PP loss / gain question.

[BruceSinger]

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]

ORIGINAL: BruceSinger

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

ORIGINAL: Grognot

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]

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

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

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.

Actually, it may make a more sense to lose more. Imagine if Wellington had lost to Napoleon, having had gross numerical superiority. Prussia, Russia, and GB would have all really been stung politically, even though each committed relatively little to the operation.

On the other hand, one barely ever hears about Russia being with Austria in the debacles at Ulm or Austerlitz (I forget which), even though they lost nearly all of their army. So, this historical incident seems to indicate that your analysis is correct.

It's certainly not worth arguing over, 20 years after the game went out of print.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

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.

I agree with NeverMan on this one. All powers that took part should all gain or lose when the day is done.

[Marshall Ellis]

So, what I am hearing is that ALL MP nations gain / lose the same.
What about ONLY having non-corps focrs in the battle only i.e. Freikorps / Cossack?
 
 

[NeverMan]

You are not hearing that from me, but Jimmer and bresh seem to think that's best.

As far as non-corps: they don't count.

[ecn1]

Marshall, just to clarify, they all shoudnt lose the same according to the original EiA rules. Winners/Losers should gain/lose PP in proportion to how many corps they have in the battle, as per the original boardgame rules.

Dont let others railroad you to change the rules from the original boardgame. If need be, ask ADG, they should know what the rules are meant to be and are intended to reflect.

erik

[Grognot]

...and which rules were simply written as-is due to the fundamental limitations of a pencil-and-paper boardgame.  Like the avoidance of fractional PP, or the lack of ability to detach Turkish feudal infantry (hideous bookkeeping would have been required to prevent abuse -- tracking *total* living factors associated with a feudal corps, not just those presently in it... but bookkeeping is actually one thing that machines are good at), or the ability to ship a corps of any size on a fleet of any size (enforcement of factor-to-ship limits requiring an omniscient referee, after all), or so forth.   There's other silliness, like it's possible to have a siege battle in which neither the attacker nor defender will suffer any damage because the forces involved are too small to kill a single factor even on a 6...

Allowing minor corps to detach factors outside their own nation is already a significant deviation -- it's an optional rule in the AH game.  Of course, allowing minor corps to receive reinforcements without tracing supply back to own territory is a -major- deviation.

Divying up 1 or 2 PP between a coalition four nations without allowing fractional PP is either going to give some nations *no* PP (due to rounding down), or give an overly generous total (due to rounding up) -- errors being more significant, proportionally, for smaller battles).  Done incautiously, this suggests obvious abuses.  But better divide it then award all to all, which rewards even sillier abuses.

[bresh]

PP gain/loss should always be rounded up. Like i said 0.01 is 1. Like EIA rules state. 
 
EIA:
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.
 
 
 
Cossaks/Freikorps/Gurilla does not count as corps for pp value in battles.
 
Regards
Bresh

[Grognot]

Do you have a better reason to avoid fractional PP other than "it's the rules"?  Bearing in mind that the board game rules were written to abide by what's convenient for a *board game* without computer assistance, where tracking fractional PP would have been inconvenient?   And that it's not entirely clear why there should be equal political benefit for each member to fighting tiny stacks and medium stacks, once the coalition's large?

Oh well.  I hope you never reinforce minors without a supply chain to their own nations.  After all, *those* are the rules, too.

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Grognot

Do you have a better reason to avoid fractional PP other than "it's the rules"?  Bearing in mind that the board game rules were written to abide by what's convenient for a *board game* without computer assistance, where tracking fractional PP would have been inconvenient?   And that it's not entirely clear why there should be equal political benefit for each member to fighting tiny stacks and medium stacks, once the coalition's large?

Oh well.  I hope you never reinforce minors without a supply chain to their own nations.  After all, *those* are the rules, too.

This is supposed to be EIA Grognot ?
The VP-win conditions pr nation is based on EIA rules.
I wanna play EIA, not your houserules

Well if you wanna change the ways pps are achieved, different from the boardgame which are part of the total Vps each nation needs to achieve.
Then you will need to change expected VP-conditions for all MPs.

You will have to make up your own pp victory conditions cause they will lack alot.
Only nation like France or GB might then be able to achieve their expected Vp-win conditions.

Regards
Bresh

[ecn1]

I totally agree with Bresh, I dont want to play an adhoc version of EiA that is out of balance because someone likes experimenting

The board game rules are designed to have balanced play, etc and have withstood the test of time in most cases

now, there are alot of deviations in the Matrix EiA pbem version, some because out of programming necessity, but on balance the deviations have made the game poorer, not better in my opinion and have thrown it out of balance in some ways, though I know Marshall is working to address them the best he can, and this thread is evidence of this effort

BUT we should not now start adding more rule deviations because of whims and fancy and further throwing the game out of balance!!!!

erik