 1 point and Spain gets 1 point.  Now, if the 
French had inflated their numbers and split one of their corps, they'd get 
a second point and if they broke themselves up into 5 corps they'd get 3 
points.  Alternatively, if the French dumped the Spanish, they only have 3 
morale and all, they'd suddenly gain 3 points for the exact same battle 
rather than one.  This solution seems pretty complicated and largely meant 
to keep nations from fighting together because everyone is now screwed over 
for being in a multinational force.

And how do you figure out points lost in a multinational defeat?  If I can 
halve my points lost in a battle then Nate and I should swap a corps so 
that if Napoleon gets a good chit draw we can limit our losses due the 
presence of another nation's force we can scapegoat for the defeat.

I thought we had agreed to the simpler, the lead nation gets normal points 
for the battle and the allies each get 1 point for being there too.  And 
for defeat you lose based on your corps present rather than upon the size 
of the entire army.  I hadn't realized we were trying for zero sum, I 
thought we were just trying to reduce the poaching of sending one corps 
with one factor along to the biggest battles so you can soak up political 
points for sending an audience along to someone elses fight.

It's been a while so I don't doubt what you're saying was agreed to, but 
looking at it now I'm wondering if it was really a good idea.

Mike

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