Re: [eia] political points after a battle

[jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx]

At the time I wrote this, Kyle was advocating a win-all, lose-for-what-you-
brought interpretation, and I saw a FAQ which seemed to back him up.  Now, 
things have changed and we are using a win-all, lose all interpretation (which 
I thought we were using all along; I was just trying to adjust to what I 
thought we were changing to).  

Maybe everything I just said was completely obvious; I just wanted to be clear 
that I wasn't trying to be grabby.  I am happy to go with win-all, lose-all.

-JJY


Quoting Michael Gorman <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> At 10:22 PM 4/8/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> >This interpretation of how allies lose PPs in battle would change Spain's
> >and GB's political status.  Since we each had 2 corps participating in the
> >first battle of St. P (when Russia lifted the siege), Spain and GB should
> >only have lost -1 PP each, not -2 PP.  At the time, Mike must have been
> >going by the same interpretation I originally had.
> >
> >So Spain and GB should both be one higher on the political status chart.
> >Would everyone agree ?
> >
> >-JJY
> I find this interpretation quite odd as in all other ways a combined force 
> is considered one army.  To now split them into two armies seems very
> strange.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
> 
> 


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