Re: [eia] conquering the Kingdom of the 2 Sicilies

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    I take JJ's point and am happy to endorse his friendly amendment.

kdh

----- Original Message -----
From: "J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] conquering the Kingdom of the 2 Sicilies


> I agree with Kyle's suggested clarification of the rules, provided (as I'm
> almost sure is intended) that the corps or garrison we are talking about
are
> forces from the controlling major power, not free state forces of the
minor
> being conquered.  For example, if there had been a Danish factor in
> Christiana when GB occupied Copenhagen and conquered Denamark, that would
> not have stopped GB from gaining control of Norway at the same time (but a
> French factor there would have).
>
> -JJY
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 5:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [eia] conquering the Kingdom of the 2 Sicilies
>
>
> >     I think we were talking past each other last night.  So I'm not sure
> > that the agreement that you thought you heard was actually there.  I do
> > agree with your point that a different power will almost always control
> the
> > minor district when the major district is conquered.  So that part of
the
> > rule does seem strange.  On the other hand, it also seems strange for
> Turkey
> > to gain control of Sicily while its capital is occupied by unbesieged
> > Spanish corps.  So I look at a strangely worded rule on the one hand and
a
> > somewhat counter-intuitive consequence on the other hand, and I shrug my
> > shoulders and go with the literal wording of the rule (which seems to
> agree
> > with Joel).
> >
> >     Aside from what the rule says, here's what I think makes sense.
When
> > conquering the major district of a multi-district minor country, you
will
> > automatically conquer the minor district as well only if all of the
> > following conditions are satisfied.
> >
> > a) The minor district is controlled by the same power who previously
> > controlled the major district.
> > b) The power who previously controlled the major district does not have
a
> > garrison in the capital of the minor district.
> > c) The power who previously controlled the major district does not have
a
> > corps within the territory of the minor district.
> >
> > If we want to change the rules, I think the above suggestion would do
> pretty
> > much what we want it to do.  But if we stick with the rules as written,
> then
> > I think Joel is right.
> >
> > kdh
> >
> > > I spoke to Kyle last night, and at that time he agreed with me.  Why
> have
> > > you changed your position ?
> > >
> > > -JJY
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eia mailing list
> > eia@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>

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