Re: [eia] Prussian Economic Phase, 3/07

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    I agree with what Joel writes below.  However, I don't see how one can 
benefit from the effects of Economic Manipulation dependent on manpower when 
you don't have the manpower to sacrifice.  So, I would add that, in the case 
of negative manpower, the effects of economic manipulation are cancelled for 
the duration of that econ phase.

kdh

> Bankruptcy is only ever mentioned w/r/t money, so I take it that you can't
> go bankrupt for lack of manpower. This seems in accord with the 
> nontechnical
> usage of the word. The only thing which explicitly prevents a power from
> getting the benefit of EM is enemy occupation of its capital---even
> bankruptcy doesn't prevent EM from taking place, and in particular, not in
> the case when EM is the cause of bankruptcy (or negative manpower
> collection). So I think that banruptcy isn't relevant here.
>
> 8.2.2 says that manpower collection may be negative due to EM, so the
> manpower effect happens during manpower collection. In this case, home
> nation manpower is part of the sum which makes up total manpower. In
> the present case, Prussia *is* collecting home nation manpower: There's
> 9 points of it. If no home nation manpower were collected, then the
> defefict would be -10, not -1. I read the civil disorder rule 8.7
> as requirng that some home province generates manpower, not that that
> manpower is ultimately available for use.
>
> So, my take is that collecting negative manpower has no further effect.
> The rules are silent on paying back negative manpower; if that were the
> case for Prussia, I'd expect the rules to say so.
>
>
> -- 
> J.
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia 

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