Rules Concerning Voluntary Evacuation of Territories:
1. If a Power loses a control marker in a territory due to a failure to garrison it (either accidentally or voluntarily), that Power must forfeit 5 Victory Points. No such penalty applies if control markers are lost due to other causes (including Unrest).
Reasoning: I have encountered British and American players
trying to sell off or trade
Rules Concerning Treaties:
1. Offensive alliances are illegal; in other words, a declaration of war by one Power against another cannot give a casus belli to allies of the declaring Power. Of course, if one of the non-declaring Power’s allies declare war against the declaring Power, the original declaring Power may call upon its allies.
Reasoning: Offensive treaties might be appropriate in a game simulating the 1930s (the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939 is a good example of one), but not in a game that simulates the more civilized late 19th century. Alliances were viewed as means to deter potential enemies from declaring war on their members, not a means of ganging up on isolated third parties.
2. Powers that are members of a defensive alliance do not automatically receive a casus belli against a Power that declares war against one of the alliance’s other members. A Power upon whom war is declared is not obligated to call upon all, or even any, of its allies for assistance. Not to call on allies does not amount to a violation of the treaty. Of course, if a Power upon whom war is declared calls upon an ally, and the ally refuses to declare war, then that ally is considered to have violated the treaty.
Reasoning: This builds into the game an opportunity to keep
wars limited, or to give a Power an option not to call upon an ally that would
be of no value in a war. For instance,
3. In order to qualify for an end-of-turn Victory Point bonus, alliances must not be limited in terms of geography or potential enemies. They may have time restrictions, but Victory Points for such treaties are only awarded during turns when said alliances are actually in force.
Reasoning: I've recently seen proposed defensive alliances that were limited to wars breaking out over a single territory, or only to wars with specific powers. The parties to the suggested treaties were quite up front about them—they were worthless agreements meant purely to produce Victory Points. This strikes me as contrary to the spirit of the game. If you're going to get Victory Points for having a treaty, it had better mean something—in other words, the risk of being called upon to go to war should be real.
4. Alliances may not include clauses that invalidate the alliance in the case of a situation that may cause the Great War to break out.
Reasoning: For obvious reasons, no treaty of the age would have included such a clause—nobody would have known what a Great War was. According to the mindset of the time, alliances were a means of deterring war, not causing one. An "escape clause" like this would have seriously undermined their value. Inasmuch as the game attempts to simulate the politics of the late 19th-early 20th centuries, clauses such as this should not, therefore, be incorporated into treaties. If a player is in a position where his declaration of war would result in the Great War he has two options—either ask his ally not to call upon him to declare war (and a power at war always has the option of calling only some, or none, of his allies), or, if called, to repudiate the treaty (with the appropriate increase in European Tensions, understanding that this could also lead to the Great War).
5. Treaties should be written in simple game terms.
Reasoning: This is more of a guideline than a hard-and-fast
rule. Many players in their diplomatic
correspondence seek to write in character—that is, as diplomats of the time
might have written. This is fine in
regular correspondence—indeed, it is to be encouraged
as a way of adding flavor to the game.
Treaties, however, are enforceable under the rules of the game, so their
meaning must be clear not only to the players signing them, but to the GM. It is, after all, ultimately up to the GM to
determine whether a treaty has been violated.
Those who insist on writing treaties in character should include in
parentheses after each provision a sentence or two explaining what,
specifically, that provision means in game terms. For example, a treaty provision that reads “
Rule Concerning Caribbean-South Pacific Canals:
If a player announces in a Movement/Status Change Phase that
he or she is constructing a canal in
If, after construction on a canal has begun but before it is completed, the territory containing the canal falls under the control of another Great Power, that power wins control of the canal as well. However, the Victory Point bonus remains with the player who began construction.
Reasoning: Canal-building on a trans-isthmian scale was one of
the most difficult engineering feats of the age. Historically the