A long running debate - my argument, in short, is that - assuming things like hospitals, gs, etc. are constant - starting stronger in war means staying stronger in war. Don't care much how you got stronger to start with. I know many disagree with this theory - and I know that things like a chain "bypass" the normal losses and requires by its nature a dynamic analysis - but I've found it to be a good guild so far.
Edit: The long running debate I refer to is the "static strength" vs. "dynamic factors", myself vs. Bishop et. all. Not the homes argument. Sorry for the confusion.
Reply With Quote