Re: [eia] conquests

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

JJ wrote:
> 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.

    Just for the record, access to an uncontrolled minor country is not a
problem.  The game allows all major powers access through an uncontrolled
minor country. 10.3.1.1 reads: "Any major power may move forces and trace
supply through a neutral minor country."  So that's not the problem.  The
problem comes from the very next line of rules text:  "A major power may not
also build depots and/or occupy cities in a minor country unless that major
power is at war with or controls that minor country."  Since a garrison
(without a depot) can only exist inside a city, allowing the garrison to
remain in the previously conquered city would constitute "occupation," in
violation of the rule.
    However, talking this out causes me to realize that the garrison at
Cologne could become a depot garrison without repatriating.
    And with that final amendment, there is no repatriation anywhere.  All
French garrisons remain where they were (to answer Jim's question).

kdh

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