Agema Publications

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


Game 9 Start Up

Share
avatar
Jason
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1461
Age : 47
Location : Gourdon, Aberdeenshire
Reputation : 16
Registration date : 2008-08-27

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Jason on Thu May 31, 2012 7:02 pm

Richard D. Watts wrote:On the game 7 thread Agema's being told that real-turn cost was a limiting factor by a player, but on the Game 9 start up thread the same player is advocating a two-week turnaround? Let us just say we manage that, this means the cost for a player goes up in real life terms over a real year by a factor of 40% (24 turns a year instead of say 17). That means it'd cost players more real money, which would make the situation far worse for the player in question wouldn't it? If the proposal is we do that but work for less money, to be honest that would Agema unviable as a business and then - seriously - there'd be no Glory of Kings left. I guess that's one solution, but not one we're going to contemplate!

To sum up, Agema's being sent mix messages, at least I think we are! If real life cost is a limiting factor then we understand that, but if we speed up turnaround that will make it worse for players. Our current view, and policy, is that a three work turnaround is the best compromise - but can you see how these two issues are interlinked?

The bottom line is this, player retention has improved with a three work turnaround compared to two week, so we take that to mean most players prefer it in practice rather than in theory.


We have to be consistent? Where's the fun in that Wink

To be serious Richard, you run the games and know the business so, for me, if the 3-week turnaround works best Smile

jamesbond007
Duke
Duke

Number of posts : 375
Age : 47
Location : Norwich
Reputation : 14
Registration date : 2009-04-07

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by jamesbond007 on Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:22 pm

I think Richard is right in what he is saying and people are missing the real point.
The fact is that Agema could speed up the turns,no problems,however many games they run.But if the current turnaround is four weekly and it changed to two weekly. Then the cost to players would double for each game they play.

Richard has done his research and is saying that it is too expensive for the majority of players.So he has reached a happy compromise of three weekly turnarounds.

This sounds good to me.But it would be better if an extra turn could be thrown in just before christmas and easter, as agema takes a break around this time.
avatar
Regor
Earl
Earl

Number of posts : 229
Location : Fleet
Reputation : 5
Registration date : 2010-02-15

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Regor on Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:07 pm

Oh temptation!

The Hessian
Lord
Lord

Number of posts : 84
Reputation : 0
Registration date : 2010-09-28

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by The Hessian on Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:22 pm

Please oh please let me be next to RKL....
avatar
Deacon
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1315
Age : 53
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 38
Registration date : 2010-04-13

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Deacon on Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:38 pm

Having derailed this thread with my interest in a faster paced game, let me return the starting point.

I think none of the treaties mentioned should be considered in-force in the game. Given the existing and quoted separately rules on treaties, I think it is far too binding on new players to attempt to enforce these treaties.

History evidences that the war of Spanish succession happened despite various attempts to avoid it. Other games have had the jacobites win, and without the possibility of French or Spanish support the position has no real chance at all, and there wouldn't be much point in even having it in the game.

Furthermore, if there were a list of treaties that were going to be enforced from Day 1, then Richard would have to produce an english version of the treaty that is considered controlling in game for players to argue over. I think that's a lot of extra work to just reduce players options.

So, I would register a vote against trying to create a list of treaties that control at the beginning of the game.

count-de-monet
Marquess
Marquess

Number of posts : 261
Location : Reading, Berkshire
Reputation : 8
Registration date : 2008-04-20

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by count-de-monet on Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:52 pm

So no Treaty of Westphalia in place, or considered active/enforceable in-game ? It would certainly spice up the HRE from day one !

Another area that crossed my mind was in the G8 start up each nation was given a military asset listing and could place them as they wished, across four (I think) locations. It offered a bit more flexibility.

It might be nice, if not listed on the start up that players could list Institutes that were historically present in January 1700....the possible draw-back/management issue for players going too mental is that upkeep would be payable within three months of the start.
avatar
Regor
Earl
Earl

Number of posts : 229
Location : Fleet
Reputation : 5
Registration date : 2010-02-15

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Regor on Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:55 pm

Me too - Deacon but for the reason that many players (and I include myself in their ranks) do not need or want to work through reams of treaty terms and conditions. No offence to those who do. And this is not my era of choice but I do enjoy learning from you lot for whom it is.

My complete and utter thanks for that and your in-game support or enmity.

And for letting me share in the forum.



avatar
Deacon
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1315
Age : 53
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 38
Registration date : 2010-04-13

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Deacon on Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:41 pm

The organization of the HRE is written up in the rule book, so to a certain the treaty of westphalia is in-game. But all the peace terms and religious toleration wouldn't be. Which I think is better as it allows the signatories to do as they wish on that score.

My primary reason is the one I state, but I also agree with Regor that I think adding full treaties and expecting all players to study them and abide by them adds work without a matching reward in a better game.

My opinion, anyway.

Guest
Guest

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Guest on Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:26 pm

It would certainly make it an interesting game if there was no Treaty of Westphalia, not least for those nations who were its guarantors. Unlike Deacon, though, I don't think it is realistic given the ToW is so basic to the respective powers of the emperor and states. It also established the maxim that the ruler of the land determined the religion. If these 2 issues could be ruled on then I guess you could ignore it.

The reason it became such an issue in G7 (the only game where I have known it to become so divisive for such a length of time) is because of the early attempts by Prussia and Saxony to leave the HRE. The question being fought out at the time was simply whether the ToW established the states as being independent from the emperor. Prussia and Saxony (and France) thought it did; Leopold thought it didn't.

If you ignore ToW then what mechanism is there in the game that would have allowed Prussia and Saxony to leave the HRE without being jumped on by Leopold?
avatar
Deacon
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1315
Age : 53
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 38
Registration date : 2010-04-13

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Deacon on Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:26 pm


RKL,

They are ruled on. The rule book covers how the HRE works, what it doesn't cover is all the ancillary peace treaty stuff associated with the treaty, and various religious liberty guarantees.

So both sides can certainly reference the ToW in their disagreement, but that is very distinct from Richard using Honour to enforce its clauses.

So the ToW becomes an interesting propaganda piece, but it doesn't enforce particular actions on people.

I think it's fine, great in fact, for history to inform the way people run their positions. But I don't think the game is helped by creating a minefield a past treaties that you're supposed to figure out how to avoid breaking and cratering your honour score.

If Prussia and Saxony can get away with leaving the HRE, then more power to them!
avatar
Jason
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1461
Age : 47
Location : Gourdon, Aberdeenshire
Reputation : 16
Registration date : 2008-08-27

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Jason on Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:39 pm

count-de-monet wrote:So no Treaty of Westphalia in place, or considered active/enforceable in-game ? It would certainly spice up the HRE from day one !

Another area that crossed my mind was in the G8 start up each nation was given a military asset listing and could place them as they wished, across four (I think) locations. It offered a bit more flexibility.

It might be nice, if not listed on the start up that players could list Institutes that were historically present in January 1700....the possible draw-back/management issue for players going too mental is that upkeep would be payable within three months of the start.

Could an option be to be given X number of institutes that a player can then place where they like game-wise? Bit like military forces?

Guest
Guest

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Guest on Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:09 pm

Deacon wrote:
I don't think the game is helped by creating a minefield a past treaties that you're supposed to figure out how to avoid breaking and cratering your honour score.
If Prussia and Saxony can get away with leaving the HRE, then more power to them!

I'm not quite sure of the point you are making here. I wasn't aware that pre-game treaties were necessarily binding on players unless those players choose to make them so by referring to them.

The point I was making was hopefully more straight forward: yes, the rules demonstrate how the institutions of the HRE are supposed to work. But they do not settle the larger political questions such as where sovereignty is. If Prussia wants to make a treaty with Saxony or leave the HRE, should he be able to do so? If HRE is a collection of sovereign states then clearly it can. If HRE is a collection of colonies which do not have the ability to do basic things without getting their decisions rubber stamped by the Emperor, Diet or various other institutions, then it can't. If the rules do cover this, then I must have missed it. The defining document is the Treaty of Westphalia which limited the powers of the Emperor and was guaranteed by Spain, France and Sweden.

So what happens when the Emperor exceeds his powers under the ToW and treats states as colonies. In G7 Leopold considered he was justified in attacking Prussia/Saxony because of the wording of his coronation oath as included in the rules. But the ToW specifies that where there is a conflict between the individual sovereignty of states and that coronation oath, individual sovereignty is upheld. I'm not bringing this up as an example to have a go at Leopold again as I can see from his perspective how he thought he was doing as obligated. However, what is not clear is how the operation of institutions in the HRE links to the rest of the treaty. I don't see how you can separate one from the other: either the entire treaty, institutions and all, is in force, or none of it. If part of it is in force, then the rest is surely open to challenge. Perhaps a clear case for GM clarification at the start of any new game?

In G7 ToW was cited by multiple players as reasons for their actions or to criticise the actions of other players. They acted as though it was binding and made great (if rather infuriating) play of it. Did it solve anything? Probably not. Are we any closer to knowing whether HRE states or the Emperor are sovereign? Probably not. Would it be useful to know the answer so players avoid a re-run of the issues in G7? In my opinion, yes. Others may have their own views.

I quite like Jason's idea about a player being able to chose x institutions at the start and where they can be.
avatar
Deacon
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1315
Age : 53
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 38
Registration date : 2010-04-13

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Deacon on Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:16 pm


Treaties, within the rules, have specific meanings. IE if you break them, you lose honour.

So if a player wants to make a list of treaties that are binding at the start of the game, they're saying that if players break them, they expect Richard to punish those players. I don't think that's a good idea.

You give an example of the issues of sovereignty and the murkiness associated with it. That murkiness is exactly what makes Glory a good game. There is no clear-cut answer. Prussia and Saxony can think one thing, the Emperor another. How they fight it out in-game resolves the issue. If Prussia and Saxony can get enough support or win the fight themselves, they're right. If not, they're wrong.

I would not ever expect Richard to fully delineate these things because it is exactly this murkiness that drives the conflicts of the game, and indeed historical conflicts.

Why would Richard want to remove sources of conflict like this from the game?

Guest
Guest

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Guest on Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:56 pm

Sorry for being a bit slow on this one, but I still don't really understand what you are suggesting Deacon.

I don't agree with your premise that if you break a pre-1700 treaty your honour 'craters'. It may take a hit, but not necessarily a sizeable one nor a long term one. Certainly not in the same manner it would if you broke a post-1700 treaty which you had made with another player.

What pre-1700 treaties surely do is set the framework to allow players to justify their actions and explore the issues? Of course there will be different interpretations of treaties and players are free to chose those interpretations which suit their own ends and seek to play different game lines as a result. I don't see this is in conflict with a clear explanation on critical issues such as the limits of sovereignty where they have proved to be hot topics. All we would get is a commonly agreed starting point and save long debates over treaty clauses, which I thought was what you and Regor were keen to avoid?

With the example of sovereignty I gave, there is a clear cut answer within the ToW. I don't understand how you can argue part of a treaty is valid within the game, but another part is not. Surely, unless the GM rules otherwise it is all or none? And if that is the case, then surely it would be of benefit for players to know at the start of a new game?

avatar
Deacon
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1315
Age : 53
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 38
Registration date : 2010-04-13

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Deacon on Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:42 am

I don't agree with any honour hit for breaking a pre-1700 treaty, provided you've established suitable cause for your action which is the basis for honour in the game anyway. You need Casus Belli or it's just bad form and all that. But that is true whether you're breaching a pre-1700 treaty or just invading a neighbor on some manufactured pretext.

To have an honour hit, there would have to be in-game, agreed terms to all these treaties. There aren't. And I think it would be a lot of work for Richard to create them, and it wouldn't help the game if he did.

So while I agree that the historical context matters, these treaties aren't instantiated in the rules. They exist only in the minds of the players. You could as a player say, "Ah, well, due to a clerical error, that treaty was never signed, so we're not bound by it." Or any one of another excuses.

Richard has put the organization of the Holy Roman Empire into the rules. As far as I'm concerned until told differently, that's the limit of the ToW in the game.

Now Richard is free to correct me, but what 'rights' people have depends a great deal on what they can get away with. By asserting that these pre-1700 treaties exist AND ARE BINDING you would create an absolute mess for players to deal with, I think.

Guest
Guest

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Guest on Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:52 am

Well, it seems then that we are almost in agreement.

On page 14 of Advice for Princes it clearly states "... was a result of the Peace of Westphalia 1648 which ensured the sovereignty and independence of each state of the HRE was fully recognised by the Emperor and guaranteed by Spain, France and Sweden." So by your own logic, as that is clearly in the rules, it is binding on players.

Consequently in G7 Prussia and Saxony had every right to ignore Leopold and leave. At that time France, Spain and Sweden should have sided with Prussia and Saxony against Leopold as they were obligated to do. Other NPC HRE states should also have been against Leopold for exceeding his powers as it is not unreasonable to expect NPC states to follow the rules in the rule book.

As any treaty is only binding for 5 years (unless it is made in game and its clauses extend further than that), then in respect of G7 all this is academic anyway. But until that time, I maintain you can't have the situation where players pick and chose which parts of a treaty they would like to be included depending on their own situation or which optional rulebook they happen to have bought: it is all or none as determined by the GM.

The Hessian
Lord
Lord

Number of posts : 84
Reputation : 0
Registration date : 2010-09-28

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by The Hessian on Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:40 pm

[b]Those guarantor states could also have fought to keep the Empire in tact and make prussia & saxony stay within the HRE. Blows both ways. As individual states prussia and saxony were free of Imperial jurisdiction within their borders but there was no definitive legal stipulation that they could not leave the Empire but neither was there a right for states not to fight to keep the states in the union so as to maintain the empires integrity. Simply a badly drawn up treaty which was being deliberately manipulated by a power who should have known but did not act better! clown

Guest
Guest

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Guest on Thu Nov 22, 2012 7:05 pm

Loathe as I am to continue a discussion which until today seemed to have been concluded 5 months ago and for all I know may well have been superseded by the new rules, Hessian is right to admit

The Hessian wrote: there was no definitive legal stipulation that they could not leave the Empire

Prussia and Saxony could not have been prevented by legal means from leaving the Empire.

However, he is completely wrong to suggest that


The Hessian wrote: neither was there a right for states not to fight to keep the states in the union so as to maintain the empires integrity.

The Treaty of Westphalia was a peace treaty. Its objective was to prevent war among its members as is clearly stated in the opening clauses. To suggest otherwise is to fundamentally misrepresent the purpose of those who negotiated it and signed it.

If a state guarantees a treaty, then it guarantees what is in that treaty not what it would like to be in the treaty. The only way Leopold could force Prussia/Saxony to remain within the Empire was to attack them. This action meant he was acting beyond his powers, in breach of the Treaty of Westphalia. Consequently those guarantors (including France) should have acted against him. Nowhere does the Treaty oblige Leopold to keep the Empire together through force, quite the opposite. The Treaty of Westphalia limits the power of the Emperor to enforce his will on its members.

In G7 Leopold claimed his Constitutional Oath required him to preserve the Empire, but the Treaty of Westphalia specifically states that because of the different coronation oaths taken by various members with overlapping claims to various territories, where there is a conflict between the coronation oath of a monarch and the Treaty of Westphalia, the Treaty of Westphalia takes precedence over the oath. If you would like references to the various clauses then I refer you to the last statement I made in the Herald which must be nearly a year ago now in game time.


The Hessian wrote:Simply a badly drawn up treaty!

Quite possibly. It is certainly an inconvenient treaty for some members of the HRE. But like it or not, it is the treaty that the HRE is stuck with as its founding constitution. Of course those determined to annex their neighbours will always try to find some justification for doing so. It is just unfortunate for those concerned in G7 that the guarantors of the ToW were unwilling to honour their responsibilities.


J Flower
King
King

Number of posts : 680
Age : 46
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 10
Registration date : 2012-02-16

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by J Flower on Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:01 am

Prussia isn't a part of the HRE, hence the title King in Prussia as it lies outside the HRE, Brandenburg is however inside the Empire which complicates things. The position of Saxony when it is linked to the Polish crown is similar to Prussian position. The Elector of Hanover if he take the Throne of England can also cause headaches for the Imperial law courts. Would anyone think England is a part of the HRE, because it's king has holdings in Germany?

As is the historical case people pick & mix the treaty to meet there own ends & attempt to justify there actions whist using the same methods to show how unhonourable there opponents are for doing the same thing.

The purpose of the ToW was to end a war that had brought Germany to the edge of barbarity. In that it succeded. That it then was able to maintain that peace is a question open to debate. Wars still took place, maybe the importance of the treaty isn' tin the peace it brought rather more the recognition of the relegious questions raised by the war it ended.

The Hessian
Lord
Lord

Number of posts : 84
Reputation : 0
Registration date : 2010-09-28

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by The Hessian on Fri Nov 23, 2012 2:39 pm

Lets face it guys the germans didnt want france sticking its nose in to HRE affairs, its sole purpose in the treaty was to guarantee the peace of the treaty. Its meddling in attempting to get the empire to break up viz Brandenburg-Prussia and Saxony of Saxony-Poland was not the action of a true supporter of the treaty and frankly was a base attempt to build a mini subject area of french influence totally contrary to its supposed position of support for the empire.
Simply you were at it, Austria caught you and has subsequently slapped you down, you wound up so many nations you became billy no mates and now you cannot ever give it up like a dog with a bone. I bet you have now snuck back into the game as your forum input has shot up!!! never a good sign .

Guest
Guest

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Guest on Fri Nov 23, 2012 4:42 pm

Hessian I know how much you miss criticising me and blaming me for everything in G7. Sleep You know that if you attack my historic record I will usually defend it and defeat your contrived and false arguments in the same way I always have in the hope that it provides you with useful therapy. Far from my forum input shooting up, it has dropped considerably over the last 6 months, though I still actively monitor it for news of French victories and Bavarian diplomatic defeats, and receive emails telling me when fresh posts are entered. Some people value my contributions on the forum and the help I can provide in answering their questions about game matters. That is what the forum is for: to help and encourage others, particularly new players, navigate some of the complexities and share experiences.

You will no doubt recall the days before I joined the forum when the posts were crammed with anti-French propaganda, most of it inaccurate and some rather personal. The result was a very distorted view of the game which helped nobody. No doubt you remember those days with a great deal of satisfaction and hope that you can undermine whatever efforts the players are making to build new relationships within the game. Attempts to play the game through the forum failed then and will fail now. I am deliberately avoiding posting long commentaries on matters within G7 so that players are not influenced.

France was obliged to defend the states of the HRE against an overmighty emperor as stipulated in the Treaty of Westphalia. This is not an exclusively French argument, but was the same case made by Spain in his repeated public pronouncements about the need to protect the Catholic bishoprics. The Guarantors of the Treaty of Westphalia were there to guarantee the rights of the states established under the Treaty against an over-mighty emperor. If you feel so strongly that Leopold should have acted as he did, then make the case within the game where it belongs and its worth can be judged by the GM. Personally I do not see how you can claim legal justification (attacking Prussia/Saxony in 1702) for an illegal act (Leopold exceeding his constitutional powers), but I would be very interested if you succeed as it would open up all sorts of possibilities for players across all games. It may also help prevent a re-run of G7 in G9 whenever that starts.

The Hessian
Lord
Lord

Number of posts : 84
Reputation : 0
Registration date : 2010-09-28

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by The Hessian on Fri Nov 23, 2012 5:33 pm

Sorry to shatter your ego bubble but I dont care what you go on about. Simple fact for all your posturing and crying foul, Austria was supported by the vast majority of LGDR players in game 7. You werent and thats it. Now wheres that bone I can throw. Very Happy
avatar
Deacon
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1315
Age : 53
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 38
Registration date : 2010-04-13

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Deacon on Fri Nov 23, 2012 5:35 pm

The Hessian wrote:Lets face it guys the germans didnt want france sticking its nose in to HRE affairs, its sole purpose in the treaty was to guarantee the peace of the treaty. Its meddling in attempting to get the empire to break up viz Brandenburg-Prussia and Saxony of Saxony-Poland was not the action of a true supporter of the treaty and frankly was a base attempt to build a mini subject area of french influence totally contrary to its supposed position of support for the empire.
Simply you were at it, Austria caught you and has subsequently slapped you down, you wound up so many nations you became billy no mates and now you cannot ever give it up like a dog with a bone. I bet you have now snuck back into the game as your forum input has shot up!!! never a good sign .

I have to agree that all the propagandizing in the forum really doesn't add anything. That's what the paper is for.
avatar
Jason
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1461
Age : 47
Location : Gourdon, Aberdeenshire
Reputation : 16
Registration date : 2008-08-27

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Jason on Fri Nov 23, 2012 7:16 pm

...and back by popular demand, it's "The Louis and Hessian Show"...a bit like "The Odd Couple" with extra fancy uniforms...

Stuart Bailey
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1049
Age : 54
Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
Reputation : 31
Registration date : 2012-01-29

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Stuart Bailey on Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:09 pm

Jason wrote:...and back by popular demand, it's "The Louis and Hessian Show"...a bit like "The Odd Couple" with extra fancy uniforms...

After all the fuss in G7 the Emperor made about Brandenburg & Saxony trying to mess up the Constitution of the Holy Roman Empire and the fuss France has made about defending the Soverign Rights of German Princes its remarkable that when Bavaria annexed Wartemburg France did nothing about protecting the Soverign Rights of that Prince. While self appointed protectors of the status quo in the Empire like the Emperor and the Duke of Flanders did nothing as well.

What Blackmail worthy info does Bavaria hold?

Actually, if Louis wants to join a game in which the French and some of the German Princes are struggling to hold a over mighty Emperor in check can I suggest G2 rather than G9? In G2 the Emperor views the T of W as a disgrace and a French plot to keep Germany divided. Quote it at him and you too can be visited by the dreaded Prussian Yacht Squardron.

Sponsored content

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Sponsored content


    Current date/time is Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:40 am