Agema Publications

A forum for the disscussion of the Play by Mail games from Agema Publications


Formal Talks

Share

J Flower
King
King

Number of posts : 703
Age : 46
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 10
Registration date : 2012-02-16

Formal Talks

Post by J Flower on Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:45 am

After Court Agema was closed down, the option for Formal Peace Talks was called into exsistence. Has anyone had experience of this new system.

a) Does it work

b) If it brings wars to an end are there any major penalties for breaking the brokered peace at a later stage.

c) Is it enforcable when the player changes.

d) Why does the treaty of Westphalia remain constantly active in the game, when all other in game treaties run out or lapse when players change.
avatar
Kingmaker
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 1591
Age : 60
Location : Scarborough Jewel of the East Coast
Reputation : 24
Registration date : 2008-04-20

Re: Formal Talks

Post by Kingmaker on Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:53 am

good questions but I have no answer...


_________________
Lt Colonel, Commander of the Tsars Personal Bodyguard

avatar
Deacon
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1382
Age : 53
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 38
Registration date : 2010-04-13

Re: Formal Talks

Post by Deacon on Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:00 am


I am unaware that treaties lapse when players change. Unless the treaty were really one-sided and not an honest one, why would it?

Stuart Bailey
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1101
Age : 54
Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
Reputation : 31
Registration date : 2012-01-29

Re: Formal Talks

Post by Stuart Bailey on Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:46 am

Treaties ending on a change of player or after 3-5 yearsn was in the original version of the rules along with court Agema.

I think this was a game mechanic to keep things nice and fluid which from Agema's point of view (not shared by experienced players watching their cunning diplomacy cash and burn on a regular basis) had two advantages:

1) New players started with a clean sheet and were able to make own treaties/mistakes without being stuck with those of a former player. After all its not a good game experience to be told on turn 2 or 3 that your cunning plan to invade X can not happen for another 20 turns due to a treaty signed by the idiot who has clearly mismanaged your position and let X get away with murder.

2) It forced a degree of realistic caution onto players..........so a Russian for example who has signed treaties with the Turks and the Poles prior to starting the Great Northern War can not just assume Kiev guarded by one man and his dog for the next five years and throw every man into the Baltic States.

Well he can but all it takes is for a fresh election in Poland or the Sultan to fall face first into his Turkish Delight and Boris & Rover in Kiev could have a real problem when the new Sultan gets those begging letters from Sweden pointing out the Black Sea will be next!
avatar
Deacon
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1382
Age : 53
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 38
Registration date : 2010-04-13

Re: Formal Talks

Post by Deacon on Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:57 am


I'll take your word for it, but I guess this seems wrong to me. Unless the treaty really was one-sided, I think you have to play the position as it is. Just changing players shouldn't vacate a treaty.

What's to stop a player from dropping a position with a bad treaty he negotiated and then picking it back up in a few turns back to tabula rasa?

Given the game, I wouldn't mind if Agema said all treaties needed to be renewed every X years, but to just dump them for a new player seems wrong to me.




J Flower
King
King

Number of posts : 703
Age : 46
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 10
Registration date : 2012-02-16

Re: Formal Talks

Post by J Flower on Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:00 pm

The reason I beleive treaties lapse when a player leaves is because quite often he takes the treaty with him, if the player left in the game says to the new player. The treaty your predassessor signed promised to give me unlimited access to recrutis in your country or monies or something like that then I can see the new player being a little upset.

Plus proving to the new player that such a treaty exsists is also a problem, who holds the copies the player who has left & the player trying to benefit from the treaty, to the detriment of the new player, I can see new players simply saying I don't beleive a word of it.

I asked the original question as I wondered if treaties still carry much weight in the Game(s), Hence the Original question on the formal talks as this seemed the only part now under Agema scrutiny. Any other treaties are merely honourable undertakings by players. Is there any incentive to hold true to those undertakings?

J Flower
King
King

Number of posts : 703
Age : 46
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 10
Registration date : 2012-02-16

Re: Formal Talks

Post by J Flower on Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:24 am

Are we as players too harsh in our treaty/peace talks? Usually when one side has won it takes what it can from its beaten foe.

Historically a couple of towns would change hands, it seems more likley that in Game whole territories are absorbed.

Also historically states of Europe would fight wars in their colonial possessions without major confrontation on Mainland Europe. A sort of limited war.
avatar
Jason
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1520
Age : 47
Location : Gourdon, Aberdeenshire
Reputation : 16
Registration date : 2008-08-27

Re: Formal Talks

Post by Jason on Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:37 am

J Flower wrote:Are we as players too harsh in our treaty/peace talks? Usually when one side has won it takes what it can from its beaten foe.

Historically a couple of towns would change hands, it seems more likley that in Game whole territories are absorbed.

Also historically states of Europe would fight wars in their colonial possessions without major confrontation on Mainland Europe. A sort of limited war.

Well, using G7 as an example Wink it does seem we are affected by the post-WW1 idea of peace treaties perhaps too much and expect large amounts of land to be given up. Perhaps we do need to be more in-keeping with the time.

The colonial war point is a good one, perhaps we need to fight our wars a bit more that way (as long as you don't attack my colonies, only someone elses Laughing )

Guest
Guest

Re: Formal Talks

Post by Guest on Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:33 pm

J Flower wrote:After Court Agema was closed down, the option for Formal Peace Talks was called into existence. Has anyone had experience of this new system.
a) Does it work
b) If it brings wars to an end are there any major penalties for breaking the brokered peace at a later stage.
c) Is it enforcable when the player changes.
d) Why does the treaty of Westphalia remain constantly active in the game, when all other in game treaties run out or lapse when players change.

Many of these issues have been discussed thoroughly in the Discourse on Treaty Rules topic, started by Deacon. I have no experience of the Formal Peace Talks system, but for any mediated agreement to work, there has to be a mechanism for enforcement otherwise there is effectively no agreement. If you have no intention of sticking to an agreement then can it be called an agreement?

For a discussion on whether any treaty is enforceably when players change see the Discourse on Treaty Rules topic.

I specifically discussed the Treaty of Westphalia in this thread. In a nutshell the ToW remains because it is not a simple agreement between players - it is a document which sets out the constitution of many German nations and the restrictions on the powers of their rulers. Of course players are free to rewrite the ToW in the game if they don't like it, but for some reason many fail to do so.

J Flower
King
King

Number of posts : 703
Age : 46
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 10
Registration date : 2012-02-16

Re: Formal Talks

Post by J Flower on Thu Aug 30, 2012 9:03 am

I was trying to make the point that as players we may demand too much in our peace negotiations.

Large sums of money are demanded, or large tracts of land should be transfered.
Or in the case of smaller nations they should be absorbed into the larger states, loosing all independence .

Where as history seems to indicate that a city would be exchanged, or a river line designated as a boarder. Or that an extra ship could be sent to the colonies carrying slaves or other not so grandiose consessions. Admittedly this was not always the case but it seems to have occured more often.
avatar
Deacon
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1382
Age : 53
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 38
Registration date : 2010-04-13

Re: Formal Talks

Post by Deacon on Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:15 pm

I think this is a lot of the 'game' aspect of things.

Since you're not dealing in real lives, and real countries, players take larger risks, and gamble more. They aren't willing to play for small victories as much since they want the grand glory of the big win.

Guest
Guest

Re: Formal Talks

Post by Guest on Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:15 pm

J Flower wrote:I was trying to make the point that as players we may demand too much in our peace negotiations.

Possibly so. However, I think it is because the costs of war are great, players tend to want a return on their 'investment'.

Game design is also important, as Deacon has suggested.

Under the old Court-Agema rules, the Court would settle matters by the transfer of a city or other 'inconsequential' gains to secure peace. In that respect Court Agema was very much historic in terms of outcomes. Richard may not like it and have criticised it as being institutionally unhistoric, but the game itself has many such compromises over how historic institutions worked for administrative/balance purposes. To me, achieving a historically congruous outcome and allowing games to move on by satisfying the honour of players is worth an unhistoric game mechanism, particularly when without such a mechanism players seem incapable of reaching that kind of settlement, going instead for outright destruction.

This is probably because they know if they mess a position up they can simply walk away and take another one in another game. Very unhistoric! If the game is to have a basis in history, then surely the purpose of the rules should be to encourage such historic play and discourage unhistoric play? Just imagine how different G7 would have been if I had been able to take England to Court Agema over its breach of treaty with France? No need to invade, the matter would have been settled instead of getting out of hand. Similarly, I could have taken Austria to Court over her breach of treaty, thereby removing the need to escalate things over her unjustified attack. I may still have decided to fight it out with Austria given the circumstances, but her spurious reasons for war would no longer go unchallenged and dominate the game. Treaties would be upheld and the word of a ruler would be restored to its rightful place as what was expected. The rules would encourage honourable play, which is what they were designed to do. Of course, wars would still happen, but when players reached the point where they no longer knew why they were fighting or simply wanted to stop, a mechanism would be in place to allow them to do so. This would encourage players to stick with their positions during difficulties and give long term players protection from those who join for the short term just to cause trouble. I suggest there is much more glory from building up a nation over 10 or 20 years than destroying such in 2 years?

I can't remember exactly when Court Agema was abolished and new treaty rules came in, but I'm fairly sure that for most of the lifetime of LGDR Court Agema was a feature. Indeed, in the announcement it was acknowledged that "while generally speaking they [the treaty rules] were successful, in certain cases they fail badly. These new rules are intended to repair this flawed part of the game." Perhaps the repair has introduced more problems than it solved, and as players have proved incapable of rising to the challenge of sorting out their differences, a return to the old system is long overdue?

J Flower
King
King

Number of posts : 703
Age : 46
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 10
Registration date : 2012-02-16

Re: Formal Talks

Post by J Flower on Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:10 am

I agree, however if we as players were to adopt the style of limited objectives, rather than total war. It may actually encourage players to stay( personal theory only) as even if they have lost the war there position is still playable, the thirst for revenge may then drive them on. That would also play into a more realistic context. with the same small territorial enclave changing hands over years of Game play.

I am not sure how the Honour system views this, If you are merciful to your enemies I wonder if you would acheive a greater boost in honour than if you go for total annialation.Maybe that is where the honour rule of annexing smaller territories by larger positions comes in? As by so doing you have a constant downward pressure on your honour score.

Guest
Guest

Re: Formal Talks

Post by Guest on Fri Aug 31, 2012 2:11 pm

J Flower wrote:I am not sure how the Honour system views this, If you are merciful to your enemies I wonder if you would achieve a greater boost in honour than if you go for total annihilation.

From my experience in G7, the opposite seems to apply. Nobles expect you to push the war aggressively. My failure to do so against Austria, and to keep seeking a pragmatic peace was viewed very poorly, according to 'advisors' anyway!
avatar
Deacon
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1382
Age : 53
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 38
Registration date : 2010-04-13

Re: Formal Talks

Post by Deacon on Fri Aug 31, 2012 5:54 pm

I think in France's case in G7 that it had more to do with words than with actions.

I think you needed to be a lot more bellicose, even if your actions didn't match your words. Very Happy

Guest
Guest

Re: Formal Talks

Post by Guest on Fri Aug 31, 2012 9:06 pm

I don't understand the point you are making, Deacon.

When I asked 'advisors' what the reasons for low French honour were, each time the same response came back: the nobility fully accepted the fact that France had been wronged and expected me, as King, to uphold the honour of the French people by driving out the invader. The 'words' by which I assume you mean various speeches by French diplomats in the Diet, were not meant for French nobles, they were meant to influence nobles within the HRE!

As to actions not matching words, I think you need to re-read newspapers during the period before you joined the game. Action against Austria was limited to Austrian forces within France - the alternative would have been a full scale invasion of the HRE which would have brought France into conflict with neutral countries. This course of action would have suited Austria as she was determined to present France as being aggressive despite all evidence since the game started proving the opposite! Military action was taken against Austrian forces, but I was not prepared to destroy French towns containing French civilians simply because Austria sneaked in to them!

Military action was also taken in England, and there it was noted by 'advisors' that my victories were having a positive effect on Jacobite honour rather than directly boosting French honour. As King James, you would appear to have directly benefited from these actions without which your character would have been merely a foreign Prince at Versailles. Indeed had my actions not matched my words, then I doubt you would have taken the position which owes its current form to the courage and action of France under my leadership! There are some things I could have done differently as France, but unless you are trying to disregard the history of your own character, it is rather difficult for you to argue that my actions did not match my words!

Sponsored content

Re: Formal Talks

Post by Sponsored content


    Current date/time is Fri Aug 18, 2017 2:09 am