Re: [eia] PPs for a victorious multinational force

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    I have no problem with it either.

kdh

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 6:43 AM
Subject: Re: [eia] PPs for a victorious multinational force


> This sounds reasonable to me.  No time to make a more detailed response
just
> now.
>
> -JJY
>
> ----- 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
> the
> > 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
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>

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