Re: [eia] lapse of war with minors

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    I agree with JJ.  Many thanks to Joel for finding and pointing out our
long-running error, but I think this would be a bad time to effectively
"change" the way the rule works.  Let's say that all current declarations of
war against minors shall be dealt with using the previous (erroneous)
interpretation.  Any future declarations of war against minors (including
March's) shall be dealt with according to the rules as written.
    Are there any dissenters?

kdh

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 11:29 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] lapse of war with minors


> Against my will, I am forced to agree with Joel's reading of this rule.
But
> I'm reluctant to upset so many (other) people's applecarts after they had
> laid plans according to the old interpretation.
>
> Fortunately Nate, who isn't around to speak for himself, will not be
> affected by this in Bologna.  His cav corps was still in Romagne at the
> beginning of February.  However, the conquest of Bavaria is now in
question.
>
> The other territories that would be affected are Berg, Mecklenberg, and
> Duchies.  I think it is best to let the old interpretation stand for these
4
> minors, and change to the correct reading from here on out.  That's my
> opinion.
>
> -JJY
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Joel Uckelman" <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 11:12 PM
> Subject: [eia] lapse of war with minors
>
>
> > Before we get too far into France's land phase, there's something I just
> > noticed that I should point out to everyone:
> >
> > Notice that there are no French-controlled units of any kind in Berg.
That
> > means that during the Diplomatic Phase in March, war between France and
> > Berg will lapse and Russia will get to keep Berg.
> >
> > This prompted me to take a look at the lapse of war rule (4.6.6), and
> > rereading it has made me think that the way we've always done conquest
of
> > minors hasn't been quite right. Here's the relevant sentence from 4.6.6:
> >
> > "If, during any Peace Step prior to the conquest of a minor country, any
> > invading major power has no corps within that minor country, then that
> > major power is considered to be no longer at war with the minor country
> and
> > must be at war with the major power controlling it before he can attack
it
> > again."
> >
> > What that says to me is that you must have a corps within any minor
> country
> > you plan to conquer at the beginning of the turn in which you plan to
> > conquer it. Moving through on the previous turn and dropping a garrison
> > isn't sufficient.
> >
> > So, this would additionally affect three pending conquests---Prussia's
> > conquest of the Duchies and Mecklenburg, and Austria's conquest of
> Romagna.
> > (I feel bad about the assuring Nate that dropping a garrison at Bologna
> > would be sufficient to conquer Romagna---that was said in good faith.)
> >
> > -- 
> > 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
>

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