Kyle H on Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:22:03 -0600 (CST)

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

Re: [eia] PPs for a victorious multinational force

    I don't understand your objection, Mike.  No matter what rule we follow,
you will be able to game the system by splitting up corps into smaller ones.
(Of course, it's a big gamble if you lose...)  So why is your objection an
objection to this system in particular?
    The problem that our house rule was a response to is that the rules for
losing victory points after a battle were asymmetrical with the rules for
winning victory points after a battle.  If you read the back cover of the
rulebook closely, you'll see that the rules for losing a battle specify that
it is only *your* corps that count when figuring the total for victory
points lost, but there are no such restrictions when calculating the total
political points won by the victors.  These rules, if followed to the
letter, seemed to favor coalition battles to a ridiculous extent.  For
example, even if GB sent along one corps with a larger force, they would
stand to gain 3 PPs for a win (let's say) while only risking 1 PP for a
    This seemed very unfair to those of us who were unlikely to participate
in coalition efforts.  So, for a while, we resorted to a "win-all/lose-all"
house rule.  Under this variant, if GB sent one corps along with a larger
force the risk was commensurate with the reward: if they won, they would
stand to gain 3 PPs (assuming the enemy force was large enough), if you lost
you would lose 3 PPs (assuming the coalition stack was large enough).
    But this remedy eventually met with resistance as well.  (As I recall,
Turkey was the most vocal opponent.  He was sending 1 or 2 cavalry corps
along with the Austrians to fight France and was taking a number of 3 PP
hits.  Feel free to check the archives of the previous game for a more
robust understanding of the objections that were raised.)  So we returned to
apportioning the loser's PPs based on the number of corps present at the
battle, but we had to find a compromise with regard to how to apportion PPs
among the victors.  The house rule I sent in a previous email is what we
agreed to as a compromise position.
    We can revisit the issue if you wish, but I really don't see a problem
with what we have (at least, no problem that isn't also endemic to every
other scheme that is based on the number of corps present).


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Gorman" <mpgorman@xxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] PPs for a victorious multinational force

> 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.
> > > doesn't make any sense at all.
> > >
> >
> >     This is simply a way of limiting the overall number of political
> >created.  Suppose a combined force of 4 Russian corps, 2 Austrian corps,
> >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.
> >the total PPs awarded to the victors would be 4 PPs  (instead of 5) and
> >total lost by the loser would be 3 PPs - pretty close to zero sum (which
> >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
> >about limiting PP gains and losses to a maximum of 3.  That should have
> >included and was ommitted by mistake.
> >
> >kdh
> Change that to say 2 French corps of 19 factors or less and 1 Spanish
> 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
> 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
> 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

eia mailing list