Re: [eia] [escrow] Political Phase, July 1805

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

My understanding agrees with Joel's, although I will have to go back and
reread the rules in detail when I have time.

-JJY

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Uckelman" <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: [eia] [escrow] Political Phase, July 1805


> Thus spake "Kyle H":
> >     In that case, since no one is willing to sponsor Cyrenacia, it
succumbs
> > to Turkish control without a fight (and Turkey does NOT lose a political
> > point for declaring war against it, as I asserted before).
> >     Rule 4.6 indicates that Cyrenacia will be treated as if it has been
> > newly conquered.  (4.6 ends by saying "See 10.2.1 for conquering minor
> > neutral countries.")  If my understanding is correct, then that means
that
> > Cyrenacia will be considered conquered territory until such time as
Turkey
> > makes it a free state (if ever).  If Cyrenacia is made a free state, its
> > army will begin at zero infantry, zero cavalry (just like all other
newly
> > conquered free states).  If anyone disagrees, please let me know.
>
> Actually, that isn't how I read 4.6. When a minor gets no sponsor, the
only
> effects are that its corps don't deploy, and the attacker loses no
> political points. That doesn't mean that the attacker automatically gets
> control---hence the cross-ref to 10.2.1. (If the attacker automatically
got
> control, why would you need to look at 10.2.1?) In this case, I still need
> to occupy Benghazi for a month in order to conqueror Cyrenaica.
>
> --
> 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