loaned units and PP

[ndrose]

If A lends units to B, and B goes into battle with them, does B gain/lose PP, or just A? (Assuming none of B's own units are present; he is just the controlling power.)

Also, is it the same for fleets and corps?

[ndrose]

Looks like I'm asking the same thing Bresh is here:

tm.asp?m=1954655&mpage=1&key=pps&#1954655

I take it this is a bug?

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: ndrose

Looks like I'm asking the same thing Bresh is here:

tm.asp?m=1954655&mpage=1&key=pps?

I take it this is a bug?

Its a bug if i remember correct. Think Marshall said he would fix it.

Regards
Bresh

[MarshallEllis]

This should already be in the game is it not???
We did add share pp gain/loss, I believe in 1.04???
 

[ndrose]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

This should already be in the game is it not???
We did add share pp gain/loss, I believe in 1.04???

Yes--I think what we're saying here is that there's too much shared gain/loss. Lending is supposed to replicate combined movement. If that means stacking together and going to battle together, then yes, there should be shared gain/loss. But if the armies are kept separate but lent for supply or to keep an enemy from moving in between a single-nation stack should still be treated as a single-nation stack even if it's lent to someone else's control.

Unless someone disagrees with this--but that seems to be the consensus.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

This should already be in the game is it not???
We did add share pp gain/loss, I believe in 1.04???

I think the problem is that it was implemented incorrectly, not that you didn't try to do it.

[MarshallEllis]

I think I understand now (Not certain how it handles single nation corps??) but could this side effect help make up for the lack of combined movement? I technically think that the sharing should exist as a benefit for loaning.
 
Woops ... IMO!
 
 
 
 
 

[ndrose]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I think I understand now (Not certain how it handles single nation corps??) but could this side effect help make up for the lack of combined movement? I technically think that the sharing should exist as a benefit for loaning.

Woops ... IMO!

Well, usually the side doing the sharing is going to be on the losing side of the majority of battles (anyone going up against Britain at sea or France on land), and especially so when they're not actually stacked together; so this side effect really operates as more of a penalty than a benefit, I would guess.

In EiA, when combined movement was declared, there would still be some stacks that would be all one nation, and there would be no sharing of PP in those cases; I think the same should hold for lending in EiANW.

[MarshallEllis]

The loaning nation AND nation receiving the units both receive the penalty and/or bonus. This should prevent the player receiving the units from abusing them. The pp gain is also shared as a benefit and I believe the loaning nation should receive this EVEN if stacked alone since it is the loaning player's blood??? The code to differentiate could be problematic???
 
 

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

The loaning nation AND nation receiving the units both receive the penalty and/or bonus. This should prevent the player receiving the units from abusing them. The pp gain is also shared as a benefit and I believe the loaning nation should receive this EVEN if stacked alone since it is the loaning player's blood??? The code to differentiate could be problematic???

Marshall, only MP's who have forces present are supposed to gain/loss, like in EIA and bit logical.
Austria wont improve/decrease its political status by battles won by allied forces, even if he controls them when they battle solo.

The "lender" gains/losses where his forces join/fight solo.

The "controller" gains/losses only where his own forces join, fight solo.

Example:
Prussia lends Austria 4 corps.
Austria-controlled -Pr-corps- goes and wins "say a siege battle vs a fortified" city solo". Prussia "only" gains the PP.

3 join 1 battle alongside Austrian corps (Meaning PP Share gain/loss), in the fraction witch you already implemented.

Regards
Bresh

[fvianello]

As Bresh said, the PP loss / gain should be calculated using only the forces that actually fought the battle.
If a nation had no corps in battle it will have no PP gain / loss, no matter if it loaned / received corps or whatever.

[ndrose]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

The loaning nation AND nation receiving the units both receive the penalty and/or bonus. This should prevent the player receiving the units from abusing them. The pp gain is also shared as a benefit and I believe the loaning nation should receive this EVEN if stacked alone since it is the loaning player's blood??? The code to differentiate could be problematic???

Yes, the loaning nation should definitely receive/lose PPs. The question is whether the controlling nation should. I see your point about preventing abuse, but I don't think that's a common problem.

However, a common situation is to have a Prussian and/or Austrian army receiving British supply as they march against France. In EiA, they could use British supply (whether combining movement or not) as long as the Brit was willing. In EiANW, the only way to do this is by lending all armies to GB.

So if an allied army with British supply fights France, and France wins (as it usually does), Prussia loses PP (fine), Austria lose PP (fine), but GB, as the lent-to country (though it has no corps of its own present) *also* loses PP? That would tend to make GB a lot more reluctant to help its allies, I imagine. Sure, they also gain PPs in victory under this scenario, but usually allies are relying on a lose-battles-but-win-by-attrition strategy. This makes it harder than it already is.

Anyway, I think the goal should be to make lending parallel as closely as possible what happens with EiA combined movement.

[NeverMan]

The abuse prevention is ONLY needed when the LOAN is a victory condition.

OTHERWISE, it's absurd and only helps France more and this game is already WAY TOO imbalanced for France.

If this game is going to see balance then this HAS to be fixed as the above users have suggested:

ONLY nations who have corps present should lose/gain PP in the battle.

It's pretty simple. This would go A LOT further to simulate combined movement (A MUCH needed addition to this imbalanced game).

[MarshallEllis]

Copied from 1.04 pp bug thread:
 
If I were a smart Prussian player that just received 5 Austrian corps on loan then I would AT LEAST make sure that one of my little corps was available to participate in the battle to get the shared pp. After all, I am the Prussian player and I'm in this for Prussia! The amount of time that the Austrian loaned units were in combat alone would be minimal, no?

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Copied from 1.04 pp bug thread:

If I were a smart Prussian player that just received 5 Austrian corps on loan then I would AT LEAST make sure that one of my little corps was available to participate in the battle to get the shared pp. After all, I am the Prussian player and I'm in this for Prussia! The amount of time that the Austrian loaned units were in combat alone would be minimal, no?

Not sure how this matters.

1. If the corps is present than it shares in the PP.
2. If it's not then it doesn't.

Why is this even an argument? It's implemented incorrectly and needs to be corrected.

[MarshallEllis]

It's an argument simply because there is room for abuse! Prussia not present allows Prussia to use the loaned corps as fodder WITHOUT a penalty. This is not combined movement. These units are under Prussian control and the Prussian can do what he wants with the loaned units.

[ndrose]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

It's an argument simply because there is room for abuse! Prussia not present allows Prussia to use the loaned corps as fodder WITHOUT a penalty. This is not combined movement. These units are under Prussian control and the Prussian can do what he wants with the loaned units.

I see your point here, Marshall, but I don't think it's as important as getting an accurate reflection of what actually happened in a battle--who was actually there. An abuse like this is not without penalty--it will only happen once because it will be the end of the alliance and the abuser will likely be DoWed by his former ally! I'd be surprised to see it happening much at all. But the legitimate situations in which the controlling power has no forces present are quite common.

[MarshallEllis]

I still think it creates a situation where granted it would probably only happen once (Hopefully :-/) BUT that one time could be terrible for Austria if for example a secret deal were cut between France and Prussia to turn the Austrians into Lemmings LOL!
 
 

[ndrose]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I still think it creates a situation where granted it would probably only happen once (Hopefully :-/) BUT that one time could be terrible for Austria if for example a secret deal were cut between France and Prussia to turn the Austrians into Lemmings LOL!

In the games I've seen, lent units are generally only nominally under the control of the power they're lent to. That is, it is taken for granted that the real owner tells the temporary owner what to do with them. I think it would be considered a cheesy, gamey tactic to suicide them. And if someone did it anyway, as I said, I think a high price would be immediately exacted. After all, your ally could also just forage your troops into the Pripet Marshes--but in a good gaming group that won't happen; it's understood that lending is just a mechanism for duplicating combined movement and the real owner is entitled to make the decisions.

[MarshallEllis]

I hear ya BUT I cannot take the liberty to think that they are all good groups
The penalty should control this potential abuse. I'll let more chime in on this one before moving on it.