6.6.1 Control Change of Minors due to being in Instablity/Fiasco Politial Status

[Raw_Militia]

Hi all,

I am new to the forum. (This is my first post.)

According to section 6.6.1 of the manual, if a major power is in instability zone, during the diplomacy phase, then all conquered minor countries it own will become neutral unless there is an unbesieged corp of that major power in the country. And if the major power is in the fiasco zone during the diplomacy phase, then all minor countries (free state or conquered) will become neutral.

I am not sure but from my solo playing of the game, countries have gone into instability and fiasco zones but I have never seen any of their minor countries go neutral.

Can anybody comment on whether they seen section 6.6.1 of the manual actually working in the game?

Raw_Militia

[Marshall Ellis]

I have seen this happen. You should see a status message say "France lost X minor nations". Keep in mind that I believe that if another MP's corps is in that nation then I believe they get control.
 
 

[Filmstudy]

I can confirm this problem.

A Prussian conquered nation (Hesse) which had just a garrison in Kassel did notgo neutral despite Prussia dropping to the very bottom of the fiasco zone.

[dauphan129]

Are you guys sure Prussia is not making their Die roll to maintain control in that example? When a Nation CAN loose it's minors it is suppose to roll for control. I have seen them make the roll and loose the roll in the game. When they loose the roll they loose Minors.

It will show a line like (EXAMPLE NOT ACTUAL TEXT)
Bavaria is now a Neutral Minor
France in Instability needs 5 gets a 6.

Notice the top message is the most recent so in this example France fails control roll for Instability and Bavaria becomes a Neutral Minor.

This was in the board game too.

[DodgyDave]

not up to date on this game in regards to these rules, but if you are in fiasco zone, you are suppose to loss control of all minors, nomatter what, if an enemy is inside any of them, they will switch to that person instead, even if you got corps within these minors, you will not be able to keep control.

if it was instability zone, then those that are free states or if you got corps inside the conq minors, then will you keep them.

nomatter what, if you want to keep minors in any form, then make sure you stay above instability zone

[praem]

In the Board game you had to have unbesiged corps in the minors capitol for 2 land phases to conq that minor. In this game a single factor garison will do the trick. Perhaps the same is true for keeping control of minors while in instability? Havnt' seen it happen (change of controling power or return to neutral) 

[DodgyDave]

a garrison factor is enough to conq a minor?

[delatbabel]

ORIGINAL: DodgyDave

a garrison factor is enough to conq a minor?

Yes, rules page 67 section 10.7. The rule states you have to occupy the capital, not occupy it with a corps.

It was always that way in the board game too (section 7.7), and if you play the rule where a "corps" can't "occupy" a city (only a garrison factor can) then a garrison factor is *required* to conq a minor, a corps won't do it. Also if you're (for example) France conquering Morocco with a full strength corps, then you have to drop a garrison factor as your corps is too large to fit into the city.

[DodgyDave]

ahh i see, just looking at that rule 7.7, never looked at it previously, was told and kept playing with for years that it required a corps to do it, well that explains why i lost some minors in my single player games lol

[Marshall Ellis]

Appreciate the clarification Del!