From: benb@stortek.com (Ben Baron x4670) Subject: Pax Britannica rules questions/house rules - opinions? Pax Questions: ============= 1a) If a player upgrades an area from protectorate to possession (the area is now 'unestablished' until the marker adjustment phase), can another player place a new protectorate/possession and get the mutual CB, or is he prevented because there was previously an established protectorate there? (assume the latter, but there is no proof.) 1b) If a player upgrades an area from protectorate to possession, can another player get a CB by placing an interest? Or is he prevented because there was previously an established protectorate there? (assume the latter, but there is no proof) 2a) (Cf Supply, pg 24, Movement During an Alliance Maneuver Phase - Naval Unit Movement, pg 22) If a coastal area borders two or more sea zones, do both need to be blockaded separately to capture the area during a war? (Yes, if they border non-adjacent seas, the non-adjacent sea boxes must be separately blockaded. No otherwise.) 2b) If two naval units enter a coastal area which borders 2 seas from two different seas do they fight? i) If the seas are adjacent (i.e. Marocco- Mediterannean and North Atlantic). (Assume - Yes.) (ii) If the seas are non-adjacent (i.e. Canada with North Pacific, North Atlantic). (Assume - No.) 2c) For these purposes are 2 seas adjacent if separated by a Cape Zone (i.e. Cape Colony - South Atlantic and Indian separated by a Cape Zone). (Assume Yes) Discussion: Supply states that a Line of Supply is traced from an Area to an 'adjacent sea zone', but it also states that "a Line of Supply cannot be traced from an Area to an adjacent sea zone if the Area contains an enemy Naval Unit." Naval Unit Movement says "When occupying an area that is adjacent to two sea zones that are not themselves adjacent, keep a Naval Unit to one side of the Area box [And states that the navy can only leave to the sea that it entered]. Depending on how one reads this, one could infer that an Area is blockaded as a whole, or that the blockage is only from the area to an adjacent sea zone. However, clearly it is nonsensical to allow Canada to be blockaded by only closing one of its borders, so since there is a distinction in the rules between adjacent and non-adjacent seas, this seems the correct solution. 3a) c.f. pg 13 Garrisons, Special British Garrison Rule. If the Indian army or Western Garrison are removed from their locations (either by combat or voluntarily), must they be replaced by rebuilt units, or can other Army 10 units which may already be on the map be placed there instead? i.e. are there to be special Army 10 counters designated as 'Indian Army', which must be the ones rebuilt and placed in India?. Likewise, if during movement during war there are three Army 10 units within two squares of India, does it matter which Army 10 units these are? (Assume Yes - there must be special Army 10 units. It would be helpful, then, to have specially printed Indian Army/Western Garrison counters.) 3b) If Britain no longer possesses India (God forbid), is the Indian Army forced to exist? I.e, must you rebuild them even if there is no place to put them? Likewise for the Western Garrison? (Assume no, but there is no proof). Discussion: It would seem silly that Britain could 'shuttle' Army 10 Units through India, keeping an unspecified 3 within 2 land areas of India, but not the same ones at all times (e.g. Britain should not be able to move an Army 10 unit 3 land areas away simultaneously with moving another Army 10 unit to take its place somewhere else in range of India). Therefore, certain fixed counters should be designated as the Indian Army. The "Special British Garrison Rule" specifically refers to "The Indian Army" as a group, so this is would seem to be the designer's intention. Clarification: 4) If powers in a codominion combine forces to supress unrest (cf pg 15, Unrest in Codominions), but suffer an exchange or 1/2 exchange and the powers agree that one power's forces must be entirely eliminated, but there are still some forces left for the attackers, is the unrest eliminated, and are any markers reduced?. (Assume that the Unrest is defeated, so no attackers must retreat, but the power who has no forces left must suffer the reduction from Control to Interest (or nothing), in the Marker Adjustment Phase, for failure to garrison.) 5) (cf. Minor Power Reaction to Unrest, pg 12) If Great Powers codominion with a minor and the codominion suffers unrest, will the minor agree to combine forces to suppress unrest? Assume that it will, although there is no proof. 6) (cf. Status Change and Casi Bellorum, pg 13, and Status Marker Placement Effects Summary and the Casus Belli Summary for Control Marker placement charts) Are the CBs mentioned in the Status Marker Placement Effects Summary and the Casus Belli Summary for Control Marker placement granted when a marker is placed in the Movement/Status Change phase, or only when the marker is established in the Colonial Combat Phase (if colonial combat is required - non-control markers are automatically 'established' in the Marker Adjustment Phase). i.e. if a player places an offending marker but fails to establish it in colonial combat is there still a CB against that player? Assume that for above cases, markers must be established to give a CB. Discussion: Status Change and Casi Bellorum uses the word placing, not establishing for when the CB is given and when the Ottoman War begins, but this is partially contradicted. For conditions starting the Ottoman War, the rules specifically state "If any Power establishes a Control marker ... the Ottoman Empire will declare war". (War With the Ottomans, pg 19). Also, Casus Belli Markers, pg 21 states that "[Casus Belli Marker can be removed] As a result of Colonial Combat, the removal of one or more Status Markers can eliminate the Casus Belli. 7) (cf. Declarations of War, pg 21) If A declares war on B and then C declares war on A (assuming none have any allies), are C and A neutral to each other? Is this a 'three-cornered war' as discussed in that section? If in such a war, if A captures an area from C and B then captures it from A, does C have any way to directly recapture the area from B? (Assume no) Discussion: The note specifically states that "if player A declares War against player B, player B does not reciprocate by declaring War on A in turn". Presumably, then, by extension, if A declares war on B, and C on A, then it does not follow that B declares war on (or is at war with) C. The war end settlement involves all 3 parties, so some balance is maintained. 8) Can a player move a Merchant Fleet so as to cut off a Communication Link with an existing Control Marker. What occurs? Are the Garrisons lost? Is income collected? Assume the player pays maintenance on the Control Marker, but receives no income from it. The Garrisons are not lost. Discussion: Movement, Army Units, pg 15 states that "[In order to move] An Army Unit must trace a path of movement during the Movement/Status Change Phase. [which is through Merchant Fleets]" Assume that this does not mean you trace this even if he moves 0 distance (i.e. does not move). Also, Game Terms, pg 8 defines Communication Link and states "A Communication Link must exist between an Area and the player's Home Country in order for the player to place a Status Marker in the Area or receive any income from the Area." It does not state that Communication Link must exist for Garrisons to exist, nor for a Control Marker to exist, once placed. Page 10, Administrative Record - Status Record also states "You never receive income from an Area to which you cannot trace a Communication Link.". 9) cf. Negotiation, pg 16. 10) cf European Tensions and the Great War - European Tensions Increases, pg 25. The rules state that the player who causes the European Tensions to go over 100 suffers the triple penalty for causing the Great War. Which of the European Tensions Increases are blamed on a player, and which player? 10b) Is the European Tensions Increase for status marker downgrades for all downgrades or just those which occur in a Congress of Europe? Assume all downgrades which involve a status conflict. Errata state that no European Tensions Increase results when players place units in captured areas.. Notes state that the increase is whenever there is a status conflict in an area. Also, the Status Marker Placement Effects Summary states that you lose Lbs and raise European Tensions if a Possession is established in an area with an interest. Assume also, that this does not mean tensions increase when a player fails to garrison or due to unrest, nor do tensions increase when units are placed in areas conquered in a war (a war which ended other than by treaty). 11) cf. Negotiation, pg 16 During the Congress of Europe Phase, players can freely remove markers from the map, etc. What if there is no Congress called, or if the player is either not invited, or is not party to a dispute considered at the Congress? Must the Congress agree? Conventions =========== 1) Treaties Treaties may be negotiated and signed by players during any phase of the game, except between any declaration of war and the Alliance Determination Phase for that war. Note, of course, that this does not imply that these treaties may be implemented immediately upon being signed i.e. once alliances are determined, signing a new alliance will not add a new player to an existing war, nor can players remove or downgrade markers when it is not legal to do so (Movement/Status Change, Negotiation, Congresses of Europe, or War End negotiation). 2) Timing of the Negotiation/Congress of Europe Phase The Negotiation Phase continues even after a player has called for a Congress of Europe. The Negotiation Phase ends when all players agree to end it, not simply because a Congress is called. 3) Congress of Europe Beginning When the Congress of Europe begins, any players with a Casus Belli (besides the one who called the Congress) may ask that their disputes be settled in the Congress as well as the dispute which originally forced the Congress. All players whose disputes are being settled by the Congress (that is, the players who have Casus Belli which the Congress has been requested to solve, and all the players against whom those Casus Belli are directed) are termed 'parties' to their respective disputes, for the purposes of determining on whom the Congress' settlement is binding. Note that once a player submits his dispute to the Congress, he may not withdraw the dispute from the Congress - he is bound to act on any treaty the Congress adopts with regard to his dispute (by either signing it or by declaring War). Note also that just because a Casus Belli exists on the map, and the players with the Casus Belli happen to be at the Congress does not make them 'parties to the dispute' unless the player with the CB volunteers to have his matter considered by the Congress. A player who is not a party to a dispute being considered in the Congress is not bound by the Congress's rulings, and need not sign any treaty which results, however, they are bound by the Treaty if they choose to sign. (if they are invited to the Congress at all - if they are not even at the Congress, they have no option - they may not debate nor sign the Congress's treaty). _________________________________________________________________________ "You can make more friends with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word" - Al Capone, The Untouchables Ben Baron, Ben_Baron@stortek.com (303) 673-4670 From: Markus Kassbohrer Subject: Re: Pax Britannica rules questions/house rules - opinions? Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.board: 7-Dec-93 Pax Britannica rules questi.. by Ben Baron x4670@stortek. > Pax Questions: > ============= > > 1a) > > If a player upgrades an area from protectorate to possession (the area > is now 'unestablished' until the marker adjustment phase), can another > player place a new protectorate/possession and get the mutual CB, or is > he prevented because there was previously an established protectorate > there? > > (assume the latter, but there is no proof.) If you have that kind of rules problems I suppose you'll never get a game completed. No, of course not, the Protectorate stays there until the Possession is established. > 1b) If a player upgrades an area from protectorate to possession, can > another player get a CB by placing an interest? Or is he prevented > because there was previously an established protectorate there? > > (assume the latter, but there is no proof) If I remember correctly, an interest is compatible with a protectorate. So you can place it under a newly-constructed possession. However, you don't get a Casus Belli. A Possession just scraps an Interest without further ado. > 2a) (Cf Supply, pg 24, Movement During an Alliance Maneuver Phase - > Naval Unit Movement, pg 22) > If a coastal area borders two or more sea zones, do both need to be > blockaded separately to capture the area during a war? > > (Yes, if they border non-adjacent seas, the non-adjacent sea boxes > must be separately blockaded. No otherwise.) We had a long discussion on this in the AJPAX (Association des Joueurs de Pax Britannica). It's a bit more complicated than that. What we came up with is... in general, a fleet is in an area, not a coastal box. This means that one fleet can block Cuba or South Africa (note that the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans are #not# adjacent for war purposes because of the cape. Also note that if you go by peacetime adjacency it can be argued that you then can block Egypt with one fleet regardless of the status of the Suez canal). If the two coasts are non-adjacent (the case of Canada), you need two fleets, as mentioned somewhere in the rules. And if you don't have coaling rights in one of the coasts of an area otherwise blockable with one fleet, you need someone else to block the other coast (a case in point os Japan and Malaysia). This can lead to the unique situation where two sides' fleets can coexist in a war in the same country without war if at least one is unable to get at the other because of lack of ship range. Isn't that fun? > 2b) If two naval units enter a coastal area which borders 2 seas from > two different seas do they fight? > i) If the seas are adjacent (i.e. Marocco- Mediterannean and North > Atlantic). > > (Assume - Yes.) See above, concur. > ii) If the seas are non-adjacent (i.e. Canada with North Pacific, > North Atlan tic). > > (Assume - No.) How should they? Shoot across Canada? > 2c) For these purposes are 2 seas adjacent if separated by a Cape Zone > (i.e. Cape Colony - South Atlantic and Indian separated by a Cape Zone). > > (Assume Yes) See above, yes, unless one lacks coaling rights and the other doesn't want to fight, or both lack coaling rights. > Discussion: Supply states that a Line of Supply is traced from an > Area to an 'adjacent sea zone', but it also states that "a Line of > Supply cannot be traced from an Area to an adjacent sea zone if the > Area contains an enemy Naval Unit." Naval Unit Movement says "When > occupying an area that is adjacent to two sea zones that are not > themselves adjacent, keep a Naval Unit to one side of the Area box > [And states that the navy can only leave to the sea that it entered]. > Depending on how one reads this, one could infer that an Area is > blockaded as a whole, or that the blockage is only from the area to an > adjacent sea zone. However, clearly it is nonsensical to allow Canada > to be blockaded by only closing one of its borders, so since there is > a distinction in the rules between adjacent and non-adjacent seas, this > seems the correct solution. Seems reasonable, yes, see above. You're even more rules-lawyery than we were... > 3a) c.f. pg 13 Garrisons, Special British Garrison Rule. > If the Indian army or Western Garrison are removed from their locations > (either by combat or voluntarily), must they be replaced by rebuilt > units, or can other Army 10 units which may already be on the map be > placed there instead? i.e. are there to be special Army 10 counters > designated as 'Indian Army', which must be the ones rebuilt and placed > in India?. Likewise, if during movement during war there are three > Army 10 units within two squares of India, does it matter which Army > 10 units these are? > > (Assume Yes - there must be special Army 10 units. It would be > helpful, then, to have specially printed Indian Army/Western Garrison > counters.) I disagree. Any Army 10-counters are fine - as long as you have enough total. > 3b) > If Britain no longer possesses India (God forbid), is the Indian Army > forced to exist? I.e, must you rebuild them even if there is no place > to put them? Likewise for the Western Garrison? > > (Assume no, but there is no proof). If Britain doesn't have a single possession in India any more it needn't have an Indian Army. If, however, some benevolent victors have left Britain with possessions in the nearly worthless parts of India and only taken the valuable areas themselves (leaving the Brit with a huge cash drain for, given his divisor, insignificant VP), we've played that they still need the army. > Discussion: It would seem silly that Britain could 'shuttle' Army 10 > Units through India, keeping an unspecified 3 within 2 land areas of > India, but not the same ones at all times (e.g. Britain should not be > able to move an Army 10 unit 3 land areas away simultaneously with > moving another Army 10 unit to take its place somewhere else in range of > India). Therefore, certain fixed counters should be designated as the > Indian Army. The "Special British Garrison Rule" specifically refers > to "The Indian Army" as a group, so this is would seem to be the designer's > intention. Disagree. The Indian Army is there in part to keep the Indians quiet (remember the Sepoy rebellion). Any British army-10 within two LAND areas of India is all right for that (I have yet to see the potential for abuse in this. It might save you a turn if you were hit unprepared by a Chinese war and have to transport troops into the Far East to put the "Boxers" down, but that is fine with me). > Clarification: > 4) If powers in a codominion combine forces to supress unrest (cf pg15, > Unrest in Codominions), but suffer an exchange or 1/2 exchange and the > powers agree that one power's forces must be entirely eliminated, but > there are still some forces left for the attackers, is the unrest > eliminated, and are any markers reduced?. > > (Assume that the Unrest is defeated, so no attackers must retreat, > but the power who has no forces left must suffer the reduction from > Control to Interest (or nothing), in the Marker Adjustment Phase, for > failure to garrison.) Agree. > 5) (cf. Minor Power Reaction to Unrest, pg 12) > If Great Powers codominion with a minor and the codominion suffers < unrest, will the minor agree to combine forces to suppress unrest? > > Assume that it will, although there is no proof. It's the Minor's possession, and it is in unrest, so off go the troops. > 6) (cf. Status Change and Casi Bellorum, pg 13, and Status Marker > Placement Effects Summary and the Casus Belli Summary for Control > Marker placement charts) > > Are the CBs mentioned in the Status Marker Placement Effects Summary > and the Casus Belli Summary for Control Marker placement granted when > a marker is placed in the Movement/Status Change phase, or only when > the marker is established in the Colonial Combat Phase (if colonial > combat is required - non-control markers are automatically 'established' > in the Marker Adjustment Phase). i.e. if a player places an offending > marker but fails to establish it in colonial combat is there still a CB > against that player? > > Assume that for above cases, markers must be established to give a CB. > > Discussion: Status Change and Casi Bellorum uses the word placing, not > establishing for when the CB is given and when the Ottoman War begins, > but this is partially contradicted. For conditions starting the Ottoman > War, the rules specifically state "If any Power establishes a Control > marker ... the Ottoman Empire will declare war". (War With the Ottomans, > pg 19). Also, Casus Belli Markers, pg 21 states that "[Casus Belli > Marker can be removed] As a result of Colonial Combat, the removal of > one or more Status Markers can eliminate the Casus Belli. Concur. I might be wrong on this but I don't now recall any possibility to create a Casus Belli with a non-control marker (ie without colonial combat at all). Either you are prohibited from placing your offending non-control by the existence of a control, or the control itself is unestablished and the conflict isn't there until after colonial combat. The geographical CB are for controls only, too, I think. Of course, treaties can allow a Casus to spring from placement of an interest/influence alone, in which case the Casus exists immediately. > 7) (cf. Declarations of War, pg 21) > If A declares war on B and then C declares war on A (assuming none > have any allies), are C and A neutral to each other? Is this a > 'three-cornered war' as discussed in that section? If in such a war, > if A captures an area from C and B then captures it from A, does C > have any way to directly recapture the area from B? > > (Assume no) > > Discussion: The note specifically states that "if player A declares > War against player B, player B does not reciprocate by declaring War > on A in turn". Presumably, then, by extension, if A declares war > on B, and C on A, then it does not follow that B declares war on (or > is at war with) C. The war end settlement involves all 3 parties, > so some balance is maintained. Ummm, I'm on thin ice with this one since the rules talk about a three-alliance war someplace, but the "reciprocate" statement clearly applies to tensions (ie war between two powers is one declaration, +5, not one declaration, one back, +10). If A declares on B and then C declares on A it is clear and obvious that B and C are allied (how would allies of B enter the war otherwise, since they have the option of declaring war or breaking the alliance as outlined in the Great War tension rules?). > 8) > Can a player move a Merchant Fleet so as to cut off a Communication > Link with an existing Control Marker. What occurs? Are the Garrisons > lost? Is income collected? > > Assume the player pays maintenance on the Control Marker, but receives > no income from it. The Garrisons are not lost. > > Discussion: Movement, Army Units, pg 15 states that "[In order to move] > An Army Unit must trace a path of movement during the Movement/Status > Change Phase. [which is through Merchant Fleets]" Assume that this does > not mean you trace this even if he moves 0 distance (i.e. does not move). > Also, Game Terms, pg 8 defines Communication Link and states "A > Communication Link must exist between an Area and the player's Home Country > in order for the player to place a Status Marker in the Area or receive > any income from the Area." It does not state that Communication Link must > exist for Garrisons to exist, nor for a Control Marker to exist, once placed. > Page 10, Administrative Record - Status Record also states "You never receive > income from an Area to which you cannot trace a Communication Link.". You must have a garrison in a controlled area, therefore you must have a communication link, therefore you cannot move your merchant fleet (France would be quite happy to get out of the North Atlantic in the first turn and let Guyana rot otherwise. The freed merchie is extremely handy almost everywhere else, including for building a canal and in China). You can cut your link to non-controlled areas, and receive no income for them in this case. This is similar to your ability to voluntarily remove or not markers. > 9) cf. Negotiation, pg 16. ??? Agree that the section as a whole, as well as in detail, leaves a lot to be desired, though... :) > 10) cf European Tensions and the Great War - European Tensions Increases, > pg 25. > The rules state that the player who causes the European Tensions to go > over 100 suffers the triple penalty for causing the Great War. Which of > the European Tensions Increases are blamed on a player, and which player? Two days later... in general, declarations of war on declaring power, war turns on first and fourth declarer, marker reductions on reducing power (all marker reductions occur simultaneously, non-controls can be picked up before they are reduced, for no tensions icrease, and Minors don't pick up, which often results in general war without a Great Power to blame, which is fine with me since the penalty is too hefty to make it in any way random). > 10b) Is the European Tensions Increase for status marker downgrades > for all downgrades or just those which occur in a Congress of Europe? > > Assume all downgrades which involve a status conflict. Errata state > that no European Tensions Increase results when players place units > in captured areas.. Notes state that the increase is whenever there > is a status conflict in an area. Also, the Status Marker Placement > Effects Summary states that you lose Lbs and raise European Tensions > if a Possession is established in an area with an interest. > > Assume also, that this does not mean tensions increase when a player > fails to garrison or due to unrest, nor do tensions increase when units > are placed in areas conquered in a war (a war which ended other than by > treaty). Concur. > 11) cf. Negotiation, pg 16 > During the Congress of Europe Phase, players can freely remove markers > from the map, etc. What if there is no Congress called, or if the player > is either not invited, or is not party to a dispute considered at the > Congress? Must the Congress agree? The Congress' free marker manipulation is one big loophole. How about that one "the Congress votes that Britain removes all its control markers" - accepted against the vote of the Brit (the war and declarations would be messy, though). Or "the Congress votes that France pays Lb 10 to every Major Power every turn" - accepted against the vote of the French, with the vote of the Brit. Etc, etc. We haven't found anything against that other than discipline and judicious alliances. > Conventions > =========== > > 1) Treaties > > Treaties may be negotiated and signed by players during any phase of > the game, except between any declaration of war and the Alliance > Determination Phase for that war. Note, of course, that this does not > imply that these treaties may be implemented immediately upon being > signed i.e. once alliances are determined, signing a new alliance will > not add a new player to an existing war, nor can players remove or > downgrade markers when it is not legal to do so > > (Movement/Status Change, Negotiation, Congresses of Europe, or War End > negotiation). We let players sign treaties only when appropriate (Congress, War ends, Negotiations phase). It speeds up play considerably. > 2) Timing of the Negotiation/Congress of Europe Phase > The Negotiation Phase continues even after a player has called for a > Congress of Europe. The Negotiation Phase ends when all players agree > to end it, not simply because a Congress is called. We timed negotiations. Otherwise the game can be endless. > 3) Congress of Europe Beginning > When the Congress of Europe begins, any players with a Casus Belli > (besides the one who called the Congress) may ask that their disputes > be settled in the Congress as well as the dispute which originally > forced the Congress. All players whose disputes are being settled > by the Congress (that is, the players who have Casus Belli which the > Congress has been requested to solve, and all the players against whom > those Casus Belli are directed) are termed 'parties' to their respective > disputes, for the purposes of determining on whom the Congress' > settlement is binding. > > Note that once a player submits his dispute to the Congress, he may > not withdraw the dispute from the Congress - he is bound to act on any > treaty the Congress adopts with regard to his dispute (by either signing > it or by declaring War). > > Note also that just because a Casus Belli exists on the map, and the > players with the Casus Belli happen to be at the Congress does not make > them 'parties to the dispute' unless the player with the CB volunteers > to have his matter considered by the Congress. > > A player who is not a party to a dispute being considered in the Congress > is not bound by the Congress's rulings, and need not sign any treaty which > results, however, they are bound by the Treaty if they choose to sign. (if > they are invited to the Congress at all - if they are not even at the > Congress, they have no option - they may not debate nor sign the Congress's > treaty). We made every CB automatically subject of the Congress. I like your version a lot, though. Best regards -Markus. The above is my opinion. That doesn't say it is anyone else's. I claim copyright for my inventions.