PP loss / gain question. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815



Message

Marshall Ellis -> PP loss / gain question. (4/22/2008 8:24:46 PM)

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?






Jimmer -> RE: PP loss / gain question. (4/22/2008 9:25:21 PM)

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.




bresh -> RE: PP loss / gain question. (4/22/2008 11:52:14 PM)

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 ˝ pps to.

Regards
Bresh



delatbabel -> RE: PP loss / gain question. (4/23/2008 1:14:46 AM)


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???



Each victor, i.e. each MP with corps in the winning stack, would gain the PPs.



NeverMan -> RE: PP loss / gain question. (4/23/2008 5:26:48 AM)

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.



bresh -> RE: PP loss / gain question. (4/23/2008 10:34:46 AM)


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



Killerduck -> RE: PP loss / gain question. (4/23/2008 11:19:55 AM)

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.



Ashtar -> RE: PP loss / gain question. (4/23/2008 12:32:28 PM)

Thanks for asking Marshall

As Killerduck and Jimmer said, EIA rules say:

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.

and

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.


Therefore, each of the winners gains the full amount of political points for enemy corps present on the field (plus an eventual bonus if Napoleon or Nelson are present on his side), while each of the losers loses political points only for his corps/fleets (plus the eventual malus if Napoleon or Nelson are present on his side). Maximum loss gain for player, anyhow is -/+ 3.

I think EIA rules are better. As an interesting alternative - that I support - one can award to the winning side the same amount of points lost by the losers, dividing it proportionally to number of owned corps between all the winners (always rounding up). I think this was not considered in the original game since math needed for taking proportions would complicate and slow down gameplay, but this is not an issue anymore in a PC game.

Finally, as bresh noted, EIANW fleets are smaller of EIA ones, so more of them are present in a single battle - approximately one heavy plus one light fleets are equal to an old EIA fleet (30 factors max). This is awarding too much political points in naval combats. Since you are touching pp for battles, I guess this could be the right moment to fix the problem.
The simpler solution would be to award 1/2 points for each fleet, a more complicated one to count heavy 2/3, lights 1/3 and transport 1/2 (always rounding up the total). Both of them will make me happy [:D]





eske -> RE: PP loss / gain question. (4/23/2008 12:34:05 PM)

[Edit] Ashtar beat me to it. Only I don't believe in proportional PP gain [;)]

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.


... And if France lost and had say 2 corps, one of them with 20+ factors present before battle France would lose 2PP and each of the allies would win 2PP.

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

+1/2PP Gain by victor for each corps participating on losing side, round up, max 3.
- 1/2PP Lost by loser for each of HIS corps participating on losing side, round up, max 3.

I believe the same method is used for naval battles, only of course a full PP for each fleet.
bresh however has a very valid point in that, there are more fleets in EiANW, so reducing that to 1/2PP seems a good idea.

Only I guess a lot of oldtime EiA'ers find it very important that you only risk PPs in a battle according to the number of corps you have in the battle, but you all gain full PP in case of victory. Gives important reason to enter alliances.

So the EiH-rules you refer to, Marshall is just about direct opposit of EiA.
I wonder if that is still the case for the latest EiH versions. I hope you will see more sense in EiA's principles

/eske



Ashtar -> RE: PP loss / gain question. (4/23/2008 12:47:38 PM)

Sorry to go out of topic, but I have the feeling that another non implemented rule is naval evasion:

6.3.2 POSSIBLE EVASIONS: The major power upon which an attack is declared may attempt to evade unless the attack is caused by an interception or is in a port or blockade box. If the evasion is unsuccessful a combat will be fought. If the evasion is successful, the phasing player may not then attempt to attack any other stack remaining in the area.

6.3.2.1: Every time the phasing major power intends to attack a stack, the non-phasing stack may attempt naval evasion. This is done by the non-phasing stack's controlling player rolling a die. if a "1" or "2" is rolled, the non-phasing stack evades combat and is retreated according to the naval retreat after combat rules (see 6.3.5.1-treat the evading side as if it were the loser of a combat and the attacking side as if it were the winner).

6.3.2.2: There are no political points for a successful evasion.

Is it in the game and I haven't noticed?

If not, could Marshall implement it as a three choices order given to your fleets during your naval phase
(adding them to the orders window as for the intercept orders):
a) Do not attempt evasion (standard status)
b) Attempt it only against superior enemy forces
c) Always attempt it

thanks



bresh -> RE: PP loss / gain question. (4/23/2008 1:16:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: eske


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

/eske


On what Eske ?
I know of nothing i wrote is described differently on the back ?
Alliances share of pps not described there. My question was about for fractions for winners, which i missed all got the same amount.

Guess i had just heard of some houserule where they where only shared.

Regards
Bresh



eske -> RE: PP loss / gain question. (4/23/2008 2:31:44 PM)

bresh

The two lines on the back of the rulebook, which I quote, would have let you catch jimmers mistake
of 'The winners go up the same amount that the losers goes down', which is not always the case in EiA.
When an alliance wins they all get the same, is in the first line.
When an alliance loses a battle they will frequently each lose less PP than the victor gains.
In both cases the sum of PPs lost may be different from the sum of PPs gained.

Proportional sharing of PPs is not in EiA, but may have been a popular houserule... (?).

Your repeated postings stating the importance of implementing this rule (of which I agree),
let me to believe you very were familiar with all this.

But never mind. I just wanted to direct more attension to that list, the designers found important enough
to put on the back cover of the rules. Frequently it gives better understanding that the rules text.
And it is not included in any of the online EiA rules I have found !

regards
/eske



pzgndr -> RE: PP loss / gain question. (4/23/2008 2:37:26 PM)

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?



eske -> RE: PP loss / gain question. (4/23/2008 3:10:20 PM)


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?


Plz let me elaborate:

I don't believe in proportional PP gain in the sense that I believe all victors each should gain 3 PP for a victory against 5 or more corps. Regardless of only participating with 1/3 of the corps or less.
Proportional PP gain would be the victors sharing the 3 PPs in some manner. And that would reduce incentive to cooperate, wouldn't it ...?

And when EiANW's translate combined movement to corps loaning, in my understanding that would imply those corps retain their nationality and thus earns PPs for their 'birth' nation, regardless of being under the command of an ally.

Involuntary loaning of a corps as result of a peace condition maybe should be treated differently - as if it did change nationality. That would also remove restrictions on whom such a corps might enter battle against.

... first time I'm called EiA purist. Don't think so myself [;)]

/eske



pzgndr -> RE: PP loss / gain question. (4/23/2008 3:54:15 PM)

quote:

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


Well, as if there is such a thing! Is there really someone out there who plays by original EiA standard rules and never uses optional rules, variants or house rules of any kind, ever?? I doubt it. However there are differences between EiA rules and EiH rules, and clearly some players want one or the other. Marshall needs to consider providing options where possible.

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 ...?


I don't quite see how the rounding up option would work and still maintain a 3PP total. There's some math that Marshall needs to carefully consider. But if I'm loaning corps that make up 1/3 to 1/2 of a force going into battle and wins, I'd expect a PP for participation. What would be my incentive to cooperate if I couldn't reap some spoils, but I'd still take casualties and PP loss if the battle is lost?



NeverMan -> RE: PP loss / gain question. (4/23/2008 5:07:01 PM)


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


Yes, this is what I said. It is rounded up.



Jimmer -> RE: PP loss / gain question. (4/23/2008 8:10:38 PM)


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 ˝ pps to.

Regards
Bresh

Round up (says so in the rules you quoted).

In the battle you put forth, assuming no corps had 20 or more factors in it,

If France wins, she gets 3pp and each power in the other army loses 3pp.

If france loses, she loses 1pp and each power in the other gains 1pp.

Remove one of the 6 nations (so, there are five corps), and the results stay exactly the same (due to rounding up).

NOTE: This does not include the gain or loss due to having Napoleon or Nelson in a stack.



Jimmer -> RE: PP loss / gain question. (4/23/2008 8:13:24 PM)


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.


This is incorrect. "Half a political point is gained or lost for each corps of the defeated side." There is no accounting for multi-nation forces: They all gain or lose exactly the same amount.



Jimmer -> RE: PP loss / gain question. (4/23/2008 8:18:08 PM)

It is possible that the rules I quoted are superceded by an example or by the General articles that had errata; I do not have access to those sources any more. But, the rules themselves do not say it, as is clear from reading them, and that's what Marshall asked for.



NeverMan -> RE: PP loss / gain question. (4/24/2008 3:32:52 AM)

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.



BruceSinger -> RE: PP loss / gain question. (4/24/2008 5:23:41 AM)


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.





NeverMan -> RE: PP loss / gain question. (4/24/2008 3:09:54 PM)


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.





Yes, this is exactly what I was saying, that is how we played. Sorry if I didn't give a "win" example for the combined stack. Let me rectify that, given the same situation but if FR lost, then GB, Au, and Pr would all gain 3PP while FR would lose 3 PP.



Jimmer -> RE: PP loss / gain question. (4/24/2008 9:09:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

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

How many corps were in the army that was defeated? Or, worded the way it is above, how many corps were on "the defeated side"?

6

It says nothing about corps you committed. I also couldn't find any clarifying rule (or contradictory rule) in the base manual pages speaking to doing this differently if you have more than one power present (in either the combined movement rules or the "what to do if there are more than major powers' forces present" section.

You may be right on the example, though. If that's the case, then the rule is written incorrectly (something AH managed to do with some regularity). I seem to recall having to go through calculations like this 20+ years ago. We played using all the errata that were available, so this could have been "fixed" there. But, we also had a lot of house rules, too. Hard to distinguish them after so long.



NeverMan -> RE: PP loss / gain question. (4/25/2008 3:03:45 AM)

Jimmer,

I agree it's up to interpretation and that the rulebook reads like a vague legal document. I'm just saying that if you do it that way it doesn't make any common sense. Common sense is the key. Why should one side of the battle lose 9 PPs when the other side gains 3? Why would you interpret the rules to discourage combined movement and help the French, they already have everything else.

The total PP lost and gained should be equal for both sides, IMO. That is what makes the most sense to me. I really hope it's not implemented any other way.



NeverMan -> RE: PP loss / gain question. (4/25/2008 3:07:52 AM)


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?


Marshall,

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..).

Maybe we read the rules understood them and thought they were stupid so we did it our way, it's been so long I don't remember, but I know I don't like the EiH way or the other way.



Grognot -> RE: PP loss / gain question. (4/25/2008 3:19:01 AM)

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.



Grognot -> RE: PP loss / gain question. (4/25/2008 6:14:12 AM)

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






bresh -> RE: PP loss / gain question. (4/25/2008 12:05:39 PM)

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






I rather see a EIA-pc game follows the EIA rules, than makes up its own.
Note that we already have a difference.
But many people bought cause it tries to be EIA. Not something new.

Regards
Bresh



NeverMan -> RE: PP loss / gain question. (4/25/2008 4:01:13 PM)


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.



1) Most large stacks against a single corp ends up being trivial combat.2
2) THey probably did think that.
3) It's contradicting though because if you have a stack of 5Au and 1GB under Wellington, then GB gets the PP. Essentially MPs would choose not to do this due to the nature of the PP gain/loss (if they lose then Au still loses PP but if they win Au gets nothing, how does that make sense?)



seaforth7 -> RE: PP loss / gain question. (4/25/2008 6:52:56 PM)

I agree with Bresh, there is no need to use anything except the EIA original rules for the PP allocation



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.890625