Re: [eia] a question about trade

[Michael Gorman <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 12:56 PM 3/21/2004 -0600, you wrote:
> Thus spake "Kyle H":
> > ...
> >     Hmmm.  I'm not sure *what* to think about this any more.  Please put me
> > back in the undecided column.  I reserve the right to weigh in at a later
> > time if my opinion solidifies on one side or the other.
> >
> > So, so far we have JJ and Joel against GB having to roll for war, and Danny
> > and Mike in favor of GB having to roll.  Any other opinions?
> >
> > kdh
>
> Er. I'm confused now. I thought Mike was opposed to making GB roll.
I was because I forgot that condition B.6 was present and thought the 
reason for the roll was that Britain had occupied Madrid and thus was 
preventing all Spanish trade.

Looking at the optional rule, 12.9, the basis of the rule is that the War 
of 1812 was engineered and therefore the application of B.6 is counted as 
if Britain had chosen to stop trade.  So the problem is that Spain is not 
allowed to trade because Madrid is occupied, but at the same time the 
restriction put into place to annoy America is also still in place.  I 
would say that Spanish inability to trade does not remove the restriction 
placed by B.6 and therefore Britain still has to roll.  The restriction is 
meaningless to Spain since Spain can't trade, but that does not make it 
meaningless to America who can trade.

On another note, for those of you who follow errata.  I noted that in 
8.2.1.2.1.5, it says that Russia can trade unless both capitals are 
occupied.  Which means it could gain trade income even when it cannot gain 
tax income.  Is this an error?  If not, it's kind of odd.

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