An ethical question?

[Murat]

I had not thought about until recently but how do people feel about the DoW on and defense of minors. In my group if you got control of a minor you had to provide a 'best defense' for it. For example if it had a corp that had a chance of beating back the invasion you needed to try it at least once. You could not suidie the fleet on some port guns to deny it to the conquering power (although these now become conquered and the fleets go away any way in EIANW). In one of my PBEM games here, Austria declared war on Bavaria that we had agreed to keep neutral. I received control and Austria stated he was going to lapse the war to make up for the DoW because he forgot about our neutrality agreement. I had planned to downgrade Bavaria to neutral again. Recently I had an ally offer to do a DoW on one of my influenced nations to lapse the war and grant me free state basically for nothing. Things like this were a major taboo in our group.

What do other people do? I have been told by some people that they divide most of the minors this way right away in Jan [X(]. Admittedly this is harder to do in EIANW since you have to be able to reach whatever you DoW on.

[Mynok]

Our group never pulled crap like that either. If you didn't get forces into the minor the same month you DoW, the minor reverted to original status prior to the DoW and any control determination.

[Grognot]

I find wheeling and dealing to be fine, but 'fake DoW to grant free-state status' strikes me as rules-abuse.

[AresMars]

Rule abuse happens in every game I have ever played....&nbsp; <tears>
&nbsp;
but then, who needs or wants more "Rule Lawyers"?
&nbsp;
I also hate this type of cheese gaming......unavoidable I am afraid.....
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

[Suvorov928]

Well, the lapse on Bavaria was not a cheese move, and in fact, would have cost me a PP.&nbsp; I only agreed to lapse the war to honor an agreement I had with France.&nbsp; As Austria, I am walking on egg shells till I see who is alligning with whom.&nbsp; Last thing I need is a declaration by France and turkey, and who knows who else, maybe even Russia, till I can be better prepared and have some strong allies.

Normally I would fight and never perform ridiculous things with a country.

[Murat]

Yes I was actually contrasting the Bavaria situation with the other offers. In the case of Bavaria, although I had not said anything specific about downgrading I had it in my mind that the goal was to restore Bavaria to neutrality. After that I got an offer on Denmark for free and thought, I wonder if Austria thought I was trying to do that with Bavaria and that was soon followed by an ally asking me to not defend a minor, so with our FtF house rule of best defense I wondered what other people thought appropriate especially since with the exception of the Bavaria situation I seemed to be in the minority. Best defense by the way did not mean you had to lose lots of PP so if your minor corps got defeated there was no shame in having a 1 factor garrison surrender upon breach (they can maybe survive 3 rounds but more likely would die and cost you 1pp without destrying any enemy factors).

[Alex Gilbert]

When I played the board game, we held to the "best defense" rule. However, it is not so straightforward in EiANW, because there is no "honors of war" option. This means that you are giving up an extra PP in fighting an essentially hopeless battle when the enemy breaches the walls. And there is really no chance to gain a PP, since you get no PP for the attacker failing to breach.

So should the defender be compelled to lose the points, or can he set up the garrison factor in a non-capital city (or not set it up at all).

Alex

[Murat]

You can set it up and have the garrison surrender if breach. No pp loss that I am aware of for a surrender. You may lose a pp though in fighting with a FS corps, but if you can push the declarer out you get a FS.

[Alex Gilbert]

I did not realize that EiANW allowed you to pre-set a surrender if breached. That would certainly change things.

[Murat]

Yes you may do it during the reinforcement and naval phases (not sure why naval, but hey, always nice to have a 2d chance).

[dauphan129]

I personally always only offer to defend states that would be of use to my country (frequently ones I plan on declaring on later if I don't get them through defending them). As such I generally do every thing I can to defend them since they are part of my game strategy. I know and have seen in FTF games things like Prussia and France work out in Diplomacy an agreement whereby they are each going to get a free state by mutual non-defence. I have also seen Austria take up a die roll and screw that plan up by winning to defend it so in that manner it can be a crap shoot.

In another FTF game Britian and Russia worked out a deal for Sweden in return for hefty cash on the Econ phase for a year plus an alliance against Turkey.

Ultimately, Major Powers could, sometimes, decide the fates of lesser nations in meetings held at high levels. While it is a questionable game mechanic I am sure at some point in real history things came about where one country said to another "I am going to take this you can have that if you don't mess with me doing it." Sad but true.

I guess it is a matter of personal play style as far as the game goes. Also, it is hard to prove. In the British Russian ruse of Sweden, Prussia called Russia out when he said "F*&%, I forgot about the ice! My fleet is trapped I can't get my corps there and I am not marching overland in winter!" Heck, he almost sold it, guess he should not have quit his acting classes[:D] Nothing we could do though except be aware that Russia and GB were deep in each other's bed in 1805.

In the case of Bavaria, you could see it this way (hypothetical historical)
At a meeting of the diplomats in Paris, Austria and France sign an Non-Agression pact against expanding borders. A general on the front lines doesn't get the message for a bit and takes his troops into Bavaria. Once Austria sorts it out they send apologies to France. Meanwhile Bavaria asked France to help them out and some Military advisors arrive to get the men in shape. Now that the situation with Austria is resolved does France pull it's advisors out or not? Austria could demand they do (although it may not do any good) or France could decide to on it's own (to foster better relations with Austria and Bavaria). Ultimately it is up to France though and since they didn't break the agreement they could just keep it with a pretty clear conscience.

[Ralegh]

I think a future version should permit an optional rule that all minor that are not "allied" get played by the AI.
&nbsp;
I'd also like the capability to have the AI play a human player's turn if they don't submit it in time!

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Ralegh

I think a future version should permit an optional rule that all minor that are not "allied" get played by the AI.

I'd also like the capability to have the AI play a human player's turn if they don't submit it in time!

This would eliminate the effect of influensed no ?
And we would need to remove support of influensed nations ?

Im not sure this is a good idea.

Regards
Bresh

[Jimmer]

Suicide runs cost PP. So does declaring war on a minor. When one gives a minor away like that, there is a permanent shift in the PSD: Down for me and up for my "partner". So, there IS a price to be paid.
&nbsp;
Plus, one of the easiest ways to make political points is fighting against minor countries with corps. If I give the country away, I give up the opportunity to do that. Again: a price to be paid.
&nbsp;
If there's a cost that's paid or a risk that's taken, then people need to stop whining about it. Forcing someone to fight a field combat is absurd. I almost NEVER fight field combats with minors. The odds of winning are 80-90% against.