7.7 Conquest Step: 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.
Ok, that's the rule, here's what happens:
Russia invaded Denmark last turn, landing a Corps with 10 Inf on Copenhagen without any opposition. This turn, the French, determined to not let Denmark fall into the Russian hands, moved a Corps into the Copenhagen province, where after a pitched field battle with the Russian Corps, it lost and was destroyed due to not being able to retreat.
During the Conquest Step the Russian claims that he has fulfilled the conditions and can now place his control flag, since the French forces never actually besieged Copehagen (being defeated in a field battle in the province).
However, the French player argues that the Russian player has not maintained "uninterrupted" occupation, since his Corps was not actually occupying the city at the moment it was fighting the field battle outside. The French player points out that if the Russian player detatched even 1 Inf and left that behind "occupying" the city, then the occupation would have been uninterrupted, but since he brought his entire Corps into the battle, he has failed to meet the conquest requirements.
The Russian player counters that the French is splitting hairs, since "uninterrupted" means that the city of Copenhagen was not actually occupied by anyone else during that time.
Gentlemen, does Denmark belong to the Russians?
Conquering a Minor Country question
Moderator: MOD_EIA
Yes... and no.
a) If you play they way it is apparently intended, the Russian player would have had to keep his entire corps inside Copenhagen (thus not fighting a field battle and bieng besieged) OR detach a garrison to control Copenhagen. In this case I would rule in favour of the French, becuase if the Russians fought a field battle and there is no detached garrison then they clearly are no controlling Copenhagen at all.
b) Since you are apparently allowing corps to move "in" and "out" of cities at will without tracking specific state, I assume you are basically allowing a corps to control the city in it's area without being it being "inside". In this case I would rule in favour of the Russian player for obvious reasons (the corps has maintained continual control of the city).
Method (a) has been ruled by the game designer as "correct"; our group (and I know others do to) play method (b) becuase it is easier and less confusing (for us
)
a) If you play they way it is apparently intended, the Russian player would have had to keep his entire corps inside Copenhagen (thus not fighting a field battle and bieng besieged) OR detach a garrison to control Copenhagen. In this case I would rule in favour of the French, becuase if the Russians fought a field battle and there is no detached garrison then they clearly are no controlling Copenhagen at all.
b) Since you are apparently allowing corps to move "in" and "out" of cities at will without tracking specific state, I assume you are basically allowing a corps to control the city in it's area without being it being "inside". In this case I would rule in favour of the Russian player for obvious reasons (the corps has maintained continual control of the city).
Method (a) has been ruled by the game designer as "correct"; our group (and I know others do to) play method (b) becuase it is easier and less confusing (for us
)My attempt,
You said the 10 Russian infantry "landed" in Copenhagen so I assume you mean from a debarkation of Russian fleets in the port (The only way you could 'debark' into the city/port)
I also assume you declared war on Denmark since 10.3.1.1 would otherwise apply and you couldn't enter/control the city.
I also assume whoever got control of Denmark's forces when you declared war (4.6) was STUPID and didn't garrison or put any forces in his capitol (Love to play this guy in a game!!!)
If all this is true,
1). If so, (And all movement is exhausted so the 10I had to remain in Copenhagen) the Russian was IN the city before the French arrived and the only way a battle could be fought was by Seige/assault. (you don't get to move out of the city to meet the French see 7.3.7.1)
SO after the battle, the Russians don't get control because they were beseiged.
2). IF, you mean the Russians landed in the province CONTAINING the city (from the sea area or blockade box), (AGAIN-All movement exhausted) then the Russian NEVER occupied/controlled the capitol city REGARDLESS of the French move, so NO the Russian cannot claim control.
[As a side note, Denmark could still be neutral in this case per 10.3.1.1. To carry it on - When France enters (also without a DOW on Denmark) the Russians and French fight a field battle in neutral Denmark! OR the Russian could withdraw into Copenhagen after first declaring war on Denmark and hoping the same stupid player under 4.6 doesn't garrison the capitol!!! OR the French player doesn't get control - talk about screwed now.....)]
IF, the Russian corps MOVED into the area from another area, then he had two choices: (assume war declared and the same stupid player doesn't garrison......)
Moved the corps into the city and result #1 from above will STILL occur.
OR the corps stayed in the area and result #2 above occurs.
OR the corps stays in the area AND detaches at least one factor into the city, THEN and only then (If the RUssian wins the field battle) can he claim control per 7.7
But let's be realistic, To get into the city will require a DOW on Denmark and no one will leave it 'open.'
This possibility makes more sense against a country without forces in which case 1 or 2 apply from debarkation and the city will not be controlled.
Only when the Russian corps can 'move' so as to detach into the city, will the city be controlled. If you move the corps in, you could always get seiged so one must leave a corps "in the field" and "factors" in the city to ensure conquest.
Whew,
IMHO,
SNAKE
SOAPY, are you STILL going to play double duty?!
You said the 10 Russian infantry "landed" in Copenhagen so I assume you mean from a debarkation of Russian fleets in the port (The only way you could 'debark' into the city/port)
I also assume you declared war on Denmark since 10.3.1.1 would otherwise apply and you couldn't enter/control the city.
I also assume whoever got control of Denmark's forces when you declared war (4.6) was STUPID and didn't garrison or put any forces in his capitol (Love to play this guy in a game!!!)
If all this is true,
1). If so, (And all movement is exhausted so the 10I had to remain in Copenhagen) the Russian was IN the city before the French arrived and the only way a battle could be fought was by Seige/assault. (you don't get to move out of the city to meet the French see 7.3.7.1)
SO after the battle, the Russians don't get control because they were beseiged.
2). IF, you mean the Russians landed in the province CONTAINING the city (from the sea area or blockade box), (AGAIN-All movement exhausted) then the Russian NEVER occupied/controlled the capitol city REGARDLESS of the French move, so NO the Russian cannot claim control.
[As a side note, Denmark could still be neutral in this case per 10.3.1.1. To carry it on - When France enters (also without a DOW on Denmark) the Russians and French fight a field battle in neutral Denmark! OR the Russian could withdraw into Copenhagen after first declaring war on Denmark and hoping the same stupid player under 4.6 doesn't garrison the capitol!!! OR the French player doesn't get control - talk about screwed now.....)]
IF, the Russian corps MOVED into the area from another area, then he had two choices: (assume war declared and the same stupid player doesn't garrison......)
Moved the corps into the city and result #1 from above will STILL occur.
OR the corps stayed in the area and result #2 above occurs.
OR the corps stays in the area AND detaches at least one factor into the city, THEN and only then (If the RUssian wins the field battle) can he claim control per 7.7
But let's be realistic, To get into the city will require a DOW on Denmark and no one will leave it 'open.'
This possibility makes more sense against a country without forces in which case 1 or 2 apply from debarkation and the city will not be controlled.
Only when the Russian corps can 'move' so as to detach into the city, will the city be controlled. If you move the corps in, you could always get seiged so one must leave a corps "in the field" and "factors" in the city to ensure conquest.
Whew,
IMHO,
SNAKE
SOAPY, are you STILL going to play double duty?!
First, my guess is that "stupid player in 4.6" is probably Britain hwo didn't deploy as a favour to their good buddies Russians.
Second, the way I came to read the rules, French player interpretation is correct. Russians didn't occupy the capitol for a month without being besieged, because they didn't detach the garrison. If they did then it would fall because they threw the Frenchies out.
Second, the way I came to read the rules, French player interpretation is correct. Russians didn't occupy the capitol for a month without being besieged, because they didn't detach the garrison. If they did then it would fall because they threw the Frenchies out.
-
carnifex
- Posts: 1294
- Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2002 8:47 pm
- Location: Latitude 40° 48' 43N Longtitude 74° 7' 29W
aah, thanks for the clarifications.
I see where my problem was. We were indeed playing loosely with the city rules. It was our practice to allow simultanous occupation of both the area and the city within if the area was uncontested. When an enemy moved into such an area, we would ask "are you in the city or outside?" and at that point the garrisoning player had a choice of keeping his entire force inside the city(if it would fit), or fighting a field battle outside (we would allow splitting off garrison factors at that time, a clear violation of 7.3.3).
This method made the crowded map easier to handle, and generally worked in most cases, until the Denmark issue came up.
If we were playing strictly by the rules, I see that the Russian would not have taken Denmark (that turn anyway). The Russian Corps had not split off any garrison factors and if (A) he was in the city, then a Siege would have happened, and regardless of the result the Russian would not have maintained "unbesieged" occupation, or if (B) the Russian was all outside the city then he would not actually be maintaining "uninterrupted" occupation (or any occupation for that matter).
I see where my problem was. We were indeed playing loosely with the city rules. It was our practice to allow simultanous occupation of both the area and the city within if the area was uncontested. When an enemy moved into such an area, we would ask "are you in the city or outside?" and at that point the garrisoning player had a choice of keeping his entire force inside the city(if it would fit), or fighting a field battle outside (we would allow splitting off garrison factors at that time, a clear violation of 7.3.3).
This method made the crowded map easier to handle, and generally worked in most cases, until the Denmark issue came up.
If we were playing strictly by the rules, I see that the Russian would not have taken Denmark (that turn anyway). The Russian Corps had not split off any garrison factors and if (A) he was in the city, then a Siege would have happened, and regardless of the result the Russian would not have maintained "unbesieged" occupation, or if (B) the Russian was all outside the city then he would not actually be maintaining "uninterrupted" occupation (or any occupation for that matter).
CARNIFEX,
Yes, the "double duty" play is what you're describing, which has been shot down by the developer after a LONG DISCUSSION among many players. See the previous threads on it if you dare! LOL!
I imagine that some may still try to offer it as a house rule. It 'solves' some problems of crowding and 'ease of play' but then creates many other problems like the "Denmark question" you have to deal with.
SNAKE
Yes, the "double duty" play is what you're describing, which has been shot down by the developer after a LONG DISCUSSION among many players. See the previous threads on it if you dare! LOL!
I imagine that some may still try to offer it as a house rule. It 'solves' some problems of crowding and 'ease of play' but then creates many other problems like the "Denmark question" you have to deal with.
SNAKE
Well it doesn't really create a problem there either if you assume the corps always controls the city...
If they are playing that a corps in the area also controls the city without detaching garrison (double duty) then the Russian player is correct and there is no possibility of debate, without making a mockery of commonsense.
If they are playing that a corps in the area also controls the city without detaching garrison (double duty) then the Russian player is correct and there is no possibility of debate, without making a mockery of commonsense.
Yes, I think the big battle we just fought decided this. The error was in believing that the Russians were both "in the city" AND the "field" at the time the French had their turn (or else had some kind of "movement option" when the French moved in). However, the Russians have no option during the French turn to move out of a city (they may only "retire" if in the field; not "come out").
So, your situation couldn't, and shouldn't, have arisen as it did.
(Interesting aside here is that while Copenhagen in this case was "occupied", it does not become "politically controlled" until the one turn of unbesieged occupation. Yet the combat rules would still permit, assuming a Russian army in the field, to fall back on that nonpolitically controlled city, because it is combat controlled!
The rules define control of a city many places in the rules based on the factors IN the city, regardless of political control of the city/country. I think the "Definitions" being relied upon might be geared more to the combat definition of "control" and NOT the political definition. Therefore, I ask this question of our panel: Do you believe that city "control" may be different for combat purposes AND for political/economic/other purposes? )
So, your situation couldn't, and shouldn't, have arisen as it did.
(Interesting aside here is that while Copenhagen in this case was "occupied", it does not become "politically controlled" until the one turn of unbesieged occupation. Yet the combat rules would still permit, assuming a Russian army in the field, to fall back on that nonpolitically controlled city, because it is combat controlled!
The rules define control of a city many places in the rules based on the factors IN the city, regardless of political control of the city/country. I think the "Definitions" being relied upon might be geared more to the combat definition of "control" and NOT the political definition. Therefore, I ask this question of our panel: Do you believe that city "control" may be different for combat purposes AND for political/economic/other purposes? )
CAPITAINE,
An excellent question! I do believe there is some justification in the rules to this statement especially the mention of Russians in a French city controlling the port guns for combat purposes.
However, I believe these examples are for cases of allied players for the most part (no one may enter the cities/ports of neutral countries W/O DOW) and in those cases where control is established but "political control" for determination of Conquering is not yet met (i.e. the Russian recently entering Copenhagen "control" Copenhagen for combat purposes but is under seige so it can't control Denmark.)
Or in the case of powers at war in home nations. You can't politically control the province as it is 'French' but you can control the city for combat purposes and to prevent collection of income from that province. You can't get the income (can't politically control) but can control otherwise.
However, I still maintain that EITHER TYPE of control still requires factors in the cities outside the Home Nation/ceded provinces. Control inside Home Nation/ceded provinces only requires the ABSENCE of enemy factors in the cities.
SNAKE
An excellent question! I do believe there is some justification in the rules to this statement especially the mention of Russians in a French city controlling the port guns for combat purposes.
However, I believe these examples are for cases of allied players for the most part (no one may enter the cities/ports of neutral countries W/O DOW) and in those cases where control is established but "political control" for determination of Conquering is not yet met (i.e. the Russian recently entering Copenhagen "control" Copenhagen for combat purposes but is under seige so it can't control Denmark.)
Or in the case of powers at war in home nations. You can't politically control the province as it is 'French' but you can control the city for combat purposes and to prevent collection of income from that province. You can't get the income (can't politically control) but can control otherwise.
However, I still maintain that EITHER TYPE of control still requires factors in the cities outside the Home Nation/ceded provinces. Control inside Home Nation/ceded provinces only requires the ABSENCE of enemy factors in the cities.
SNAKE
Au contraire, soapy. Rule 10.3.2 CITY OCCUPATION: The nationality of a city garrison detemines who controls the city for combat purposes (emphasis original), regardless of the major power formally controlling the province or minor country in which the city is located.
Note well: The rules distinguish explicitly between "combat control" and "formal control". And "formal control" relates to the political "control" of a major power province OR a minor country.
Now, for the CLINCHER: Rule 10.3.2.2: If there is no garrison, the CITY is controlled by major power or neutral minor minor country which controls the territory in which the CITY is located.
There is no distinction for capitol cities or anything else. Note that the rule explicitly applies to vacant, ungarrisoned cities in major power provinces AND minor countries. OBVIOUSLY, the rules distinguish (a) between combat control and political control; and (b) do not require a physical garrison be in a city to maintain the latter.
Control per actual behavior OF that city is dependent on an occupying force; but absent that, control is still with the politically controlling power unless and until that political control is formally changed via the rules applicable to such things.
Note well: The rules distinguish explicitly between "combat control" and "formal control". And "formal control" relates to the political "control" of a major power province OR a minor country.
Now, for the CLINCHER: Rule 10.3.2.2: If there is no garrison, the CITY is controlled by major power or neutral minor minor country which controls the territory in which the CITY is located.
There is no distinction for capitol cities or anything else. Note that the rule explicitly applies to vacant, ungarrisoned cities in major power provinces AND minor countries. OBVIOUSLY, the rules distinguish (a) between combat control and political control; and (b) do not require a physical garrison be in a city to maintain the latter.
Control per actual behavior OF that city is dependent on an occupying force; but absent that, control is still with the politically controlling power unless and until that political control is formally changed via the rules applicable to such things.