minor diplomacy

[polarole]

hi,

as i never played eih i am not used to diplomacy on minors:

so lets say a and b are allied and at war with c and a minor is now influenced by a, now lets say b declares war on the minor and a and c both want to take control of it. what happens?
as far as i understand the rules the minor will automaticaly go to a, even though a is allied with b and c is at war with b; correct?

bye
ole

[MarshallEllis]

This is correct IF the minor is influcenced by a. If not then c will most likely get control since it is at war with a and b.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: polarole

hi,

as i never played eih i am not used to diplomacy on minors:

so lets say a and b are allied and at war with c and a minor is now influenced by a, now lets say b declares war on the minor and a and c both want to take control of it. what happens?
as far as i understand the rules the minor will automaticaly go to a, even though a is allied with b and c is at war with b; correct?

bye
ole

Yes, this is a good example of how these rules don't make much sense. Maybe they need to be modified, or dare I say gotten rid of altogether!?

[MarshallEllis]

Hey, watchit!
 
I actually like the minor diplomacy even if I am the only one LOL!
 
 

[Jimmer]

As stated previously:
 
A should not be able to gain control, at least the way EiA worked. An ally may not roll for control in the old rules. IMO, the same restriction should apply EVEN IF that ally has influence on a nation.
 
NOTE: If an ally has an ally relationship, the major powers have broken their alliance. So, this only matters in the case of influence.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

As stated previously:

A should not be able to gain control, at least the way EiA worked. An ally may not roll for control in the old rules. IMO, the same restriction should apply EVEN IF that ally has influence on a nation.

NOTE: If an ally has an ally relationship, the major powers have broken their alliance. So, this only matters in the case of influence.

This is why it doesn't make sense. Furthermore, if the above were to be true then you shouldn't be trying to influence any minors that your allies are going to DOW, because it would be useless for you to influence a minor that you aren't going to gain control of when it is DOW'd.

It's all pretty silly, IMO.

[MarshallEllis]

I would think a smart man might try to influence the minors that his enemies were looking at??? This always worked better for me LOL! These rules could really be utilized by GBr and Fr since they were typically the only MPs that would have the money to do this effectively. Fr would chase Portugal, Naples, Denmark and Sweden for their potential navies while GBr would try to keep her out of those minors. The limitation in this system is that allied MPs could not really combine their diplomatic efforts (An ally here would still undo another ally's efforts).
 
 

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I would think a smart man might try to influence the minors that his enemies were looking at???

No, I meant if the rules were followed and your allies couldn't get control of minors you DOW'd. Sorry if that wasn't clear.