Matrix Games Forums

Not sure if this is a bug strictly speaking but something is a bit odd.

OK, Turkey controls Palestine, Syria, Egypt and Cyrenacia. Also Tripolitania and Algeria are allies.
GB declares war on Triplotania, it becomes a Turkish Free State.
Spain declares war on Turkey, Algeria becomes a Turkish free state.
GB occupies Tripoli in a June turn.
In the June economic turn Turkey declares the Ottoman Empire. GB troops in Tripolitania are automatically ejected/repatriated since GB is not at war with the Ottoman Empire.

Now I can't find anything in the rules (computer or boardgame version) that suggests that Turkey can't declare the Ottoman Empire if one of the component states is occupied but not conquered, so *strictly* speaking the game has worked as per the rules but it seems a bit harsh that GB is deprived of a perfectly legitimate conquest.

Anyone got any thoughts on this ? What do we think *should* happen ?

OMG??? I'm not sure what should happen??? Would the OE inherit the war settings of Turkey?

I am not certain what should happen. I don't think one can be deterministic, at least in historical terms. But I will say that it is not unreasonable historically for elevated diplomatic actions -- in this case the creation of the OE -- to force the evacuation of troops.

Per the game as it stands now, I would accept the Turkish Move. He will have his hands full soon anyway, as some deft maneuvers will be in order for him to keep his gains/portion thereof.

This is that grey area where Turkey gained control of Triplotania, but it shouldn't really be officially considered Turkish unless and until a lapse of war or something gives Turkey full control? This has come up before, and becomes particularly awkward in cases like this. An option in the computer game is to allow the AI to control unattached minors while still in the neutral mode. Otherwise, perhaps consider a new setting to discriminate between different types of "control"?

Hi guys.
Turkey should actually not be able to create the Ottoman Empire. [X(]
Rule 12.8.3 says "...controls any six of these (all possible minor countries that the major power controls must be incorporated)".

DCWhitworth wrote that he controls (not matter how he gain control) Palestine, Syria, Egypt, Cyrenaica, Tripolitania and Algeria.
Ok, these minors are in "any six" but without TUNISIA only Palestine, Syria, Egypt, Cyrenaica, Tripolitania are incorporated.
So he should not be able to create [:-]. This means he's right, it is a bug, but not the way he thought. The bug is, that he is able to create the Ottoman Empire.
To create the Ottoman Empire you need at least Tunisia, Tripolitania, Cyrenaica and Egypt. Then you should control either Palestine and Algeria or Palestine and Syria or Morocco and Algeria. One of these 3 combinations you will need at least to create the Ottoman Empire.
If you control 7 minors including Tunisia, Tripolitania, Cyrenaica and Egypt at least 6 minors will be incorporated and if you control all 8 [:D] i think its clear and you can create the Ottoman Empire.

Greetings from Germany

I see your point but I don't think there is anything in the rules to say all the minors must be contiguous.

They do NOT have to be contiguous. That was never the planned implementation. We never played the board game that way either???
Anybody else?

Nope

The person above misunderstands the use of the term incorporated. What the terms means in the rules he quotes are that you have to add (incorporate) the minor into the OE if you have it.

HOWEVER, I believe that pzngdr is correct. Turkey doesn't really "own", it just has "control". This is just another poor design implementation of the rules and not actually the rules.....

....so, in short, it's either 1) poor design if this was intentional or not thought of or 2) a bug if Marshall didn't intend it this way.

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

The person above misunderstands the use of the term incorporated. What the terms means in the rules he quotes are that you have to add (incorporate) the minor into the OE if you have it.

HOWEVER, I believe that pzngdr is correct. Turkey doesn't really "own", it just has "control". This is just another poor design implementation of the rules and not actually the rules.....

....so, in short, it's either 1) poor design if this was intentional or not thought of or 2) a bug if Marshall didn't intend it this way.

I thought this was implemented EXACTLY as EiA. Tell me where it strays again ???

My point was that if a MP gains random temporary control of a minor then it doesn't really control it until a lapse of war occurs, and then it could be considered fully controlled for things like creating kingdoms, etc. Alternatively, an influenced minor could be considered fully controlled by the influencing MP. The game could differentiate between temporary and full control and resolve the quirks?

Update. Thinking more on this. If "control" counts regardless and this is not likely to get changed in the game, then players need to understand these "quirks" that could happen. This puts more emphasis on minor country diplomacy for players to influence certain minors and/or deny their opponents from gaining influence. Maybe just a game feature for players to deal with?