What Ambassador?

Does anyone else experience occasional frustration that a nation's own Ambassadors to foreign parts are listed - but not the Ambassadors sent to our own court? From experience we know that doesn't mean that all nations have a presence at our court. Can we assume only those player-nations who have announced as much have a presence, and no-one else..?

There is a Notification in the newspaper every time a ambassador is sent anywhere so you should be aware of any embassies in your nation that arrived during your rule, even if the nation in question did not specifically asked if it would be acceptable.

There is also the expense sheet every April where the number of embassies you pay for are listed. Every Foreign embassy on your soil require 10,000 Guineas a year in upkeep.

Throw a party for the ambassdors if you are uncertain about their identity, or ask your Chancellor, he should know.

Yes, this is a frustration for me too. You can ask on your turn, but I do think it should just be listed.

easy hold a ball see who turns up invite all amassadors, that way you get a list of who attended and who did not 

With Deacon, it just seems strange you have to use an action to find out something your bureaucracy should "know", as well as it knows which ambassadors it's sent where (or without the player having to keep hiser own personal account from the News). I know it's the way it is (and there are ways round it). It just seems odd (and marginally annoying).

Do tend to agree with Jim and Deacon on this; it would be useful if we didn't have to ask who the ambassadors present in the home country were.  Perhaps once a year with the expenditure report (well, if you're paying for them you should know who!)?  Or at least when you take over a nation, with the startup turn?

Jason wrote:Do tend to agree with Jim and Deacon on this; it would be useful if we didn't have to ask who the ambassadors present in the home country were.  Perhaps once a year with the expenditure report (well, if you're paying for them you should know who!)?  Or at least when you take over a nation, with the startup turn?

I think having them on the turn would help, you could address them by name, more easily too.

And all of the above does tend to make me think the only ambassadors we get are sent by player-nations (though they might remain behind when a player goes). Anyway, about to make in-character enquiries to see if I've got ambassadors from a couple of npc (I assume!) nations...

I generally like to send my spies out to find them, its much much much much more fun

jimbotten wrote:And all of the above does tend to make me think the only ambassadors we get are sent by player-nations (though they might remain behind when a player goes).  Anyway, about to make in-character enquiries to see if I've got ambassadors from a couple of npc (I assume!) nations...

I think they're only ever sent by player nations, but those players can drop later, so it's not really a good way of telling who is active. The ambassadors stay, and I think it's a bit dishonorable to boot an ambassador without a good reason, so you're stuck with them.

Deacon wrote:

jimbotten wrote:And all of the above does tend to make me think the only ambassadors we get are sent by player-nations (though they might remain behind when a player goes).  Anyway, about to make in-character enquiries to see if I've got ambassadors from a couple of npc (I assume!) nations...

I think they're only ever sent by player nations, but those players can drop later, so it's not really a good way of telling who is active. The ambassadors stay, and I think it's a bit dishonorable to boot an ambassador without a good reason, so you're stuck with them.

Up until my last game turn, I used to think the same Deacon. But I received an Ambassador from Gujerat which I am sure is a non player. I think Richard gets involved at times.

Interesting! I do believe Richard throws out red herrings, and other things in games, but that the first I've heard of an NPC ambassador.

Deacon wrote:
Interesting! I do believe Richard throws out red herrings, and other things in games, but that the first I've heard of an NPC ambassador.

If you look at the next game 8 turn or two. I think you may see why perhaps Richard has got involved with sending me a npc Ambassador. It adds to the spice of the game.

jamesbond007 wrote:

Deacon wrote:
Interesting! I do believe Richard throws out red herrings, and other things in games, but that the first I've heard of an NPC ambassador.

If you look at the next game 8 turn or two. I think you may see why perhaps Richard has got involved with sending me a npc Ambassador. It adds to the spice of the game.

Good luck! I think the middle east/india is likely to get more interesting with both the Moghul and persia in play.

I think game eight is now going to go through a lively time. Be interesting to see how it all pans out.

jamesbond007 wrote:I think game eight is now going to go through a lively time. Be interesting to see how it all pans out.

Have always considered Nadir Shah a very overlooked General............and its a tough ask in Glori du Roi to complete Nadir Shah great feat of defeating Ottomans, Russians, Moghuls & Afghans.

Though I am not sure the Afghans were defeated so much as given an offer "they could not refuse" ref joining a Jihad against the Moghuls. And they clearly had a good time since they repeated the invasion a couple more times under Nadir Shah's former general Ahmed Shah inc a crushing defeat of Mahratta Confederation just as it looked set to become the greatest power in India.

Did have a go at copying Nadir Shah Indian Campaigns in LAOK and made some progress but game folded before anything happened in the west. But it looks a really tough role to complete for a Persian Player.

Stuart Bailey wrote:

jamesbond007 wrote:I think game eight is now going to go through a lively time. Be interesting to see how it all pans out.

Have always considered Nadir Shah a very overlooked General............and its a tough ask in Glori du Roi to complete Nadir Shah great feat of defeating Ottomans, Russians, Moghuls & Afghans.  

Though I am not sure the Afghans were defeated so much as given an offer "they could not refuse" ref joining a Jihad against the Moghuls.  And they clearly had a good time since they repeated the invasion a couple more times under Nadir Shah's former general Ahmed Shah inc a crushing defeat of  Mahratta Confederation just as it looked set to become the greatest power in India.

Did have a go at copying Nadir Shah Indian Campaigns in LAOK and made some progress but game folded before anything happened in the west.  But it looks  a really tough role to complete for a Persian Player.

Given the recruits the Moghuls and Russians get, its difficult to see how Persia could defeat either of them in LGDR. Let alone both of them. Virtually impossible. Also in game 8 Russia and the Moghuls are on very friendly terms .The Afghans would add very little to Persia. However, defeating the split Ottoman nations would be far easier for them.

Russia gets oddles of recruits

Kingmaker wrote:Russia gets oddles of recruits

All the more to kill for you true Ottoman, Persian or Swedish Warlord!!!!

Not much of a game if everyone no attempts anything because it looks "too hard".........In the words of the theme thune from the Flasing Blade "Better to have fought and lost than never fought at all"

I think a number of nations get a lot of recruits and don't necessarily do a lot better militarily because of it. I wouldn't count anybody out.

Deacon wrote:
I think a number of nations get a lot of recruits and don't necessarily do a lot better militarily because of it. I wouldn't count anybody out.

Not just recruits the problem. It's a fair distance from Persian lands to Most of India. So SL ratings play a big part in major wars. Also would think Indian States would join together in some form to repel Persian aggression. Two of the Indian nations are far bigger than Persia. Also Russia has troops in one Indian state. Great friends with An Indian ruler.