bresh
Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: eske If I recall it right, in EiA you could attack a neutral fleet carrying enemy troops. Is this also the case in EiANW ?? Actually I think - maybe it was an optional - you could even chose to consider it a casus belli, and make DoW before attacking. No calling to allies, of course. Anyone ? /eske Yes, one could attack and thereby DOW another MP during naval phase in this case in EIA, casus belli term comes from EIH i think, it was not used in that term. EIA standard rule(so not optional) : 6.3.1.1 NAVAL ATTACKERIDEFENDER DETERMINATION: If there is more than one enemy major power present, the "attacker" decides which will be the "defender". The attacker is the phasing side if 6.2.4 applies or the non-phasing intercepting side if the combat is caused by an interception (see 6.2.3). The defender (at the attacker's option) comprises any one defender's stack that is present. 6.3.1.2 WHO IS AN ENEMY: A stack may only attack another stack if at war with the major power owning that stack, if at war with a major power owning corps being (or that could be) transported by fleets of that stack, or if at war with one or more of the fleets involved in combined movement. In the latter two cases, the attacker's stack need not be at war with the major power owning the transporting fleets, and, if not, the attacker has the option to either: 6.3.1.2.1: Attack without a declaration of war (no political point loss for a declaration of war) although political points are still normally gained or lost for winning or losing the battle. 6.3.1.2.2: Or, immediately declare war (even if operating under an enforced peace period, which can be ignored in this case, although the other restrictions in 4.2.2 still apply) and lose the requisite political points (see 4.2.1.1) for each separate declaration of war. No allies may be called with these declarations of war. So far, EIANW does not allow this, so only way to avoid such misuse is houserules i think. Regards Bresh
< Message edited by bresh -- 9/23/2009 12:58:59 PM >
|