Nate Ellefson on Sun, 14 Nov 2004 11:33:48 -0600 (CST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: [eia] conquests

> Thus spake "Nate Ellefson":
> > What's the controlling rule that says that the French garrison at 
> > Kassel stays put? I can't find it, and I must confess to finding it 
> > odd that because I'm laying siege to the capital I'll still have to 
> > fight for the country, but if my corps were in the woods 
> north of the 
> > capital I would have Hesse free and clear.
> I think that repatriation occurs only as a result of making 
> peace. 10.5.2 covers the effects of Instability on minors, 
> and makes no mention of repatriation at all. Unless someone 
> points out a contravening rule, it's my opinion that all of 
> the French stay put despite a change in control of the minors.
> So, to answer your question, I do not agree that you would 
> have Hesse free and clear if your corps were in the woods 
> north of Kassel. As a sanity check on what seems to be the 
> received interpretation of rules: Does ayone think that the 
> French would leave just because someone with no army, say the 
> Duke of Hesse-Kassel, told them to?

Entirely valid point.  I misread the rule concerning minors switching
because of instability.

eia mailing list