Matrix Games Forums

Harry,
Thanks so much for your prompt response.

4. Most agree a conquered minor is considered the major power's territory.

So, do conquered minor countries need to be garrisoned?

HR> Yes I think, but is it possible pls to forward the relevant rules to me for a definitive ruling?

I ANSWERED:

Actually, no relevant rules exist and the discussion focused around the glossary terms restated here:

1). CONTROLLED (FRIENDLY) CITY/PORT - A controlled city/port is any vacant city/port in that major power's territory, or any city/port in which that major power has factors, whether besieged or not
2). CONTROLLED MINOR COUNTRY - A minor country which is either a minor free state or conquered minor country, controlled by a major power.
3). CONQUERED MINOR COUNTRY - A minor country controlled by a major power that is not a minor free state. This is indicated by the presence of a conquered control flag and allows the collection of basic tax and manpower by the controlling major power. Conquered minor countries do not have forces nor may they build any.
4). HOME NATION - Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, Spain or Turkey as defined by the major power borders, less any ceded provinces.
5). MAJOR POWER - Home nation plus controlled minor countries plus provinces ceded to that home nation.
6). NEUTRAL MINOR COUNTRIES - All minor countries not under the control of any of the major powers.

The definitions all discuss control which is the sticky point. Some argue that controlling a minor country requires factors in the capitol to control the capitol (second part of definition 1) and hence the country (definitions 2 and 3.). Other say that the definition of controlled city/port allows vacant cities in the major power's territory (first part of definition 1) to be controlled and that the definition of major power (definition 5) implies major power territory. Unfortunately, there is no specific definition of Major Power Territory.

So, if a player at some point controls a minor country, does that minor country become part of the major power's territory and hence needs no garrison to maintain control?

Thanks in advance!
Gary Pickett




Gidday Gary,

No, a controlled minor country needs a garrison to maintain control.

Regards
harry Rowland
ADG

This is a terrible ruling IMHO. I know Harry wrote the original rules and all, but tthere is simply nothing in the rules that actually supports playing this way!

How do you handle it when a minor country beocmes ungarrisonned? What about Free States?

What a mess.

Ditto Soapy's comments.

So Corsica goes neutral without a French garrison???

Imo, if we move in that direction we might as well employ "revolt" rules whereby a minor can revolt if there is insufficient "control" (like, no garrison or a "lesser" garrison).

Ditto the last two posts. I don't think, SNAKE, that you put all the options before him. You used the glossary exclusively and that is a bit misleading (since Harry didn't get the full scope of relevant rules).

First, you have 4.6, where major countries are assigned "control" in the "Political Phase". In 4.6.3.1, you have a discussion of "marking" Major Power control by using one of its "control flags" in in the minor country. No garrison mentioned, and inferentially none would likely be present in this situation.

Second, you have 10.2.1 referring to a "one month's unbesieged occupation of its captial", thereafter stating that "the old control flag is changed for a conquered control flag of the new controlling major power." Combined with the rules under 7.5.4 (Sieges), in every instance where the besieger wins a siege, it is noted that the city is "captured". Then, in 7.7 (The Conquest Step) you have reference to "the control flags are changed only if the capital of the minor country was occupied DURING THE PREVIOUS TURN AND THE CONQUEROR HAS MAINTAINED UNINTERRUPTED AND UNBESIEGED OCCUPATION FOR THE ENTIRE CURRENT TURN.

Once you get that flag to change, it would take another occupation to "conquer" that minor capitol.

Finally, and this seems dispositive, you have this:

10.3.2.2 If there is no garrison, the city is controlled by the major power or neutral monor country which controls the territory in which the city is located -- port cities without garrisons may not use their harbor defenses.

Clearly, the rules anticipate major power conqest control WITHOUT a garrison being maintained. I agree that one Turn of occupation (i.e., garrison) must be completed to attain control initially, but once the flag changes, that country, and all vacant cities within, is controlled by the power who placed the control flag.

Further, rule 10.5.2.1 suggests that a major power in the "Instability Zone" will have its conquered minor countries become neutral UNLESS there is an unbesieged corps of that major power in the minor country. A fortiori, this means that control when NOT in the "Instability Zone" does not require occupation to retain control, and that per 10.3.2.2, "no garrison" of a city means control of a city belongs to the power that controls the territory/country.

In short, I think the pertinent rules needed to make a full, informed ruling were not placed before Harry (since he confessed not having access to them).

This would be crucial b/c it would alter the meaning and content of all of the rules I've cited above.

Rock on with the a fortiori, Cap!

I'm with you 100%.

I'm sorry you find the ruling "bad." I find it "good."

My input as how you handle the issue?

Garrison in the initial set-up, detach as countries are conquered or in the reinforcement phase (garrisons are not required in Home Nation provinces but may be a good idea in some provences).
OR, control changes in the conquest phase at the end of 7.0, the land phase. (Rule 7.7) Minor countires no longer "controlled" would revert to Neutral status.

Also, It's not required in scenarios because of 13.1.3. It's campaign games that will be affected.

Just my spin but how I've always played. It makes sense to me that some "expenditure" should be attached to a major power for chosing conquered over free or to 'maintain' a political influence with a cost. In this case, the cost of one or more factors in the capitol city.

CAPITAINE
I don't agree with all of the arguments for the same reason (seperate from reading ALL the rules).
After all, 10.3.2.2 is a case WHEN 10.3.2.1 does NOT apply and not an overriding rule in of itself (much like all the discussion of 7.3.3.3.2 and the double duty issue.)
I disagree with others like 4.6 or 4.6.1 since they discuss previously neutral countries and not already conquered countries. And so on and so forth...

But rather than argue all over again, I shall pass on your comments and see what is said.

SNAKE