G7 - France vs. England

I feel this clash of nations has a long way to go at current stubborness/bravado levels. France will not win in the long term but at the same time the allied nations have to give something to allow all to leave this conflict with some face and that is what this game is all about Honour and public Face!
Anyway why is everyone so anal and want to hire Swiss??? Have they not heard of the professionalism and dedication of Hessian & Darmstadt Grenadiers. They dont leave you if no money like the swiss. No Beer and you are deffinitely on your own!

Why not look to use Indian or Chinese troops then?

The Hessian wrote:I feel this clash of nations has a long way to go at current stubborness/bravado levels.

Seems to be the case!

The Hessian wrote:France will not win in the long term but at the same time the allied nations have to give something to allow all to leave this conflict with some face and that is what this game is all about Honour and public Face!

Why do you not give France a chance? I agree France doesn't seem to be making much progress but I think it is too soon to write him off. I'm sure you are right though about all sides needing to compromise to save face. However, until the nations concerned are honest with each other and negotiate in good faith, I can't see anything changing.

The Hessian wrote:
Anyway why is everyone so anal and want to hire Swiss??? Have they not heard of the professionalism and dedication of Hessian & Darmstadt Grenadiers. They dont leave you if no money like the swiss. No Beer and you are deffinitely on your own!

I think France could have some difficulty hiring any troops belonging to a member of Austria's empire? Surely hiring troops to a nation at war with Austria would be enough to cause Austria to declare war on her?

AH thats where you are under a grave misunderstanding! It is not Austrias Empire. The King of Bohemia, Archduke of Austria is indeed currently Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire but he does not own the states troops. They are solely the states rulers assets until they are handed over or command rights given to the Empeor. The only direct Austrian owned troops are those of the Hapsburg state not the HRE.

Anyway the main point of my coment is why does everyone rate the swiss so highly when there are excellent quality troops for hire in the states of the Empire! Thats all.

The Hessian wrote:AH thats where you are under a grave misunderstanding! It is not Austrias Empire. The King of Bohemia, Archduke of Austria is indeed currently Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire but he does not own the states troops. They are solely the states rulers assets until they are handed over or command rights given to the Empeor. The only direct Austrian owned troops are those of the Hapsburg state not the HRE.

That used to be my understanding until I started in Game 7. Austria seems to have raised something called Armies of Circles from troops from other states and used them to attack other states in the empire. If any state steps out of line then Austria attacks - that was confirmed by the Austrian player on this forum (page 5 of this thread). Under those circumstances, I can't see anyone but Austria being able to hire Hessians however excellent their quality.

I think people rate the Swiss so highly simply because they are described in the rules as mercenaries.

yes, its not austria's empire as such but the emperor takes a leading role.

As the empire is a loose form of mutual defence treaty, it seems reasonable that if the emperor can present the empire as being in danger (whatever the actual "facts" are), then he can convince the princes to raise troops from the imperial circles, which are based in fact, and were only recently used to defend the empire against the ottomans.

it must be part of austrias role in the game to establish a reputation as protecting the empire, and he has done so in game 7 and is trying in game 8. alas in game 2 the emperor - Prussia in this case - is eating the empire himself, which is not going down so well.

now i see frances long terms plans, now that russia has declared for france all hell will break loose, great game!

ever get that feeling this isnt going to end good ?

Rather looking forward to the next turn. Needless to say when you get all excited about the next turn coming through you end up in tears going "no, no, thats not what I meant".
Got to say, I am finding this game huge fun at the moment.

I am probably not helping matters in Europe, but share your views, it is quite an enjoyable and engaging game at the moment. I certainly feel like a juggler at the moment.

I have played in a number of games so far - if I get these wrong its just bad memory - Sweden in game 2 from about mid 1700 until about 1708, England in game 3 from about 1704 to 1708 or there abouts and Ottomans in game 5 or 6, but this has to be my favourite so far. The good thing is that the game has maintained its pace as time has gone on but a new player could join any nation at this point and not be disadvantaged and be in too weak a position. Probably the most disadvantaged position at this point is England but he is doing a commendable job of hanging in there and that role is still very viaible with a lot of potential fun with the Jacobite/French challange.

In the style of Monty Pythons Life of Brian - "Well at least the wascals showed spiwit" or more possible the Holy Grail film, my Austrians seemed to go "Charge - no, run away, run away"

I take it a turn came in. Care to share the relevant newspaper entry with us rubberneckers?

Hi Deacon
Well I hope that the whole turn details will be posted on the wiki page so that you can see the details in full. There was a lot of fighting around Besancon with the outcome being that the city is still in Austrian control. The Horse squadrons from the Austrian 5th Army ran away, oh the shame of it all and the Grenadiers of the 5th stopped their advance and withdrew. An Austrian dragoon force also turned up and charged French Horse of the Frenach army actually attacking the city, but again also ran away.
So my cunning plans which I was certain would lead to inevitable victory came to nought, but equally the same applied to the French for I am sure that Louis thought that Besancon would be in his hands by the end of the turn.

i dont play in 7 but its quite a gripping game. seems like this war could go either way and the whole of europe could soon be in flames, or austria and france could patch it up and play along. shame my partner does not have the patience for three games at once!

Try insomnia 007 then it is possible to do three games without upsetting the other half

I think in G7 the really interesting question just now is what will Russia and Spain do next?

and the next most interesting is how long will the war continue?

What I am enjoying (if thats the right word to use) about this current war is that there is no easy good-bad line. I dont think any of England, France or Austria are blameless or innocent, and yet all three have valid reasons for feeling a victim as well. This means a compromise is going to be hard and not arrive any time soon.

I also suspect there are other parties playing out agenda's behind the scenes to the benefit of their own positions. Its all part of the diplomacy in Game 7.

There may be players who can clearly point to examples of massive benefit, but in my experience rarely do wars (between active positions) help any position improve to a degree that justifies the cost. So if you were a ruler NOT involved in a war, you would be doing all you could to keep a major war going - those invovled are suffering while your nation grows.

If a sudden peace isnt reached within the next 6 game months I have a feeling this war will just get bigger and bigger and have several twists and turns.

Certainly a good game to be in at the moment

I have to say I think this is probably the best Glory of Kings so far.
I do have some sympathy for France but I also have some sympathy for myself
As I said once before, at least nobody really does die. I know, I do have heart ache over the loss of troops and when things go wrong, but that is what makes it such a great game.
I have had direct conversations with Mr Ed about how peace could be achieved. Interestingly we raised some possible solutions but I suspect that in the end there are some sticking points which cannot be resolved. ( I am trying not to step over any boundaries at this point in discussing matters in a way in which I shouldnt )
When the Hofburg Palace is burning and poor old Leopold is in hiding in the Austrian foothills, I will recognise I should have gone for peace earlier

Wars always makes the games more interesting.But they can also kill a position.Or positions.But that is the ultimate aim,destroy your rival players.Become the undisputed king of europe.King of Kings.

jamesbond007 wrote:Wars always makes the games more interesting.But they can also kill a position.Or positions.But that is the ultimate aim,destroy your rival players.Become the undisputed king of europe.King of Kings.

Silly me ! I always thought the game was about far more than military conquest.

Much more than just conquest. If that was the only objective, there would be no point to all the smaller positions.

Thank you for your thoughts guys. I wonder at how the war started though with it three administrations England has had a 'variety' of positions and I guess goals. Was there more than a dredger mission in the causus belli?

Anyhow for you who know so much more than I didn't game 7 start with at least two roughly aligned players on the key positions? There was the UDP and EIC and I think France had the Petit Dauphin. So what about the Jacobites where did they come from. And who was on Austria and Spain's team sheet....

And Deacon - Yes '.... there'd be no point at all

Regor wrote:Thank you for your thoughts guys. I wonder at how the war started though with it three administrations England has had a 'variety' of positions and I guess goals. Was there more than a dredger mission in the causus belli?

Apparently not! As previous players for England have disappeared we can only rely on French statements in the newspapers. Putting this all back together is tricky, and France isn't being very clear, but I think it was dredgers first (some kind of broken treaty), then the consequences of that - France claims to have built canals which then silted up, caused his economy to crash, compounded by famine during whcih English ships stopped food supplies reaching France. So his original demands included the cost of rebuilding the canal network and lost trade income. The Jacobite thing seems to have become more serious later on, perhaps out of frustration with England's actions and refusal to negotiate. Perhaps France thought if the current English administration won't negotiate, then a different one would, or at least be more friendly in terms of meeting France's demands? France claims it took 18 months of failed diplomacy for this to come to a head, so I suppose there is some justification for France taking action when all other options were blocked. I don't get the impression that France wanted war, but felt forced into it. If he did want war then he made a total mess of it!
It is difficult to justify holding new players responsible for the failure of older players, particularly 3 times removed, but equally we all know that players who join an established game are fully aware of the state of the position and its challenges at the time of joining. Most players I have dealt with welcome new players and always give them a chance. France did offer peace to each new player in the newspaper and the terms were more generous each time - all 3 players had the choice of settling with France, but failed. So they knew what they were getting themselves into and had a way out - they could have stopped the war before it got to the stage it is at now. I guess it was easier for new players to stop the war than it was for France to forget the damage, particularly when those new players were immediately welcomed into an existing anti-French alliance. I can see things from both sides and don't think it was easy for any of them.

Regor wrote:Didn't game 7 start with at least two roughly aligned players on the key positions? There was the UDP and EIC and I think France had the Petit Dauphin. So what about the Jacobites where did they come from. And who was on Austria and Spain's team sheet....

I think that was the intention, but I don't think all positions had 2 players at the very beginning. There was a Bourbon Spain and a Hapsburg Spain, and various companies attached to England (HWIC?) and UDP (DEIC). The Petit Dauphin seemed to come in later as did the Jacobites. I don't think overall it was easy for players to work together and having multiple players for large positions didn't work well. From what I remember:
- England failed to support HWIC, its natural ally
- DEIC folded or was bought out by UDP.
- Bourbon Spain quit after Hapsburg Spain and France signed the Treaty of Ghent.
- The Petit Dauphin seemed to last a bit longer, but hasn't been heard from for a while.
And then there are the Jacobites who are still causing a bit of bother!

Ferenc Rakozki (Hungary) could be the equivalent position opposing Austria, but doesn't seem to be doing much.
And there are multiple Wittlesbach family members around, but I think they all run different countries independently rather than being on country with 2 players.