J.J. Young on Sun, 14 Nov 2004 11:52:26 -0600 (CST)

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

Re: [eia] conquests

I agree that the French garrisons in Hesse, for example, would not go
anywhere whether they are besieged or not.  This is because you always have
legal access into territory belonging to enemies, and since Hesse became
Austrian and not neutral, the French garrisons do not leave.

But in the past we have treated minors that go _neutral_ the same as when
peace is made (i.e., repatriation).  As a recent example of this, the
Spanish garrison at Cagliari was repatriated when Sardinia became neutral.
The reason for this, I thought, was because the former does not now have
legal access into the terroitory of the now-neutral minor country.  The
garrison would sit there, unable to conquer the country (even if in the
capital city) because it is not an enemy.  The garrison's owner could not
legally send a corps in to pick up the garrison, and could not even declare
war on the neutral minor to do so, since the presence of the garrison does
not allow a DOW.

So in order to avoid this sticky situation, in the past we have repatriated
forces from a minor that goes neutral.  Trying to be consistent with the
other situation where forces are located in territory to which their owner
no longer has access; peace treaties.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nate Ellefson" <nellefson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'public list for an Empires in Arms game'" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 12:33 PM
Subject: 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
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia

eia mailing list