Matrix Games Forums

OK, here's the situation. I'm Prussia, not at war with anybody. In April 1807 I send in my Bavarian allies to take Stuttgart and my Saxon allies to take Wurzburg. France gets control of Wurttemburg (Stuttgart) and Great Britain gets control of Wurzburg. I win my battles and garrison the cities. FWIW, France had corps in Wurttemburg when I attacked but they were ignored. Wurzburg was open.

In May I withdraw my Bavarians and Saxons leaving only the garrisons. Screenshot below shows situation in June, with an insert for April events. At end of Land Phase in May, Wurttemburg falls to Prussia as expected. But Wurzburg falls to France?

10.7, Conquest of Minor Countries, states "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." My Saxon garrison in Wurzburg should have satisfied this condition.

However, France is at war with Great Britain and I suppose Great Britain technically still had control of Wurzburg. Would the presence of French corps moving into Wurzburg constitute an interruption and deny me a conquest, giving it to France instead?? [:-]

France was at war with GB, so by putting factors in her capital (or, field area), she had a chance to take control.
 
I found a way to "cheat" in this area, too: The first person to defeat the forces in the capital can split off a bunch of factors. If he fills the city completely, the other guy can't put any factors in the city, so that first guy wins the country.
 
However, I've only tested this twice, so I don't know if it's absolute (it worked both times, though).

Any garrison occupying a city attackad/besieged by a none hostile (not at war with the garrisson) is according to EiA immidiatly forced to surrender and the surrendering forces are immidiatly exchanged and becomes available in the next reinforcement phase. This is to ensure that "neutral" garrissons isn't used as an exploit.

There is also a question if France in this case should be concidered at war with Wurzburg at all, unless GB is supporting. Its actually one tricky question and have been the focus of many discussions among the players and is closly linked to the discussion if neutral minor states under a majors control should revert back to neutral if war lapses. The "common" interpretation of retained control is open to abuse and can be exploited.

France is always at war with GB (unless there's been a surrender), so France would also be at war with Wurzburg. Thus, both France and Prussia could conceivably conquer it.

I know thats the "common" view, but its not a flawless one. The most common argument is that the minor if not supported is only under a players control to run its defence, much like an UMP under the UMP rules so why should a major benefit from this without paying PP for it. House rules that stop this alltogether or require a DOW against the attacking power much like with multiple DOWS against the same minor to allow conquest by a third party is rather common.
 
Just like the easiest way to create the Ottoman empire is to influence the african states and have an ally declare war on them. I dont think this is in the spirit of the game but the "commonly" used rules allows it.

So, I am to understand this situation is technically not a bug but a feature?? I don't like it; it doesn't make sense. [&:]

Someone brought up the suggestion previously that the AI should control a minor neutral until such time that the declaring major fails to maintain a unit in the minor's territory. Then the controlling major that won the die roll should assume full control. If a minor is already influenced or allied with another major, then I can see them getting immediate full control and perhaps the situation I had would make more sense.

We do have the AI in EiANW that can assume initial administrative control of a neutral un-influenced minor. Something needs to be reconsidered. In a historical realism sense, there's no way France could step in and snatch a clean Prussian conquest without such an act requiring a state of war to exist. Great Britain should have had nothing to do with it.

It would be a good idea to ask your ally (GB) to NOT roll for control of the germanic states.
 
Yes, one could create a "house rule" that you can only attack if you are at war with the power that declared against that minor, but that's NOT how the rules are stated.

but that's NOT how the rules are stated

Well, according to the stated rule 10.7 in EiANW, I don't see how France could have occupied the capital Prussia had garrisoned without a DOW, and then maintained occupation for a month to get the control flag changed. If the old EiA rules are in effect, or maybe the EiH rules regarding minor neutral countries, then at minimum 10.7 should be clarified.

It would be a good idea to ask your ally (GB) to NOT roll for control of the germanic states.

For AI-controlled allies, there should be a way to make a request like this. Or is there already? I was about to suggest a way to see what your allies have checked, but that would take away a lot of intrigue and uncertainty in the game. In the situation I presented, Prussia is not actually allied with Great Britain at this time, due to the 12-month restriction on renewing an alliance. Either which way, and certainly for future AI enhancements, there should be ways of making various requests or demands that human players can normally make.

For Marshall: could we get a read on all this? Is the game doing what it is supposed to be doing in this situation?? I for one would like to know better how to handle something like this in the future. It was damn annoying to know I had taken and garrisoned Wurzburg, and then turn around to discover the sneaky French had taken over. [:@]

You should have lost both. A garrison does not let you conquer a minor controlled by a major that is neutral to you, you need to keep a CORPS there for a complete month (a corps needed to be sitting in each area at the END of May if you went in in April). Garrisons only conquer areas controlled by nations you are at war with.

I think there are two issues here, and I have seen it in games against the AI and it's hard to reproduce and harder to get a save file for.

(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).

(b) France gained conquest of Wurzburg immediately after walking in. This is a bug. France clearly moved in to Wurzburg in May, and therefore should manage to conquer Wurzburg only at the end of June, not at the end of May as the game log shows. This is despite the fact that a battle occurred in April which destroyed the Wurzburg garrison, because at the end of April Wurzburg was then occupied by enemy Prussian forces and not enemy French forces.

In terms of (a) -- suck it up, sorry, you did a dumn thing by declaring war on Wurzburg. As Jimmer said: It would be a good idea to ask your ally (GB) to NOT roll for control of the germanic states.

In terms of (b) if you can manage a save file report it in the bug reporting thread.

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).

OK, there are some good lessons learned here. I just wanted to be sure what those lessons are! Maybe others can benefit as well.

I've had some successes leaving a garrison behind and conquering minors, so maybe that's another bug to check out.

As Jimmer said: It would be a good idea to ask your ally (GB) to NOT roll for control of the germanic states.

And we need a way to make these requests of AI-controlled MPs.

ORIGINAL: Murat

You should have lost both. A garrison does not let you conquer a minor controlled by a major that is neutral to you, you need to keep a CORPS there for a complete month (a corps needed to be sitting in each area at the END of May if you went in in April). Garrisons only conquer areas controlled by nations you are at war with.

hmmm??

from Game Manual

13.5.1 Minor Country Capitals
A minor country capital does not need to be occupied (garrisoned) in order to establish control of the city, as long as the city area contains a friendly corps.
If there is no city garrison or a friendly corps in the city area, the minor power’s city is controlled by the nation that controls the territory in which the city is located.

Saying something is not necessary and then providing an acceptable alternative, is not at all the same thing as saying garrisons are not an acceptable way of establishing control. The rule as written certainly says either a garrison or a corp is acceptable....is this not actually the way the game plays it out in reality?

Trin

The problem with using only a garrison in a minor that is controlled by a NEUTRAL mp
is that "LAPSE OF WAR"  occurs BEFORE you conquor the minor.  To prevent lapse of
war; you need a corp.  A garrison is sufficient to conquor a minor from a mp you are
at war with because no lapse will occur in that case.

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

The problem with using only a garrison in a minor that is controlled by a NEUTRAL mp
is that "LAPSE OF WAR"  occurs BEFORE you conquor the minor.  To prevent lapse of
war; you need a corp.

Not true...if war is declared in April and the capital is taken in April then all there needs to be is a garrison and/or a Corp in the minor country at the start of May. The corp could leave the minor during May, if it leaves a garrison, and the conquest would be complete at the end of May.

This is how I have always played EiA boardgame and my understand of the rules from both the boardgame and the PCgame.

ORIGINAL: Tater

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

The problem with using only a garrison in a minor that is controlled by a NEUTRAL mp
is that "LAPSE OF WAR"  occurs BEFORE you conquor the minor.  To prevent lapse of
war; you need a corp.

Not true...if war is declared in April and the capital is taken in April then all there needs to be is a garrison and/or a Corp in the minor country at the start of May. The corp could leave the minor during May, if it leaves a garrison, and the conquest would be complete at the end of May.

This is how I have always played EiA boardgame and my understand of the rules from both the boardgame and the PCgame.

You've been playing them both wrong :

EIANW :

6.15 Lapse of War with Minor Countries
If a major power has no corps within a minor country they have declared war on, 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 (Exception: The program will not recognize a lapse of war if the minor country has forces inside of the enemy major power’s territory). Any garrisons, Cossacks, or freikorps are repatriated. For multi-district minor countries, this applies if a secondary district has been conquered and there are no invading major power corps within the rest of that minor country.

EIA :

4.6.6 Lapse of war with Minor Countries
If, during any Peace Step prior to the conquest of a minor country any invading majjor 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-district minor countries (see 10.4), this applies if a secondary district has been conquored
and there are no invading major power corps within the rest of that minor country.


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)

ORIGINAL: Murat

You should have lost both. A garrison does not let you conquer a minor controlled by a major that is neutral to you, you need to keep a CORPS there for a complete month (a corps needed to be sitting in each area at the END of May if you went in in April). Garrisons only conquer areas controlled by nations you are at war with.

This is not technically correct. Actually, any factors can cause the change of control. But, if one does not have a corps counter in the nation during a diplomacy phase, there is a lapse of war.

This came up several weeks ago, when people noticed they were losing minors after they left them. It usually turns out that it was the other guy foraging that opened the city up, not combat.

There are two scenarios in question (these assume Prussia at war with X, with no other major powers involved in any way):

First, Prussia besieges the city in April, breaks in, and wins. This actual breakin occurs at the end of the land phase (land combat, to be specific), so no further movement is possible (other than in and out of the city).

If Prussia leaves the country, but leaves a factor in the capital, Prussia will gain control at the end of May. Prussia does not have a lapse of war, because lapses only occur during the diplo phase. Only the May diplo phase is in question, and Prussia had a corps in the nation during May's diplo phase. Actual change of control occurs after the land phase (in May, in this example).

Second example: Same situation, except Prussia fails to break in April. If for any reason, Prussia leaves X during May, such that no corps counter is in the nation, war will lapse regardless of whether Prussia left a factor in the capital or not. Now, you say, how could Prussia leave a factor, when he didn't win the combat. The answer is foraging. If the garrison died, then it would APPEAR to Prussia that he had control for the whole month. In fact, he would not have, because he would not have controlled it between his movement and the controller of X's movement. This trips up everybody I've talked to once or twice.

In the second example, the month of conquest is shifted to June, not May (due to not having control for ALL of the month).

By the way, there are other end-cases as well, but they are more straightforward. For example, if Prussia leaves the capital garrisoned, but move the corps to another area in the same minor nation.

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

I think there are two issues here, and I have seen it in games against the AI and it's hard to reproduce and harder to get a save file for.

(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).

(b) France gained conquest of Wurzburg immediately after walking in. This is a bug. France clearly moved in to Wurzburg in May, and therefore should manage to conquer Wurzburg only at the end of June, not at the end of May as the game log shows. This is despite the fact that a battle occurred in April which destroyed the Wurzburg garrison, because at the end of April Wurzburg was then occupied by enemy Prussian forces and not enemy French forces.

In terms of (a) -- suck it up, sorry, you did a dumn thing by declaring war on Wurzburg. As Jimmer said: It would be a good idea to ask your ally (GB) to NOT roll for control of the germanic states.

In terms of (b) if you can manage a save file report it in the bug reporting thread.

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.

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

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).

OK, there are some good lessons learned here. I just wanted to be sure what those lessons are! Maybe others can benefit as well.

I've had some successes leaving a garrison behind and conquering minors, so maybe that's another bug to check out.

As Jimmer said: It would be a good idea to ask your ally (GB) to NOT roll for control of the germanic states.

And we need a way to make these requests of AI-controlled MPs.

Against AI's, I just beat up whoever it was that tried to take it.

But, check out my other post. The two scenarios I put forth are hopefully clear, and they explain exactly why it seems inconsistent.

Actually, it is 100% consistent, but it doesn't APPEAR consistent. What has to be checked is if the attacking player had control of the capital for ONE COMPLETE MONTH. That means from the battle timeframe through the same phase in the next month. If someone in-between those events foraged the garrison to death, then it would APPEAR, at the beginning of movement, that control was already owned, and it just needs a factor.

What I do to prevent "not knowing" is this: When I actually am in the city for the first time DURING LAND MOVEMENT, I drop one factor in the city, and leave my corps right there. I resist the urge to drop a factor and move the corps.

So, if there's already a factor present, then that means I must have left it the previous month, so it's safe to leave now. If there is no factor, I MUST stay, or lapse may occur (will occur, unless my corps happens to stay in the same minor's territory).

It's tricky, but it always works now that I've made it a mental "rule" for myself.

ORIGINAL: Tater
Not true...if war is declared in April and the capital is taken in April then all there needs to be is a garrison and/or a Corp in the minor country at the start of May. The corp could leave the minor during May, if it leaves a garrison, and the conquest would be complete at the end of May.

This is how I have always played EiA boardgame and my understand of the rules from both the boardgame and the PCgame.

Correct.

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

ORIGINAL: Tater

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

The problem with using only a garrison in a minor that is controlled by a NEUTRAL mp
is that "LAPSE OF WAR"  occurs BEFORE you conquor the minor.  To prevent lapse of
war; you need a corp.

Not true...if war is declared in April and the capital is taken in April then all there needs to be is a garrison and/or a Corp in the minor country at the start of May. The corp could leave the minor during May, if it leaves a garrison, and the conquest would be complete at the end of May.

This is how I have always played EiA boardgame and my understand of the rules from both the boardgame and the PCgame.

You've been playing them both wrong :

EIANW :

6.15 Lapse of War with Minor Countries
If a major power has no corps within a minor country they have declared war on, 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 (Exception: The program will not recognize a lapse of war if the minor country has forces inside of the enemy major power’s territory). Any garrisons, Cossacks, or freikorps are repatriated. For multi-district minor countries, this applies if a secondary district has been conquered and there are no invading major power corps within the rest of that minor country.

EIA :

4.6.6 Lapse of war with Minor Countries
If, during any Peace Step prior to the conquest of a minor country any invading majjor 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-district minor countries (see 10.4), this applies if a secondary district has been conquored
and there are no invading major power corps within the rest of that minor country.


Lapse is checked during the PEACE step (part of diplomacy phase - right at the START of May.
There MUST be a corp in the minor at this point not just a garrison.

Conquest doesn't occur until the end of the Land movement phase (near the end of May) & if you didn't
have the corp there at the start of May; your war has already lapsed at this point.

You may be able to remove the corp during May movement & not have the war lapse.

The problem is that the "peace step" and rule 6.15 of EiANW both occur at a fixed point in the turn. Any time between then and the control step when there is no corps counter would mean a lapse of war. However, in EiANW, there's nearly the whole turn between those steps (in EiA, both occurred in the diplo phase). Most importantly, the land movement phase comes between the lapse check and the control check. So, you can indeed leave the minor on the last turn, provided you actually had control for the whole month.