Matrix Games Forums

Notwithstanding what is written in the manual if a Major Power defeats the minor country forces, for example, in April, in May he can move away with all his corps leaving in the minor's capital only a garrison and at the end of the land phase of May the minor country is conquered.

Is it right?

I think he can move the corp out in may but not in april....
 
In essence the peace step is in the diplomatic phase and if you have no corps in the minor during the peace step the war Lapses. If you had control over the minors capital for a whole turn(month) the minor will surrender before the next peace step and therefore you could move the corp out. 
 
Im not 100% sure when the program resolves conquest is it in the attackers phase or is it in the controlers phase? This can have impact on if the minor is conquered or not. If the minor in any way can manage to beseige the garrisson before the conquest step and the corp/s has left the minor the requirements for conquest would not be filled and the war would Lapse.
 
 
 
 

Conquest happens - as far as I can tell - on NEITHER the attacker or the controller's phase (unless they are the last player).
It is after ALL land/landcombat is done - essentially as an "end of turn" (except for econ) phase.

Thats logical and also how the boardgame works

Thank you

zaq

You've been playing them both wrong :

Uhm...no, I haven't.

Lapse is checked during the PEACE step (part of diplomacy phase - right at the START of May.

Conquest doesn't occur until the end of the Land movement phase (near the end of May)

You've missed the point.

Yes, conquest doesn't occur till the end of the turn. BUT, the point where one checks for lapse of war occurs BEFORE any land movement. Once the check for lapse comes and goes the Corp can leave and the minor is still conquered. One doesn't check for lapse through out the turn...just during the peace step.

It is true, but as I said if the minor or anyone else you are at war with besieges your garrisson the conquest will fail and the war lapse so leaving with your corp/s is not always free of risk.

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

(a) France walking in to Wurzburg when it is controlled by GB but occupied by Prussia, when Prussia and France are not at war but GB and France are. This is not a bug, if France walks in then that's too bad, the Prussian garrison surrenders to France (and is immediately returned the next phase), and France then occupies Wurzburg. There is no combat between the Prussian garrison and the French corps moving in, because Prussia and France are not at war. Moral of the story: Be careful which minors you support, and be even more careful which minors you declare war on (if someone at war with France is likely to gain control, for example).

a) is incorrect. There will be no combat. Both powers will have factors in the capital. Control will be determined by random roll, with modifiers going to the country with the most factors in the capital. NOTE: This is in the manual, but hard to find.

No, I don't think so because the French can't detach a garrison into the capital.

any non-artillery, non-feudal or non-insurrection corps may detach factors as garrisons at, or absorb army factors from, depots and/or unbesieged friendly or vacant cities

(from the rules)

Because the city isn't empty, and isn't friendly (Wurzburg is an enemy city until conquered by Prussia), France can't put a garrison into the city. The only time that a die roll is used to determine control is this:

10.3.2.1: If a city has a garrison consisting of army factors from more than one major power, control is with the major power formally controlling the province or minor country. If no army factors of the major power formally controlling the province are present, control for combat purposes can be decided by mutual agreement among the players with army factors present or, if agreement is impossible, by competitive die rolls with no modifiers.

However that only occurs when two allies have both posted garrisons to a third party neutral city and neither of them can decide who the actual city controller is, for the purposes of firing the port guns, etc. In this case France and Prussia aren't allies, and so France can't drop garrison factors into a Prussian controlled city. What happens instead is that France besieges the city which is enemy controlled (Wurzburg), the neutral Prussian garrison surrenders, and then France immediately wins the battle against the non-existent Wurzburger enemy forces and occupies the city. What should happen then is that France waits another month to gain conquest.

Interesting discussions, but methinks it's time for Marshall or Richard to weigh in with what exactly this game is doing and why.  If there's a rule not being implemented "correctly", then it should be fixed.  And then clarify the EiANW rules as needed.
 
At one point above I thought I understood things.  Now it's not so clear again. 

ORIGINAL: Cunctator

Notwithstanding what is written in the manual if a Major Power defeats the minor country forces, for example, in April, in May he can move away with all his corps leaving in the minor's capital only a garrison and at the end of the land phase of May the minor country is conquered.

Is it right?

Correct.

Provided he doesn't vacate the capital completely and return to add a factor in the same May turn (at least, according to the rules; I'm not sure what happens if one actually tries this).

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

Conquest happens - as far as I can tell - on NEITHER the attacker or the controller's phase (unless they are the last player).
It is after ALL land/landcombat is done - essentially as an "end of turn" (except for econ) phase.

Correct.

As a side note:

I think I have determined that, at least in PBEM games, the conquest is part of the last major power's land combat phase (or, land movement if there is no combat for that player). Last turn, in our game, I loaded only Spain's movement stuff (he goes right after I do), because I didn't have anybody else's turn. The minors had indeed changed hands at that point, but they had not changed hands prior to my loading of the Spain's land movement.

In other words, the actual changing of hands gets stored in the land movement or land combat pbm file for the last person to move in the land phase (France or Spain, depending on when France decided to move).

Now that I'm curious about this question, I'm going to watch it more carefully for the next turn or two.

ORIGINAL: zaquex

Thats logical and also how the boardgame works

Thank you

zaq

The difference in the boardgame was that the conquest step and the lapse of war steps were in the same phase (diplomacy), in different steps of that phase:

3.0 SEQUENCE OF PLAY OF THE GAME
A "Turn" in EMPIRES IN ARMS represents one month of real time. Each Turn consists of a number of "phases" which may be further broken down into "steps. " Each phase or step is completed by all players before going to the next. Any phases or steps that do not apply during a Turn can be skipped. The sequence of a Turn (also given on the Game Card) is as follows:

[ 3.1 ] * THE POLITICAL PHASE: See 4.0. Players interact to achieve the game's political goals. This phase is performed in steps, as follows:

A. The Diplomacy Step.
B. The Declarations of War Step.
C. The Call to Allies Step. The order of calling is determined by competitive die rolls.
D. The Peace Step. Peace term selection order is determined by the order the major powers went to war.
E. The Creating Alliances Step.
F. The Minor Country Control Step. Setup in the order: France, Russia, Turkey, Austria, Prussia, Great Britain, Spain.
G. The Breaking Alliances Step.
H. The Free State Declaration Step.
I. The Declaration of Combined Movement Step.

On the above index, the letters correspond to numbered rulebook items in step 4 (the political phase). This uses the boardgame rule ordering numbers.

Control is gained in step 4.6 (3.1.F in the index above, the minor country control step). However, lapse of war occurs in 4.4 (3.1.D in the index above, the peace step). Even though lapse of war is defined under 4.6.6, the effects occur during the Peace Step (4.4).

[ 4.4 ] THE PEACE STEP: Peace may be made only at this time. A lapse of war with a minor country may also occur during this step (see 4.6.6). Peace must be in one of the following forms.

4.6.6 LAPSE OF WAR WITH MINOR COUNTRIES: If, during any Peace Step prior to the conquest of a minor country, any invading major power has no corps within that minor country, then that major power is considered to be no longer at war with the minor country and must be at war with the major power controlling it before he can attack it again. Any garrisons, cossacks and/or freikorps are repatriated as per 4.4.6.2. NOTE: For multi-districtminor countries (see 10.4), this applies if a secondary district has been conquered and there are no invading major power corps within the rest of that minor country.

ORIGINAL: zaquex

It is true, but as I said if the minor or anyone else you are at war with besieges your garrisson the conquest will fail and the war lapse so leaving with your corp/s is not always free of risk.

Excellent point. IF you are at war with a third power, and that third power besieges the garrison, you will not gain control. Since you no longer have corps present, the war will lapse.

However, this occurs in one of only two ways: If the third power has access, or if the third power is at war with the minor's controlling nation.

ORIGINAL: delatbabel
No, I don't think so because the French can't detach a garrison into the capital.

any non-artillery, non-feudal or non-insurrection corps may detach factors as garrisons at, or absorb army factors from, depots and/or unbesieged friendly or vacant cities

(from the rules)

Because the city isn't empty, and isn't friendly (Wurzburg is an enemy city until conquered by Prussia), France can't put a garrison into the city. The only time that a die roll is used to determine control is this:

It happens nearly every turn, so, yes, I'm right.

"Vacant" must not really mean "empty" here. It means "not full", as in "he had a vacant expression on his face".

ORIGINAL: delatbabel
Because the city isn't empty, and isn't friendly (Wurzburg is an enemy city until conquered by Prussia), France can't put a garrison into the city. The only time that a die roll is used to determine control is this:

10.3.2.1: If a city has a garrison consisting of army factors from more than one major power, control is with the major power formally controlling the province or minor country. If no army factors of the major power formally controlling the province are present, control for combat purposes can be decided by mutual agreement among the players with army factors present or, if agreement is impossible, by competitive die rolls with no modifiers.

However that only occurs when two allies have both posted garrisons to a third party neutral city and neither of them can decide who the actual city controller is, for the purposes of firing the port guns, etc. In this case France and Prussia aren't allies, and so France can't drop garrison factors into a Prussian controlled city. What happens instead is that France besieges the city which is enemy controlled (Wurzburg), the neutral Prussian garrison surrenders, and then France immediately wins the battle against the non-existent Wurzburger enemy forces and occupies the city. What should happen then is that France waits another month to gain conquest.

You are translating the word "vacant" as "empty". While this is one of the possible meanings of the word, it is not the only one. And, in fact, your very example proves this is not the right definition:

If it had to be empty, how did the second power get factors into the city, not having control established previously?

This is an area where I think the rules of the original game is inconclusive - it all comes down to the definition of friendly. I would personaly lean towards saying that in this specific context "friendly" means not hostile, as in not at war with (which is different from the interpretation i would do in some other contexts) and this means that if there is unused capacity in the city it can be garrisoned as long as the city is controlled by a none hostile garrison and the city is owned by someone you are at war with.
 
If you take it a bit further and reason about it it might be logical if the garrison(or owner of the garrison) could decide who to let in to the city. This is however not suitable for the PBEM game at least not at this point as it would require changes to the GUI to be able to set who is allowed or not. Concidering that the power outside the city always can force a neutral garrison to surrender it would be alot of work for no real benefit.
 
I did read the rules about minors quite carefully yesterday and I lean more and more towards that the normaly accepted way how to interpret the rules of minors you accept control over is not what the designers intended. We should really have Marshall ask Harry the question as its quite important for the dynamics of the game.

To add to that:
 
If the alternative interpretation of the minor control rules was correct France wouldnt be allowed to garrison, beseige or conquer the city at all.

The difference in the boardgame was that the conquest step and the lapse of war steps were in the same phase (diplomacy), in different steps of that phase:

No they weren't..."minor country control" is not the same as "conquest".

I don't have the rules in front of me but I am prety sure the "conquest" step was at the end of the turn...after all land movement and combat.

Conquest step is the last step of the land phase in EiA and its also the only step of the land phase that is done simultanously by all players.

Bump. I'd still like to know if there is a bug(s) that needs to be reported and fixed, or if this is how EiANW is intended to work. Marshall or Richard, any word?

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Would the presence of French corps moving into Wurzburg constitute an interruption and deny me a conquest, giving it to France instead?? [:-]

No, that would not constitute an interruption. Worse, I ran a test and was able to confirm that the program was indeed allowing France to take control at the last minute and steal the conquest from Prussia. Not the first time dealing with this bug.

Man, this thread was a good read. [:)]

Thanks

Richard