<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
<br />Drew - thanks for the explanation. My CD just arrived yesterday, loaded and fired up the game and it looks grand.
Sean - "Bill, I think we're saying the same thing."
Ah c'mon, dont be so easy, lets get into a fight!! [:p]
Alright - actually yes, I see what you are saying.
On to Richmond! Well, after I have whupped up on Jeff Laub's Yanks. General Lee has promised us all 10 days leave in Richmond after we whup them sorry looking soldiers known as Uncle Sam's best.
LtCol. Peters, 3rd Brigade
2nd Cavalry Division, II Corps, AoA
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
While I appreciate Drew's explination, I don't think this topic really has anything to do with the allocations so much as it does with the expenditures. I'm perfectly fine having less ammo than the Union, which is completely accurate historically, I just think the one ammo point per unit fired regardless of strength issue is a little off and unfairly favors the Union all other things being equal...
But as long as Drew has taken that into consideration and given the Rebs enoug ammo, then it hopefully shouldn't matter, as he has pointed out. But I still think the system could benefit from a change in the future (after much more discussion, I'm sure...)
Regards,
Major Alan Lynn
3rd Battery "Jacksonville Greys"
4th Div, II Corps, AoA
God bless <><