Here are the answers to questions put to the designer, Greg Costikyan.

The format is as follows.

Question:
{Answer I provided.  This is sometimes omitted.}
Greg C's answers.


I wish that I would have asked a souple of more follow-ups.  In 
particular, to A-1.  "What happens if the Power with the Control is 
willing to let the other  player upgrade and is willing to pay for it 
but the other player refuses to upgrade?  Does the player with the 
Control marker still get the triple penalty if the Great War starts?"

Jeff
#################################
>A-1.  If an Influence and a Control marker Conflict, who gets the ETI
>blame for the downgrade?  Do both share or is it the power who
>downgrades?

"Blame" only matters if a Great War is triggered, yes? If a Great War is
triggered, the power who placed the Control marker and forced the Influence
downgrade is blamed.

>A.  Can 2 Control markers of different ranks exist in the same Area
>as a CoD? (I.e. a French Possession marker and a British Protectorate
>Marker?)
>{Answer - Yes.  However, if there is a Possession in the Area, all
>interest markers are removed.}

Yes.

>B.  Can one player allow a second player to establish a Control marker
>in an Area the first player already controls?  For example, can GB
>allow France to purchase a Control marker in Cape Colony?
>{Yes.  France would need to pay for the marker.  If the Area is a
>CoD, all players in the CoD must agree.}

Right.

>C.  During the War phase, Germany DoWs France.  Russia breaks the
>defensive agreement with France.
>
>        C1.  Since the CoE phase has passed, is France still allowed to call
>        for a CoE over the broken treaty CB? (CoEs may be called by any
>        player with a valid Casus Belli or CB).
>
>{Answer: Yes.  In effect, a 2nd Negotiation Phase is created and
>possibly a 2nd CoE phase as well.  This process continues untill all
>CBs are either dropped (unilaterally or through discussions) or
>result in War.}

No. The time for jaw-jaw is past. France's only recourse is to declare war
on Russia, if it so chooses, for the Czar's perfidy.

>        C2.  If yes to C1, the rules say that there may be only 1 CoE per
>        turn.  What happens if there already has been a CoE during the
>        current game turn?  Does ETI increase again for the calling of the
>        CoE?  Is France prohibited from calling a CoE if a CoE has already
>        been held?
>{A 2nd CoE is held.  The ETI increases by +3 for the CoE call.  There
>is no limit to the number of CoEs that may be held in a single turn.}

Not relevant.

>
>D.  The rules say that at the conclusion of a War, if there is no
>satisfactory division of spoils, a CoE is called.  (Example, GB,
>France and Japan grab 3 Russian Areas.  The 3 allies cannot agree on
>who will get what).
>
>        D1.  If a CoE has already been held, is a 2nd CoE held?
>{Yes.}

Yes.

>        D2.  Does the ETI increase +3 for a CoE and who gets the blame?
>{Yes. All Powers in the alliance that cannot divide the spoils
>between themselves.}

Yes.

>        D3.  Does the failure to arrive at a division of spoils create any
>        CBs?
>{Yes.  All 3 Powers have mutual CBs and may use these to Declare War.
> In effect, a war has broken out among the victors for the spoils.}

Yes.

>E.  The rules are unclear on how one keeps wars separate.  EXAMPLE:
>Japan DoWs France over a CB in Sarawak.  GB DoWs France over a CB in
>Egypt.
>        E1.  Assume Japan and GB have no alliance - are there 2 or 1 Wars?
>{2 Wars since the CBs are separate and cannot be linked to each other
>in a reasonable manner.}

One war, because if two powers are waging a war on France, it is perfectly
reasonable for them to coordinate operations. There would only have to be
two separate wars if, for instance, Great Britain were at war with France
and Germany, but Japan at war with France only. There's a third
possibility: a three-cornered war, with Japan at war with Britain and
France, Britain at war with Japan and France, and France at war with Japan
and Britain.

>        E2.  Assume Japan and GB have an Offensive alliance - are there 2 or
>1 wars?

One war.

>
>        E3.  If there is only 1 war, who gets the blame for "first" to DoW,
>Japan, GB or both?

The player who literally declares war first; if this is sufficient to
trigger the Great War, so be it.

>Follow-up Question 1:  Since Japan or GB might not want an Ally in the above
>Wars, is there anyway for either/both to keep the War separate?  For
>example, a declaration that they are not allied?

This is the kind of detail that leads to increased complexity where it
hardly seems warranted; if I were rewriting the rules to PAX at this point,
I'd hardly want to have a paragraph or two on how you can have separate
wars by declaring "no alliance." Therefore, my inclination is to say no,
you can't. However, I'm saying this only to avoid another set of rules,
rather than because I have any specific objection to the concept; if you
wanted to include such a thing in a set of house rules or the like, that
would sound perfectly reasonable to me.


>F.  France and Germany have several treaties.  France DoWs Germany.
>Are all of those treaties void and null?

Yes.

>
>G.  If a War ends when 1 power no longer has a Control Marker on the
>board, how can a Power without a Control marker defend his
>Influences? (Example:  Under the rules, if Japan has influences in
>Korea, Formosa and  Indochina.  GB places a Control marker in
>Formosa.  Since Japan has  no Control _markers_ under his control,
>the war ends immediately and  Japan cannot defend his Influences.)
>
>{ANSWER:  Wars end by the following methods 1. Treaty; 2. Lapse or 3
>phases without combat; 3. When one side no longer has _units_ outside
>HOME - regardless of whether that side has any Control markers under
>its control}

Hmm. Let us amend 3 to say if at the end of a turn, a player has neither
control markers nor land units outside his home. Fleets alone might remain
at sea.

Follow-up Answer to above question:  Actually, I just took a look at 
the rules again. They say: 

"If no negotiated end to a War occurs, the War ends when all Military Units
of one Alliance outside their Home Countries have been eliminated..." So
you were right in the first place, but the question is in fact addressed by
the rules.


>H.  Can players engage China Areas during a rebellion even if those
>Areas do not contain armies?
>
>{ANSWER:  Yes.}

Yes.

>
>I.  Does the US receive his bonus if he never has an opportunity to
>attack the Spainish?
>
>{ANSWER: No.}

Agreed.

>J.  Does the exchange of Control Markers in the new world trigger the
>Monroe Doctrine - i.e.  GB gives France Newfoundland?
>
>{Answer: No idea.}

No, it does not.

#####################################
A.  Can a player transfer a CB without declaring War?  (Example:
>Italy has treaty giving France a CB against England in the event that
>Italy has a CB against England).
>
>{Answer: No.  You cannot extend a CB without declaring War.  In the
>above example, Italy would need to declare War on Britain to extend
>the Offensive CB to France}

Agreed.

>
>B. Must Germany and Austria-Hungary always honor their permanent
>defensive Alliance?
>
>{Answer:  No.  If either breaks the alliance, the ETI increases +5
>and the alliance is void until the start of the next game-turn.}

Sound right.

>C1.  There is a status conflict in Kongo between France and Britain.
>The rules are clear that any downgrades in Kongo will increase the
>ETI (downgraded marker due to status conflict).  What is less clear
>is wat happens if at the same time there are downgrades in unrelated
>Areas.  Example:  In settling the dispute, Britain agress to
>downgrade in Nigeria.  Since the downgrade in Nigeria is not
>technically due to a status conflict, will it have any effect on the
>ETI?

Yes, the Nigeria downgrade will affect the Index.

>C2.  Is the answer above changed in anyway if rather than entering
>into the agreement without coercion, the agreement is brokered by a
>CoE?

No.

>C3.  France and Britain agree to swap markers in Malay and
>Cochin China.  Does this affect ETI?

If it involves no downgrade, no.

>C4.  A CoE orders France to give Britain the French Control marker in
>Cochin China.  (The dispute before the CoE is over someother area)
>Does this affect the ETI?
>


No

>Follow-up:  Thus, if a CoE orders Britain to give away all of his
>Possessions to the other players, there is no effect on ETI since no
>Markers were downgraded.  However, if the CoE ordered Britain to
>remove all of his Possession Markers, the ETI would increase +4 for
>each Possession?
>
>
>Follow-up:  Thus stealing the British Empire does less to the ETI
>than forcing him to give it all back to the natives?
>

The basic principle is that giving someone a possession as part of a deal,
including a deal brokered by the Congress of Europe, shouldn't affect the
European Tensions Index because it's a voluntary action, not a forced one
that should cause a grievance in the transferring nation. Obviously,
forcing the British Empire to give up all its possessions is an extreme
case; and equally obviously, it wouldn't work, since Britain would simply
refuse to abide by the Congress of Europe. This would give everyone at the
Congress a Casus Belli with the British, of course, and might lead to 
war.

>D.  The rules say that signing a Separate Peace is a "betrayal" and
>increase the ETI.  What is meant by the word betrayal?  Do the former
>allies of the the turn-coat receive a CB against him?

No.
__________________________
Illigitimi non carborundum