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

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

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