Re: [eia] issues to be addressed

["J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

1.)  I also vote no for a reinforcement escrow.

2.)  I am definitely against forcible access in other major powers' home
territory, and my gut reaction is against forcible access through minors, as
well, but I'm willing to go with the crowd on this one (so "no" w/r/t major
powers, "undecided" w/r/t minors).

3.)  I still think that the nationality of the force occupying Madrid is
irrelevant.  If a country under condition B6 cannot gain money from trade
for some other reason, so that they don't get the _choice_ of denying trade
(i.e., obeying B6), then the British check for American war should not be
invoked.  Whew, that was a long sentence.

4.)  It's fine with me to repatriate a corps on loan whose term is up.

5.)  I am OK with Kyle's modification of the repatriation rules.

-JJY
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "D Mount" <mount324@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] issues to be addressed


> 1) I do not think that we should handle the Reinforcement Phase by escrow.
>
> 2) I do not think we should include Forcible Access.
>
> 3) I still think that if G.B. occupies Madrid that it automatically should
roll for the American War.
>
> 4) Corps on loan should be repatriated.
>
> 5) I am satisfied with Kyle's word choice for repatriation.
>
> -Danny
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>
>


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