Matrix Games Forums

ok as France i am at war with Bremen and Wursburg, have taken their forces out and put a INF or MIL in each and moved on, then they decide they want to be free and tells me my forces have been moved to another controlled area?

sounds like a bug to me... especially since i am in dominant zone and not at war with Prussia who had control over Wursburg and England whom had surrendered to me already had Bremen...

and please make the Spanish AI become better at taking out Portugal, England almost always end up with it, due to AI not invading it...

Are you at war with the controlling Major Power?

Otherwise, you HAVE to leave a corps in the country until it becomes conquered by you else you will have a "Lapse of War" for being at war with the minor without a corps in the country and it will become a free state of the controlling major power.

If you look in the log it will state what happened to them, and this is my guess for the situation.

OD

ahh so thats why heh, does explain alot i must say thanks

In a 1.05.05 game vs Ai, France does not have to leave a corps, only a garrison to hold a minor. It does not matter if France is at war with the controlling MP. One way or the other this is a bug, and has been reported on Mantis.

Here's where I've found the issue arising:
1) you declare war on a minor
2) minor is supported by a major power you are not at war with
3) you move into the minor on your move and besiege the capital
4) you fail to breach and the game continues with the next phasing player's move
5) during the minor's major power move phase, the besieged garrison attempts to forage, fails and gets killed off entirely

At this point, when it gets to your next move phase, you figure you've won, drop off your garrison and move onto the next unwilling victim. The computer, on the other hand, does *not* recognize this as one complete turn of occupation of the minor's capital (i.e. your move to your next move phase) and so your exit from the capital is sufficient to trigger what the computer considers a "lapse of war". This, you're garrison is kicked out and the MP supporting the minor gets a free minor.

The workaround is to occupy the capital throughout your second move phase. I've found this is usually enough to trigger the conquered flag. If you're unsure, remain in the minor's capital. This is one of those things I keep hoping Marshall will address, as it is a rules deviation from the EiA boardgame.

Cheers,

Ted

The workaround is to occupy the capital throughout your second move phase. I've found this is usually enough to trigger the conquered flag.

This is not a workaround, it is a rule:

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.

If you assume you have occupation by leaving only a garrison and not maintaining a corps in the area for that second move phase, then you are going to lose the minor. I have lost minors several times due to carelessness. "Occupation" is not clearly defined in the EiANW rules or the original EiA rules. Perhaps we could clarify this rule for EiANW? And if the corps requirement is not being met for conquest, then as Trax says this is a bug and should be fixed.

What is unclear about this????

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.

What I'm saying is unclear is the inconsistent behavior of the game. You CAN move into a minor you just declared war on, besiege and take the capital in your land phase AND vacate the following land phase, leaving only a garrison in the minors capital AND still conquer it. If what I posted previously occurs (they die off during their turn), you won't conquer it. This is inconsistent.

I agree with you that the best practice to take is to always leave a corps behind until the minor is conquered.

Cheers,

Ted

It certainly sounds like there is a bug. While the rules are clear, 10.7 could be more clear regarding the 4.6.6 corps requirement I referenced. While 4.6.6 mentions that the lapse of war check is made prior to the conquest of a minor country check, this could also be echoed in 10.7.

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

It certainly sounds like there is a bug. While the rules are clear, 10.7 could be more clear regarding the 4.6.6 corps requirement I referenced. While 4.6.6 mentions that the lapse of war check is made prior to the conquest of a minor country check, this could also be echoed in 10.7.

It doesn't need to be echoed because it's already been stated. That would be unnecessarily redundant (assuming any redundancy is necessary, which it's not).

ORIGINAL: Ted1066

What I'm saying is unclear is the inconsistent behavior of the game. You CAN move into a minor you just declared war on, besiege and take the capital in your land phase AND vacate the following land phase, leaving only a garrison in the minors capital AND still conquer it. If what I posted previously occurs (they die off during their turn), you won't conquer it. This is inconsistent.

I agree with you that the best practice to take is to always leave a corps behind until the minor is conquered.

Cheers,

Ted

Well, then it's a bug, wouldn't surprise me. The rules should follow 4.6.6 UNLESS there has been some "special enhancement" made by EiH in this case, I wouldn't know.

6.15, Lapse of War with Minor Countries, in the EiANW rules is not consistent with 4.4.6 in the original EiA rules because it does not include the phrase "during any Peace Step prior to the conquest of a minor country."  This should be clarified.  As it is, it is not clear in EiANW that the Peace Step checks lapse of war prior to conquest checks.  It is obviously doing this correctly, except for the corps check bug, but the issue has come up before with players being confused.  A little more clarity would be helpful.

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

6.15, Lapse of War with Minor Countries, in the EiANW rules is not consistent with 4.4.6 in the original EiA rules because it does not include the phrase "during any Peace Step prior to the conquest of a minor country."  This should be clarified.  As it is, it is not clear in EiANW that the Peace Step checks lapse of war prior to conquest checks.  It is obviously doing this correctly, except for the corps check bug, but the issue has come up before with players being confused.  A little more clarity would be helpful.

If there is something wrong with the EiANW rules then I would probably agree with you.. hell, there's A LOT wrong with the EiANW rules and it starts with this game being based on EiH and not EiA.

This will be changed to help clarify in the manual but this is the same as standard EiA (Get up Neverman LOL!). You MUST have a corps present to prevent the lapse.
 

Yes, this should be reflected in the manual.

HOWEVER, I think they are saying that the lapse of war is currently broken and that you CAN INDEED conquer a minor without having a corps present, right guys?

Nope, it should not be???
 
 

ORIGINAL: Ted1066

What I'm saying is unclear is the inconsistent behavior of the game. You CAN move into a minor you just declared war on, besiege and take the capital in your land phase AND vacate the following land phase, leaving only a garrison in the minors capital AND still conquer it. If what I posted previously occurs (they die off during their turn), you won't conquer it. This is inconsistent.

I agree with you that the best practice to take is to always leave a corps behind until the minor is conquered.

Cheers,

Ted

Marshall, I think this is what Ted is saying per his 2nd sentence.

I cannot see this?
Is there an example?
 

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I cannot see this?
Is there an example?

Ted?

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I cannot see this?
Is there an example?

Ted?

Gimme a bit of time and I will upload an example of this.

Ted