Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

This is for naval:

6.3.4.2 POLITICAL POINT CHANGES: The victor(s) of a naval combat gains political points and the loser loses them (draws have no political point effects). One political point is gained or lost for each fleet of the defeated major power(s) used in that combat, up to a maximum of +/-3 political points.

All MPs in the victorious stack gain the same amount of PPs: The number of ships in the losing stack (what nationalities is irrelevant). It's the same with corps counters, except each counts as 1/2 PP (round up):

7.5.2.10.1.3 Political Points For Winning/Losing Field Combats: The victor now gains political points and the loser loses them, recorded on the POLITICAL STATUS DISPLAY on the Status Card). Half a political point is gained or lost for each corps of the defeated side (rounding fractions up) used during any round of that combat (this includes corps in outflanking forces that never arrive, but not reinforcing corps that do not arrive) up to a maximum of "+ 3" political points. For this purpose a single corps which begins or reinforces a battle with more than 20 factors in it is treated as 2 corps.

The winners go up the same amount that the losers goes down. The number of corps one committed to combat is irrelevant to both sides. It's the raw number of total corps (or fleets) committed from all MPs in the force. 2 Spanish corps + 2 (small) French corps losing to 3 British corps would cause both France and Spain to lose 2 PP each, and GB would gain 2 PP.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

EiH states that all MPs on the losing side would EACH lose the total pp BUT on the winning side, only the MP with the battle's commander would gain the pp???

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Personally, I'm not a fan of EiH.

As I remember it, EiA handled it like this:

The winner's got the PPs for the amount of Corps each had there. So for instance, if GB, PR and AU had a stack of 5 corps and it was 1GB, 3AU, 1PR then GB gets .5 (rounded up=1) PP, PR gets .5 (rounded up=1) PP and AU gets 1.5 (rounded up = 2) PP.

The same is done for the losers. I don't have a rulebook handy but that's what I remember.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Killerduck

7.5.2.10.1.3 Political Points For Winning/Losing Field Combats: The victor now gains political points and the loser loses them, recorded on the POLITICAL STATUS DISPLAY on the Status Card). Half a political point is gained or lost for each corps of the defeated side (rounding fractions up) used during any round of that combat (this includes corps in outflanking forces that never arrive, but not reinforcing corps that do not arrive) up to a maximum of "+ 3" political points. For this purpose a single corps which begins or reinforces a battle with more than 20 factors in it is treated as 2 corps.

Winner recieves PPs for each defeated enemy corps while defender loses PPs for each of HIS corps in the battle.

If French defeat (Emperor not present) 6 allied corps (2 russian, 2 prussian, 2 austrian), then France would gain 3PP while Prussia, Russia and Austria would each lose 1.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eske


bresh should look at the PP gain/loss list on the back of his EiA rulebook (from memory):

/eske

quote:

I don't believe in proportional PP gain

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

I don't believe in proportional PP gain

I would expect some PP sharing among victors, as incentive to loaning corps. But I can see where EiA purists may not. Game option?

quote:

... first time I'm called EiA purist. Don't think so myself

quote:

Proportional PP gain would be the victors sharing the 3 PPs in some manner. And that would reduce incentive to cooperate, wouldn't it ...?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Personally, I'm not a fan of EiH.

As I remember it, EiA handled it like this:

The winner's got the PPs for the amount of Corps each had there. So for instance, if GB, PR and AU had a stack of 5 corps and it was 1GB, 3AU, 1PR then GB gets .5 (rounded up=1) PP, PR gets .5 (rounded up=1) PP and AU gets 1.5 (rounded up = 2) PP.

The same is done for the losers. I don't have a rulebook handy but that's what I remember.

Think its was always rounded up. 0.01 means 1 pp. 1.01 means 2 pps etc. Though please correct me if im wrong.

Regards
Bresh

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

This is for naval:

6.3.4.2 POLITICAL POINT CHANGES: The victor(s) of a naval combat gains political points and the loser loses them (draws have no political point effects). One political point is gained or lost for each fleet of the defeated major power(s) used in that combat, up to a maximum of +/-3 political points.

All MPs in the victorious stack gain the same amount of PPs: The number of ships in the losing stack (what nationalities is irrelevant). It's the same with corps counters, except each counts as 1/2 PP (round up):

7.5.2.10.1.3 Political Points For Winning/Losing Field Combats: The victor now gains political points and the loser loses them, recorded on the POLITICAL STATUS DISPLAY on the Status Card). Half a political point is gained or lost for each corps of the defeated side (rounding fractions up) used during any round of that combat (this includes corps in outflanking forces that never arrive, but not reinforcing corps that do not arrive) up to a maximum of "+ 3" political points. For this purpose a single corps which begins or reinforces a battle with more than 20 factors in it is treated as 2 corps.

The winners go up the same amount that the losers goes down. The number of corps one committed to combat is irrelevant to both sides. It's the raw number of total corps (or fleets) committed from all MPs in the force. 2 Spanish corps + 2 (small) French corps losing to 3 British corps would cause both France and Spain to lose 2 PP each, and GB would gain 2 PP.

Mind you i didnt play EIA, though i have the boardgame, so got the rules, but im to lazy to try figure it out at this hour.

But how are fractions calulated. Im guessing always rounded up(so 1 pp minimum for winning).
Say a 1-6 nation army fights France.
Fr 2 Corps. Alliance (TU-1,GB-1,PR-1,AU-1,RU-1,SP-1).

If France won he would get 3 pps ? Each MP looses 3.
But if France lost, France would loose 1 pp, and all the "winners" would get 1 pp each.

And dont forget, since fleets are not same size as in EIA(aprox half), you might wanna reduce fleets to ½ pps to.

Regards
Bresh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Killerduck

7.5.2.10.1.3 Political Points For Winning/Losing Field Combats: The victor now gains political points and the loser loses them, recorded on the POLITICAL STATUS DISPLAY on the Status Card). Half a political point is gained or lost for each corps of the defeated side (rounding fractions up) used during any round of that combat (this includes corps in outflanking forces that never arrive, but not reinforcing corps that do not arrive) up to a maximum of "+ 3" political points. For this purpose a single corps which begins or reinforces a battle with more than 20 factors in it is treated as 2 corps.

Winner recieves PPs for each defeated enemy corps while defender loses PPs for each of HIS corps in the battle.

If French defeat (Emperor not present) 6 allied corps (2 russian, 2 prussian, 2 austrian), then France would gain 3PP while Prussia, Russia and Austria would each lose 1.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Half a political point is gained or lost for each corps of the defeated side

Jimmer, I don't think this was the intention for multi-national forces. Why should a MP lose 3PP for a 6+ corps stack if they only have 1 Corps there? That doesn't make sense, ON TOP OF THAT, the PP would not be equal.

For example, if you have a stack of 2GB, 2Au and 2PR going against a stack of 6FR and the FR won, how does it make sense that GB should lose 3, Au should lose 3 and Pr should lose 3 while FR gains 3? That's NINE total PP lost and THREE total PP gained. This doesn't make sense to me.

HOWEVER, if you do it the other way, it's 1PP lost each for GB, Au, and Pr making it a total of THREE PP lost and THREE PP gained. The PP lost and gained is EQUAL, which I think was the intention. This also encourages combined stacking, while the method you suggest discourages combined stacking (making the game an almost sure win for Fr). I don't think that would promote balance in the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BruceSinger

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Half a political point is gained or lost for each corps of the defeated side

Jimmer, I don't think this was the intention for multi-national forces. Why should a MP lose 3PP for a 6+ corps stack if they only have 1 Corps there? That doesn't make sense, ON TOP OF THAT, the PP would not be equal.

For example, if you have a stack of 2GB, 2Au and 2PR going against a stack of 6FR and the FR won, how does it make sense that GB should lose 3, Au should lose 3 and Pr should lose 3 while FR gains 3? That's NINE total PP lost and THREE total PP gained. This doesn't make sense to me.

HOWEVER, if you do it the other way, it's 1PP lost each for GB, Au, and Pr making it a total of THREE PP lost and THREE PP gained. The PP lost and gained is EQUAL, which I think was the intention. This also encourages combined stacking, while the method you suggest discourages combined stacking (making the game an almost sure win for Fr). I don't think that would promote balance in the game.

It has been 10+ years since I played EIA. There is no way I can remember it was the original rule, optional rule, or house rule, but we played where you lost PP based upon the number of YOUR corps in the stack. If you were on the winning side, you gained based upon the other side lost. Most of the battles were 2 or 3 countries corps against France. France still wins most of these battles but it spread the PP loss out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Half a political point is gained or lost for each corps of the defeated side

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Hey guys:

I am working on broadening the loane unit function so that most everything (Guerillas, leaders, fleets, cossacks, insurrection) can be loaned. My question is that when two MPs are on the same side of a battle, what should the PP gain/loss rule be?

EiH states that all MPs on the losing side would EACH lose the total pp BUT on the winning side, only the MP with the battle's commander would gain the pp???

Is this addressed in std EiA?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I think EiH really got it wrong here, this simply doesn't make any sense. Why should the army with the most corps, or the corps with the only leader get the PP? There could be circumstances that don't add up there.

Once again these rules discourage combined movement and help the French (since the french aren't usually using combined movement most of the time) while it hurts the "coalition" (aka Pr, Au, possibly Ru, Gb, etc, etc..).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grognot

Room for possible deviation --

EiANW, being purely a computer game, can take advantage of that -- i.e. fractional PP assignment seems generally acceptable (perhaps we adjust to the nearest integer on economic phases *shrug*).  For the same reason, we can be fairly complicated should we so choose.

We could, for instance,

(a) create a reward of PP that is default, plus some bonus based on the number of coalition partners (rationalizable as there being -some- political benefit towards a coalition that actually fights together -- and whoever's leading it, will get that benefits)

(b) divvy up the pool proportional to something like
  (total morale of factors contributed) + (total morale of factors  lost multiplied by some factor)

-- so somebody who's willing to let their factors *die* partly for the benefit of others gets rewarded, as does somebody who shows up with more elite troops, or vast hordes of lesser ones

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grognot

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I think EiH really got it wrong here, this simply doesn't make any sense. Why should the army with the most corps, or the corps with the only leader get the PP? There could be circumstances that don't add up there.

Once again these rules discourage combined movement and help the French (since the french aren't usually using combined movement most of the time) while it hurts the "coalition" (aka Pr, Au, possibly Ru, Gb, etc, etc..).

Perhaps

(1) They might have thought it'd be silly to have, potentially, a huge net plus PP from a battle if a large coalition decides to beat up on a single corps. Total PP to victors vastly exceeding total PP to loser.

(2) They might have thought that the utility of a coalition itself should be sufficient motivation -- namely, that if you refuse to coordinate with possible allies, you -- and they -- are going to be much easier to defeat. And -that- is going to cost you even more PP, and perhaps land, reparations, relations, and so forth.

(3) They might have figured that its reasonable that the glory tends to go to he who brought the most, or had the highest authority, rather than the side which contributed a few thousand men just to show up at a major battle.