Re: [eia] PPs for a victorious multinational force

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    Well, there's just no way around it: we simply disagree.  Risking 1 PP
for a gain of 3 simply is not fair to any country being ganged up on.  You
say that this mechanic favors multi-nation attacks against France.  In
actuality, it favors multi-nation attacks against *anybody* - the weaker the
better!  Why not have a coalition of Austria, Russia, and Britain against
Turkey?  If each country commits only 2 corps to the fight, they stand to
gain 3 PPs for each big battle and only stand to lose 1 on the off chance
that they lose a battle.  And the weaker the enemy, the less likely it is
that you'll ever lose.  That seems incredibly unfair to me.
    If a nation is getting ganged up on, the gangers already have an
advantage (numerical), they do not need another incredibly lopsided
political advantage as well.

That's my view and I'm sticking to it.

kdh


> I think this goal is misguided. That the PP economy should be zero-sum (or
> nearly so) is just not supported by the rules. Sieges are often
positive-sum.
> Drift during the econ phase, declaring war on and conquering unsupported
> minors, surrendering to multiple enemies, fighting with Nelson or
Napoleon---
> none of these are zero-sum. I still maintain that the correct way to
handle
> PP for multinational forces is that allies count their own corps only for
a
> loss, and all of the enemy corps for a win (as supported by The General
> article I've quoted before). I realize that this favors powers which are
> likely to be fighting in concert, but I believe that this was
intentionally
> designed into the game for balance purposes---e.g., it makes it more
> attractive for France's enemies to fight rather than fold.
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>

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