Birthright: Chimaeron

Occupation is the result of winning. If they are defeated, the occupation does not complete.

If the defenders aren't defeated, occupation shouldn't begin. The movement/battle and occupation are supposed to take up separate war moves, 1 and 3 respectively, adding up to 4. Not overlapping and adding up to 3. While occupation can't be disrupted once begun just by more enemies arriving (unless the number of occupying units becomes too low), it would be absurd if an army could invade a province in action 1, fight for four war moves, then start acting the next action phase as if they'd completed the occupation, even if they weren't done the battle until the fifth war move.

If occupation is automatic just from moving in, that means it doesn't even require instructions from the commander. Would it be the same for pillaging? That'd mean the only way to avoid pillaging or occupying enemy provinces while on the move would be to keep moving.

Its the same with battles. The movement is first, so you get the whole warmove the one you reach it don´t you?

So occupying or battling, the movement does not cost you anything, as long as you actually get there.

Written in the rules, the only exception to war moves being exclusive is that a battle takes place in the same war move as the movement that prompts it. And even then movement has to stop for the battle.

It also says 'Once someone defeats the defenders the first time, and commences occupation...' instead of 'after someone moves into the province, and occupation commences'.

Using a recent example to illustrate a point.

Forces moved into Gnarled Woad at request of province owner.

The law forces gathered there could have declared war to attack those forces, but did not.

The incoming force, at request of province owner set about occupying and torching said law (and temple) facilities. This prompted defensive movement by the law owner.

Even though it was province owner asking for the troops to come in, he was the attacker for purposes of the battle.

The battle could not take place though without the intent to occupy. This began the three-count on occupation. If the 'defenders' could break the occupation force, the occupation would not complete.

The war move to start occupation is simply that, beginning of occupation - it is not completion of occupation. The completion takes the full three war moves. The reduction of holdings another war move after occupation completes.

This goes back to actions occur across time, they are not instantaneous. Occupation (and attendant effects) doesn't actually occur until the end of the third war move.

1) 'The request of province owner' has nothing to do with the rules. The only way to move a unit into a province you don't own, aside from declaring war, is to have a treaty with them that permits you to move your units into their provinces as if they were your own. It's not clear in the rules whether Declare War is needed for naval transportation even between friendly provinces. (Even if sea zones always count as friendly provinces, that doesn't necessarily mean loading units onto ships, moving them, and unloading is a free action. In the original rules it was supposed to cost 1 GB/unit too...)

2) 'The law forces' aren't an entity in the rules (unless you mean the law holding is acting independently due to a Subversion spell), and the rules don't specify cases in which Declare War can or can't be used. Anyone can use a Declare War action on any target realm, including those of their own allies or liege, though there may be repercussions. I assume what you mean is that the regent who held law holdings there could have used a Declare War action and didn't.

3) Again, the rules are agnostic here. The relationship doesn't matter. Declare War was used and occupation began after the movement, the same way as would happen if the province regent had levied and occupied their own province.

4) If the province ruler is allied with two realms at war with each other, then both realms can treat the province as if it were their own for the purpose of movement, neither needs to use Declare War, and a battle will presumably occur when both have armies in the same place. Declare War was only needed to begin occupation. If it had already begun, then it couldn't be disrupted by a new army arriving regardless.

5) The battle could take place regardless, as far as the game rules are concerned. That it wouldn't have been fought unless the occupation had begun is an in-character decision.

6) Completing occupation requires 3 war moves precisely. You don't use one to begin it and then just 'wait' (unless that's permitted so that occupation can complete without using a second Declare War action.)

1) Treaty was in place, so units moving in was not an issue.

2) Correct.

4) Correct, it was only needed to begin the occupation as I stated.

5) Correct. Occupation was begun and law regent moved to disrupt it.

6) You do precisely that. You initiate occupation and then wait until it is completed (3 war moves) for it's effects to take place. Those not wishing to be occupied use that same time to break the occupation. The occupation itself only occurs at the end of the third war move. You are appearing to confuse initiate occupation as having the same effect as a completed occupation. A completed occupation carries the loss of loyalty, the ability to then reduce holdings, etc. An initiated occupation is one that has not completed and can be disrupted still.

Missed one... Yes, for the purposes of a battle, the attacker is always the one who moved into the province. Though we're not consistent about that for terrain defensive bonuses, since we're allowing them to be applied to the attacker, instead, if the attacker controls the province. (I have no idea what that should mean in a situation like this, where the one who controls the province is a third party.)

I'm not sure which (or what) point you were trying to illustrate.

What's confusing me is the idea that occupation begins (the first of the three war moves is 'counted' as spent) when the units move into the province and start the battle, instead of after they move in and finish the battle as a separate war move. The latter is what the rules describe, the former is what was suggested above.

And movement into a province doesn't always determine attacker. Dhoesone moved into the province as well. Both movements were non-attack movements. Moving forces from Province A (mine) to Province B (also mine) to remove forces stirring up trouble (set to pillage or occupy province - from either a random event or forces raised there and declaring war) does not make me the attacker.

Without occupation being begun, the forces of Dhoesone were not attacking. It was only after the occupation began, did they move against the forces.