Possession Of Minor Country

[gazfun]

The possession of Thurunga should have occured by now which it hasnt.
The MC was taken in May and it still hasnt come over to French control which is crucial at this time.
We are now in the July Land Phase and I need this fixed please Marshall
I will PM you my files.
Thanks
Gaz

[eske]

Marshall

Plz. confirm that having a garrison inside a minor capital and a corps in the area for one full month is sufficient for conquering the minor. It is, right ?

If so, this is actually a new, unreported bug. Something about being able to conquer minors while in instability zone. You might want to have a closer look at this...

/eske

[MarshallEllis]

I believe this should be conquereing??? I will take a look...

[gazfun]

Thanks Marshall, Im sorry to come up with another thing, its that I had a french depot in Wurzburg for some time as well, sorry I just keep remembering the whole issue, in bits.

[bresh]

I have notiched, that the part of having no corps in a minor no longer seems to be required if you have a garrison in the minors capital you still conquere.


Didnt manual say lapse of war should happen if no corps, i do remember it used to work that way.(Unless MP was at war with the controller that is). ?


Regards
Bresh

[MarshallEllis]

It's a little tricky because technically you do need the corps to prevent the lapse (Unless you are at with with the MP sponsor as you said) BUT the next month if you are eligible to conquer the minor then you could pull out of the minor since the conquer step happens before the lapse! That may be where much of the confusion comes from!

[Jimmer]

The conquer step is comes during the land phase, not the diplomacy phase, which messes with people's minds a lot. The order of events (including a successful defeat or death of the garrison) can be one of the following three scenarios. All three assume the action starts in May, although the last two include a failed break-in:
 
1)  Besiege city (in May, for example)
2)  Break in and defeat garrison
3)  Garrison or not, as desired
4)  Next month's diplo
5)  Next month's land
6)  Conquest occurs
 
or
 
1)  Besiege city (in May, for example)
2)  Fail to break in or fail to defeat garrison
3)  Enemy force forages to death in the city
4)  Next month's diplo (June's)
5)  Next month's land (June's)
6)  Corps stays put (or, another one takes its place)
7)  Following month's diplo (July's)
8)  Following month's land (July's)
9)  Conquest occurs
 
or
 
1)  Besiege city (in May, for example)
2)  Fail to break in or fail to defeat garrison
3)  Enemy force forages to death in the city
4)  Next month's diplo (June's)
5)  Next month's land (June's)
6)  Corps moves, is not replaced
7)  Following month's diplo (July's)
8)  Lapse of war due to no corps counter present.
 
It's not exactly intuitive, but it makes sense once you know the rules precisely:
 
A)  Lapse of war occurs in the diplo phase.
B)  Conquest requires one FULL month's occupation. That means from your own land phase in which you first own the capital through the end of the next land phase. If the capital is denuded of factors on another player's land phase, that does NOT count for your conquest purposes. However, when you hit reinforcement and/or the next land phase, it will appear exactly the same.
 
I use a mental trigger to prevent me accidentally moving out while in the middle of conquering a capital. What I do is ONLY place a factor in the capital city
 
1)  Immediately after I broke in to the city and defeated the garrison, OR
2)  If it is my land phase and I see the capital is empty. In this case, I know NOT to move that corp (or, replace it during the same movement phase).
 
In other words, I only put a loose factor in the capital if it is my own land phase. It's tempting to put one in during reinforcement, but then you can't tell by just looking whether you will conquer it this turn or not.

[delatbabel]

Excellent summary, Jimmer.  I have even seen experienced players make this mistake.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

Excellent summary, Jimmer.  I have even seen experienced players make this mistake.

It used to happen to me a LOT running against the AI. You're clicking so much and so fast it's easy to forget. Especially in the early game, where someone like France might be attacking 5 nations a month.

At my age, I needed some kind of mental trigger to prevent me from losing those countries. This one is (I think) foolproof, if one always follows the rule.

[pzgndr]

Is there a bug with the capital occupation requirement for conquest, or does the rule need clarification?

10.7 Conquest of Minor Countries

Conquests of minor countries are checked for after all Major Power sequences are completed. Control flags are changed to show the conquest of minor countries and their change of control. The control flags are changed only if the capital of the minor country was occupied during the previous month and the conqueror has maintained uninterrupted and unbesieged occupation for the entire current month. A newly conquered minor country is always marked with a conquered control flag.

In a quick test below, Prussia DOWed Mecklenburg in January 1805, failed to defeat the garrison in January but did defeat it in February, and conquest occurred at end of March land phase. But note in the screenshot that Prussia did not place a garrison in the capital, Lubeck, and conquest still occurred. Mecklenburg was still occupied by two corps during March. Does this also satisfy the capital occupation requirement or should the game enforce having to physically garrison the capital in addition to maintaining a corps to prevent lapse of war?

[MarshallEllis]

It's all a matter of the lapse check coming in diplomacy where the conquer step comes right after the combat phase! Technically, you could leave a minor unguarded on its conquering month because the conquer phase will turn it conquered BEFORE the lapse check is run.