Minor countries

[Dancing Bear]

I have asked this before, but can anyone tell me where the rule is in the original board game that makes minor countries which you take control of during the diplomacy step as a result of a DOW, at war with all the major powers at war war with the controlling country. i.e. the rule rule that allows France who obtains Sweden after a DOW on Sweden by Russia to use the Swedish fleet against Britain, for instance.

[Ted1066]

Reading through the original EiA rules, I came across 4.6.5.2 and 4.6.5.3, which states:

"4.6.5.2: If the controlling power desires to help the minor country against the major power(s) attacking it, it has to declare war on or already be at war with the other major power(s) before its forces can take part in any combat with that other major power. If it is not at war with at least one of the attacking major powers, the con-trolling major power may not garrison or control any cities of the minor country other than with that minor country's factors-the minor country must be run using only the minor country's own forces, although the controlling major power may pay for depots and/or supply costs for the minor country.

4.6.5.3: The controlling major power's corps are ignored in any combat involving that minor country's forces unless against a force which consists of factors of one or more countries with which it is at war (see 6.3.1 and 7.3.8)."

To me, these rules make it clear that the Swedish forces you used in your example can be used against Britain by France, so long as France is already at war with Britain. That's my interpretation, though.

Cheers,

Ted

[Dancing Bear]

Hi Ted,
I'm not so sure. You might be right, but only by rule omission. I think the rules are silent on this issue. Would it make a difference if France was or was not at war with Russia?

This goes backto the question of who can conquor a minor as well. How was it decided that a minor becomes at war with all the countries the controlling major power is at war with?

[Cunctator]

Hello friends,
I agree with Ted (after all, we are allies in an existing game) [;)]
The fact that France is at war with Russia influences (+2) the probabilities to acquire the control of the minor.
I'm afraid that once a MP controls the troops of a minor there is no rule that limits the free use of those troops on the map.
As a general rule a MP can move all the troops he controls and he can send them wherever he wants.
Some movements are not allowed and those exceptions are well stated in the manual.
For that reason the "silence" mentioned by Dancing Bear can only mean that the minor's troops can be used freely.

I'm afraid this is the only possible interpretation of the rules and, after all, the program allows it.
Of course it produces some absurd situations: in the example of DB it is absurd and unreal to think that after a dow from Russia the swedish navy would have thrown suddenly themselves against far british forces!
Sweden was neutral until attacked by Russia and the reaction to the russian invasion is an attack versus Great Britain! Absurd!
Same examples could be done with France controlling Portugal after a spanish dow....with portuguese ships of the line assaulting Russian fleets in the Baltic, only because France is at war with the Tzar.... or, worst of all, a sudden attack on british fleets blockading the Lille crossing arrow....and so on, with all the possible malicious exploitation of this "hole" in the rules.

For that reason we implemented an house rule forbidding to the controlling power to use the minor's forces to attack armies or fleets not belonging to the MP that declared upon that minor, until the latter is conquered or a lapse of war occurs.

I hope it helps.
Cheers
C.

[Dancing Bear]

That is a good house rule, and likley very popular. Maybe it should be an option in the game.

You bring up a good point about GB. I might start another thread to see what others think.

[Grognot]

"Lapse of war means return to neutrality" (but with no PP penalty for controller), plus "minors do not inherit controller's DOW if previously neutral" would seem to block the obvious potential abuses.

By the latter, I basically mean that DOWs would only be inherited if the minor has been gained by conquest (and thus inherits the conquerors DOWs, whether before or after conquest), or was assigned at the beginning of the game.  If Russia DOWs Sweden and GB gets control, the only war that makes sense is Sweden vs. Russia, not Sweden vs. France or GB against Russia (unless GB supports w/ a DOW), and the Swedes return to neutrality if GB successfully forces Russia to lapse.  If Russia conquers Sweden, then Sweden is now a full part of the Russian empire and uses Russia's DOW status.  If you want to dictate Sweden's foreign policy, you have to conquer it; otherwise, you're supposed to defend their neutrality against an aggressor.

This would mean that such things as bribing other players to lapse wars so you keep the minor is no longer useful.

[Dancing Bear]

This would be a great rule to introduce into the game, and prevent some ugly arguements I have seen between players over the abuse of minors.

[pzgndr]

"Lapse of war means return to neutrality" (but with no PP penalty for controller), plus "minors do not inherit controller's DOW if previously neutral" would seem to block the obvious potential abuses.

I would like to see this also, but perhaps allow control to continue IFF the minor was influenced or allied.