Bug? - Secondary Districts and Instability Zone

[ecn1]

Okay - here is the situation

Denmark is a Free State owned by Great Britain.
Norway is conquered secondary district.
There is a garrison in copenhagen. No garrison in norway

GB goes into instability. The norwary secondary district goes neutral, denmark does not because it has a garrison.

Is this a bug, should have the secondary district gone neutral? shouldnt secondary districts follow the primary country as they really belong to the free state? Shouldnt have Norway not gone neutral?

The other thing is, GB claims that it received income and manpower from Norway in the econ phase before - even though technically should not have this income and manpower gone to denmark free state instead?

Erik

[Jimmer]

I'm pretty sure you are missing a point about multi-district minors: They couldn't implement multi-district free states in the first iteration of the game.
 
Yes, you get them both at the same time (if you conquer the "main" capital). However, if you make them free states, the secondary stays conquered under the major power's banner. It does not become part of the free state.
 
NOTE: The reason Denmark did not change to neutral (when Norway did) is NOT because it had a garrison. It's because free states don't go neutral by Instability.

[ecn1]

I think you are missing the point Jimmer.

The manpower and income for the secondary districts go to the controlling free state (ie. Finland goes to Sweden), I know its conquered...but if they really wanted to simulate the secondary district rule, then they would not go neutral unless the parent free state goes neutral.

Erik

[Jimmer]

Did you get the nation without declaring war on it? It's an end-case, but that's the only way it should remain with a secondary district. They did not even try to emulate "secondary districts" for them when they get conquered.
 
In the typical scenario, it goes like this:
 
[ol][*]GB declares war on Denmark
[*]Someone gets control (let's say Russia, for this illustration)
[*]Russia now owns Denmark and Norway as a combined Free State (technically, Denmark is a free state, but Norway is a conquered minor of Denmark).
[*]GB attacks Copenhagen and eventually wins
[*]GB gets control. At this point, both Denmark and Norway become conquered minors
[*]GB decides to make Denmark a free state and does so
[*]Norway REMAINS a British conquered minor. It has no ties to Denmark whatsoever. The only way it ever will again is if GB loses both to instability or fiasco, or someone takes them from GB and loses them to instability/fiasco.[/ol]
So, there IS a point at which a major power can own the two as a combined "free state": Steps 2 through 4 above. But, your post doesn't indicate that.
 
So, if your British and Russian positions are reversed from the above scenario, and you are still at steps 2, 3, or 4, you should still have them together. PROVIDED they implemented this correctly. However, as per my parenthetical note in step 3, I believe that even in this case, they are a free state and a conquered. One could tell based upon their money/manpower.

[ecn1]

Jimmer,

If what you say is true, is that if you conquer sweden or denmark for example, and then when you make it a free state later on, the secondary district does not contribute to the free state income and manpower and is no longer considered a secondary district - THATS A BUG! If you read the rules, I am pretty not what they intended and is most likely a programming oversight.

And yes, in current pbem game I have, I got control of sweden because I supported it.

Erik

[ecn1]

Jimmer, here is a fuller explanation why I think this is a bug:


Okay, I think this is a bug or programming oversight regarding minor countries with secondary districts

Here are two scenarios we have seen occuer in our pbem games.

Scenario 1:

Major Power A declares war on Denmark, Major Power B supports it and gains control of Denmark and conquered secondary district. In the econ phase, the secondary district contributes its manpower and income to the Danish Free State, NOT the controlling major power (major power B).

Scenario 2:

Major Power A declares war on Denmark, conquers it, and then later makes it a free state. The secondary district (Norway) contributes its money and manpower in the econ phase to Major Power A, NOT the Free State Denmark

Now, why the difference? Since Denmark and the secondary district were conquered by the same major power, shouldnt they be reconstituted together when made a free state? Why is Norway split off from the parent district in scenario 2?

Also, in our current pbem game, GB conquered Denmark as in scenario 2. GB made it a free state, had a garrison in it. GB went into the instability zone and Norway went neutral, but Denmark did not. I argue this is wrong. It should not have gone neutral unless the PARENT Major Districy WENT NEUTRAL. But, I think the reason was that the game things Norway is a conquered minor of GB - it should not, it should think its a conquered minor of Denmark, and should contribute its income and manpower to Denmark, not GB as outlined in scenario 2.

Is this a programming error or rules oversight? Because the rules imply that if both districts are conquered by the SAME major power, that the country can be reformed. However, obviously as noted in scenario 2, this was not the case when GB made Denmark a free state.

Erik

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: ecn1

Jimmer, here is a fuller explanation why I think this is a bug:


Okay, I think this is a bug or programming oversight regarding minor countries with secondary districts

Here are two scenarios we have seen occuer in our pbem games.

Scenario 1:

Major Power A declares war on Denmark, Major Power B supports it and gains control of Denmark and conquered secondary district. In the econ phase, the secondary district contributes its manpower and income to the Danish Free State, NOT the controlling major power (major power B).

Scenario 2:

Major Power A declares war on Denmark, conquers it, and then later makes it a free state. The secondary district (Norway) contributes its money and manpower in the econ phase to Major Power A, NOT the Free State Denmark

Now, why the difference? Since Denmark and the secondary district were conquered by the same major power, shouldnt they be reconstituted together when made a free state? Why is Norway split off from the parent district in scenario 2?

Also, in our current pbem game, GB conquered Denmark as in scenario 2. GB made it a free state, had a garrison in it. GB went into the instability zone and Norway went neutral, but Denmark did not. I argue this is wrong. It should not have gone neutral unless the PARENT Major Districy WENT NEUTRAL. But, I think the reason was that the game things Norway is a conquered minor of GB - it should not, it should think its a conquered minor of Denmark, and should contribute its income and manpower to Denmark, not GB as outlined in scenario 2.

Is this a programming error or rules oversight? Because the rules imply that if both districts are conquered by the SAME major power, that the country can be reformed. However, obviously as noted in scenario 2, this was not the case when GB made Denmark a free state.

Erik

The secondary districts counts as conq district of the minor. Once conquered, it looses any conq districts to its new ruler.
It is the same for Finland-Sweden,
and Sicily-Naples.

Thats just how they decided to implement it in EIANW, one could argue Norway was part of Denmark, and not just conq.

Regards
Bresh

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: ecn1

Jimmer,

If what you say is true, is that if you conquer sweden or denmark for example, and then when you make it a free state later on, the secondary district does not contribute to the free state income and manpower and is no longer considered a secondary district - THATS A BUG! If you read the rules, I am pretty not what they intended and is most likely a programming oversight.

No, it was a programming choice, not a bug.

There are no multi-district minors once one (or more) of them becomes a conquered minor. They made a programming choice because implementing multi-district minors proved too difficult to code.

[ecn1]

First, Bresh and Jimmer, is there a post from the programmers that said this was a conscious choice? Just wondering?


If so the programming choice is at odds with what is stated in the rule book included with the game, so something needs to be change, either programming or the rulebook.

To quote:
"It is possible for one major power to conquer a secondary district (by controlling its capital) while another major power controls the major district For example, one major power can conquer Norway, by controlling Christiana while another major power conquers Denmark (the district) by controlling Copenhagen. When this happens, Sweden is considered a separate minor country from Finland, Denmark is considered a separate minor country from Norway. Once separated, the program will not allow for multi-district countries to re-form."

This passage implies the parent and secondary district will be reformed into one free state UNLESS they are conquered by different countries. Otherwise, when made a free state, the parent and secondary districts should be made into one free state. Which according to the posts, is not being done.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL:  ecn1 (from the other thread, so as not to extend it any further)
Ah Jimmer,
No, thats not what the rule book says. You might want to bone up on your reading. To quote:
"It is possible for one major power to conquer a secondary district (by controlling its capital) while another major power controls the major district For example, one major power can conquer Norway, by controlling Christiana while another major power conquers Denmark (the district) by controlling Copenhagen. When this happens, Sweden is considered a separate minor country from Finland, Denmark is considered a separate minor country from Norway. Once separated, the program will not allow for multi-district countries to re-form."
This paragraph clearly states that the secondary district is ONLY seperated if conquered by DIFFERENT MAJOR POWERS.
It implies that minor countries with secondary districts that are conquered by the SAME MAJOR POWER can be reformed.
If this is not correct, either the rules are misstated, or there is a programming error. Which is my point.
Erik

I don't see the word "only" in that text. Why did you add it? And you put it in all caps, indicating how important this was.
 
ALL that this rule states is that in one case, it is possible to separate the two minors, specifically, the case where they are conquered separately by two MPs. It makes absolutely no statement (including by implication) of what happens when they are conquered normally. While the paragraph you quoted COULD be read the way you are reading it (by itself), in order to absolutely apply to all situations, it has to be coupled with another rule.
 
In order to make your case, you'll need to post the rule about conquered minors showing that the two are generally intended to be together always, and that this rule posits an exception.
 
Instead, ask yourself the question "Why is this rule needed, if this is supposed to be the norm?"
 
What this rule does state is that they can be split up at the same time (by having each capital occupied by two separate forces). This rule thus prevents an argument between major powers due to conflicting rules. Specifically, the two conflicting rules would be:
 
[ol][*]A major can conquer a minor by one month's unbesieged occupation of the capital (as applied to the secondary district), and
[*]A major power conquers both districts with one month's unbesieged occupation of the major district's capital[/ol]
As you can figure see, if this situation arises without the rules exception you posted, the rules would be ambiguous (does the major power in 1 above, or the one in 2 above, own the secondary district?)
 
And, yes, Matrix' people have indeed stated this. I even debated it with them to some extent over the issue of Sicily not getting the Napalese fleet counter (as it did in the original game). Do a search.

[Jimmer]

After reading the rules (and the updates to the rules), I can see how you could interpret things this way. If you played the boardgame, it becomes almost the default way of thinking. However, it's incorrect. The rules could stand a little updating in this area.
 
But, rest assured that the results you see are indeed "correct", at least according to what the Matrix guys have said on these forums.

[Murat]

FIRST: Why do you insist on posting the same question multiple times across several threads?

SECOND: You misread and misinterpreted the rule you quoted.

ORIGINAL: ecn1
Okay - here is the situation
Denmark is a Free State owned by Great Britain.
Norway is conquered secondary district.

Norway is a conquered British minor, not a secondary district. You skipped the part about Britain conquering Denmark and Norway and then creating the Danish Free State.

There is a garrison in copenhagen. No garrison in norway

GB goes into instability. The norwary secondary district goes neutral, denmark does not because it has a garrison.

Is this a bug, should have the secondary district gone neutral? shouldnt secondary districts follow the primary country as they really belong to the free state? Shouldnt have Norway not gone neutral?

The other thing is, GB claims that it received income and manpower from Norway in the econ phase before - even though technically should not have this income and manpower gone to denmark free state instead?

Erik

NO because as I said already, Norway is a BRITISH conquered, not a Danish secondary district. That tie ended when they were conquered. Jimmer and bresh explained this thoroughly here and in at least 1 other thread. Posting things multiple times will not recreate reality.

[Monadman]

Guys,

I added to section 13.6.3, second bullet, to read as follows (bold is new):

It is possible for one major power to conquer a secondary district (by controlling its capital) while another major power controls the major district. For example, one major power can conquer Norway, by controlling Christiana while another major power conquers Denmark (the district) by controlling Copenhagen. When this happens, Sweden is considered a separate minor country from Finland, Denmark is considered a separate minor country from Norway. Another way these districts can become separated is when a player declares the major district a free state, its secondary district (if any) becomes a single conquered minor country. Once separated, the program will not allow for multi-district countries to reform.

Richard

[Jimmer]

That will help, Richard, but I would recommend putting the phraseology into the main part, not into the exception. Or, perhaps, in both places.