J.J. Young on Tue, 30 Nov 2004 05:43:20 -0600 (CST)

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

Re: [eia] PPs for a victorious multinational force

This sounds reasonable to me.  No time to make a more detailed response just


----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Gorman" <mpgorman@xxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 3:41 AM
Subject: Re: [eia] PPs for a victorious multinational force

> There used to be lots of point by point grumbling about the current house
> rule, but I figured it'd be more useful to just propose an easier one.
> Assuming that the goal is to make it hard to create more political points
> than you risk in a battle, why don't we just limit the points gained by
> secondary members of a combined force to being no greater than what they
> can lose.
> So if you look at the stack at Paris where Britain is the lead nation and
> Austria has one allied corps present, if they defeat a 6 corps stack of
> French, the lead nation follows the standard point allocation rules and
> wins 3 points no matter the size of their force, just like a single victor
> battle.  The Austrians can only gain one point in that battle as a
> secondary partner in that stack since they have only one corps and thus
> risked only one point.
> If Austria and Prussia decide to launch a massive combined attack on
> Napoleon and Austria sends 9 corps and Prussia sends 6 corps and they win,
> they both gain three points and if they lose, they both lose three
> point.  Ignoring the special modifier for Napoleon as that is an exception
> to the normal rules, the French force also stands to win the exact same
> three points that it can lose if it loses the battle.
> Yes, a battle can generate more points than it destroys, but it also can
> destroy more than it generates.  The risk reward balance is maintained and
> that seemed to be the real crux of the disagreement over how to allocate
> points to allies.  This method would continue the single nation on a side
> balance that if you are fighting an army with more corps than you have you
> can gain more than you lose, but it restricts that possibility to the lead
> nation of a combined force so that if you want to gain big points as a
> secondary partner in a stack, you need to send enough corps that you are
> also risking big points.
> I think this addresses the problem with a much smaller impact on the rules
> and without making it cost more than can be gained to send more than 2
> corps into a stack without being the dominant force in the stack.
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia

eia mailing list