Game 8

Basileus has a point, and so have the rest of you from the other angle; I think Agema will be going to about a 3 week turnaround by October. Personally I get the impression that 6 weeks is too far apart, but that 2 weeks is a bit tight, at least for the campaign games (2 weeks seems about right for Napoleonic Battles). Anyway, take this comment as a statement of intent, reality may differ from the intention - so this is not a promise! When the changes kick in let me know how it impacts you all. September should see a change, but reply dates issued in October will show a truer pattern of what future months should typically hold for you all. Hopefully we'll find a middle ground to keep everyone kind-of-happy.

Hang on - I'm beginning to sound like a politician...

(with apologies to those of you who have been or are parish councillors - I know at least two of you fit into the category of politician!)

from my understanding prussia wants to make waves and austria and spain are standing united against him and in defence of the HRE. seems sensible since spain has admitted that the hapsburgs will get the spanish crown. i think its a good strategy, as prussia is finding out in game 2 those stubborn little german states (like Liegois) can pack a mighty punch and take years to overrun.

moroever by playing the defence of the empire card austria might be able to bring the army of the circles to bear (such like they claim in game 7).

wheraas to me prussias "defender of the little guy" argument vis a vis brunswick rings a tad hollow and looks like a looming causus belli for naked annexation.

im very intrigued by the french player, and i hope this is a strategy rather than an inactive position. what is he up to? or is he just waiting for us all to declare war on each other before he acts...

the spanish player being unaware that prussia and brandenburg are the same state seems bizarre, point off the honour score for that schoolboy error methinks!

As for Prussia publishing correspondence - shame on him and two points off!

That was what I was confused about, the Spanish view of Prussian lands, and the bad behavoiur of posting correspondence. Interestingly, on a wider point - but definately not crossing the line on what is and isnt dicussable Isnt the problem partly in The Glory of Kings that a late twentieth century perspective is taken on early eighteenth century issues? That Prussia thinks that it can take a strong position on Austria and is its equal?

spelling error - discussable - may even still be wrong

We have politicians under us. Oh my god.

I think a turn around of 3 weeks is ideal. Having 2 weeks could be problematic for those of us who plays in more than one game. If we can have the cycle of the last years this would be fine.

I think the problem of some prussian players is that they think Brandenburg-Preußen of 1700 is as strong as Prussia in later years. In 1700 it was a rather poor state . And even under Friedrich II it was not rich. Only the iron will and the military leadership of the old Fritz lay the foundation of the rise to supreme power inside Germany.
In contrast Austria emerge after the Treaty of Karlowitz as Great Power. Only the austrian succession crises of 1740 made it possible for Prussia to gain Silesia from Austria.

So being a bad ass in 1700 is not very reasonable for Prussia.

Well, I can say that I've noticed some things that are different than history in the game which appear to me to be more about game play/balance, so I think it can be a mistake to assume the game exactly mirrors the historical world.

I'd point out in the game Prussia has unique military abilities at the start of the game which as you point out might be more appropriate for a later period, implying to me that they have a stronger starting position than they may have actually had exactly in 1700. Frankly, I hope some of these 'changes' have been made as I don't want to wait 20 real world years to see it unfold!

Being an American, my knowledge of what you people over there were doing in 1700 is limited but I wouldn't necessarily use history as the definitive guide to what people's strength is in game.

I think Richard has built the game to model history while ensuring all players have something to work with. All deviations may not be obvious, and probably vary a bit from game to game to keep all you old timers on your toes!

Well i notice the opposite. I think Richard has done a great job to model the historical properties of each country. There are enough ahistorical games on the market so it is refreshing to have a game which is based on historical facts.
This doesn´t mean small nations have no chance to expand but luckily we will not see that country´s like the Swiss will conquerer the world which happens too often in other similar games.

Don't get me wrong, it is clearly very close to history, but if it were exactly history then multiple nations wouldn't have unique units, in that the world just isn't that black and white.

Note another thread on the Spanish Succession. In game, there is no chance of merging thrones (or so I was told) and so the historical pressure on the resolution that wracked all of Europe isn't exactly present. It's more a matter of honor (not insignificant) and influence for Austria and France.

It appears to me from the rules (and I'm speaking on this only because I have no in-game knowledge and hence can't be breaking the 'keep it in the game rule') that Prussia has unique military advantages now, in 1700.

I think we all have the benefit of a bunch of history books to tell us exactly what everybody was like and had in 1700. While I don't expect notable deviations from history, I also don't think that players ought to be able to say "well, I know the Eastern Duchy of Fiddleton didn't have an army in 1700 so I'm just going to overrun it." That necessarily means some 'fog of war' needs to be incorporated into the game.

All speculation on my part, well, except for noting some examples where the game deviates from history.

I don't know much about unique units available to other nations, but I have found some troop numbers for nations at the start of the War of the Spanish Succession. It is only approximate as sources differ, but might give an idea. I don't know how this compares to the actual G8 starting positions, so perhaps someone can correct my errors?

England: 23,250F, 1,650H, 1,350D, total 26,250 men.
Prussia: 24,750F, 4,350H, 3,600D total 32,700 men (at the end of the war Prussia had around 40,000 men).
UDP: 78,851F, 13,489H, total 92,340 men. UDP had the largest army after France, and added to it by hiring lots of mercenaries.
Austria: 46,800F (don't have figures for H/D).
Spain: 6,500F, 1,500H/D (in Flanders), plus 5,000F, 4,000H/D in Italy, plus 17,000F, 3,500H/D in Spain.
France: 200,000 total, split approx 150,000F, 50,000H/D, plus another 100F by 1703, and Swiss/Irish mercenaries.

The figures are only a guide as different countries had different numbers of troops in a squadron/regiment/battalion, and paper strength bore no relation to field strength. Of course this makes no allowance for quality.

The Prussian army was trained and drilled by Leopold I, Prince of Anhalt-Dessau, the best drillmaster in Europe at the time. He strongly believed that discipline and obedience was essential in an army. He started his career as an infantry colonel 1693 and eventually became Generalfeldmarschall. He developed and introduced Cadence marching around 1730.
So the process of turning the Prussian army into the finest fighting force in existence started at around 1700.

Yes but Prussia will get a chance against Austria. But not in 1700. As the game will last for 50 years he will get the old Fritz as ruler someday and then he can whoop it up.

What i mean is for example if Prussia would declare war against Austria in 1700 - and lets assume that both players have the same skill - Prussia won´t have much of a chance to win.
Firstly the austrian army is three times larger then the prussian one. Secondly Austria has a much much stronger economy. And of capital importance Austria has the best General of its history namely Prinz Eugen in 1700. So even if the prussian army have a better discipline it is very hard to win against the military genius of Prinz Eugen.

But if Prussia can convience the Ottoman Empire to take vengeance for Karlowitz the whole situation will change.

Now if Prussia will continue the military reforms they did beginn historically in 1700 and the austrian player is a dork he can challenge Austria much earlier and have a good chance to win.

Another example is France. In 1700 it is the most powerful country in Europe. In a war 1 against 1 he can beat any state in Europe without much problem. (With the assumption that both players have the same skill). But if 2 or 3 major powers gang up against him France is in trouble.

But this is the best thing of the game that no state will ever be so powerful that he can beat all other states together. So Diplomacy is the key to victory.

The game will not last for 50 years unless Richard changes formats and does 3 months every 3 weeks or something. At 3 week turn around it would be 34! years before we reached 1750.

Even at the 3 months every 3 weeks, it would still take 11 years!

I know from playing in game 3 that the arc of the game is NOT purely historical, as I, as the Papal States in that game, have more ships of the line than were in the entire battle of trafalgar! Others have many more than me.

We may start close to history, but it is a game simulation, and it diverges. We can start with the fact that I think most players are much more likely to go to war in a game than they would be in real life.

None of this is to suggest that I think that Prussia could beat Austria today. Just that I wouldn't count on it taking 50 years for them to get to that point.

Yes i mean game years not real years.

But i am totally on your side. In 5, 10 or 15 years all can happen but not in 1700. This was my only grievance.

Btw you would be surprised how much ships the Big Boys have in game 3.

I was pointing out that given the pace of the game, real years and game years aren't that far apart. at a 3 week turnaround. Year 1750 in game would come sometime around real world 2045!

and no, I wouldn't be surprised about ship counts in game 3, I actually know what some of the ship counts are!

But as the Pope, it's mostly irrelevant to me That game is far too advanced for any of the second tier players to make any material difference in the military/economic part of the game. You have to pick other goals.

The reason for the enormous amount of ships/armies in older games is of course that you keep whatever you build unless it is destroyed in battle and there is no restrictions on how many ships can be built at a shipyard.
Ships would rot, any ship could be expected to last 10-15 years in the caribbean unless it had copper bottom. Also navigation was a problem at this time and many ships was lost at sea, but this is a problem in game. Should Richard roll a dice every time a fleet sail somewhere and say "10 frigates lost in a hurricane"?
Normally people have to leave the navy/army for many reasons and disease usually kill far more than the enemy. Disease can become a problem in game as well of course but not as much as in real life.
I am not complaining, I enjoy the game as it is but it is not really realistic.

Fair enough, and it may be realistic to roll those dice, but I think players would get frustrated, and a run of bad luck of the dice could trash someone early on through no fault of their own. So doing it this way makes sense from a game play perspective to me.

Actually there is a mechanism for ships being lost to storms at sea, it can and does happen - sometimes with vicious losses. Also, ships in the colonies can have their hulls rot, that also happens in the game, and even copper-bottomed ships can develop problems (due to the way they're attached to the hull).

The main constraint on growth is recruits available and revenue. Generally revenue in-game these days tends to be higher than in real life, this is deliberate because we've run a version of the game before with quite accurate levels of funding and players just got frustrated at not being able to afford to do much! This is the chief cause of the potentially large armies and/or navies, although such large armed forces do not always occur in games. Sometimes quite slim armed forces are kept as people concentate on other issues.

Another point, at least in relation to naval assets, is that construction time is shorter than in real life, on the whole. Again this is allowed in the name of playability, balancing game balance to historicity while maintaining the realistic atmosphere.

Incidentally it doesn't change the realism that much since this just means that in a game a larger fleet than would historically be the case joins in a sea battle, but in real life the same would happen but just with a smaller fleet. The result is the same - this way just means players have more to play with, and players prefer it that way (it is somehow better for one's ego to lead an army into battle rather than a paltry regiment!).

I believe that the fact that the game is a simulation is one of the things we enjoy about the game. We endeavour to do better than our historical namesakes did. However, the historical constraints are what makes the game even more interesting. I suppose the best way for me to express this is - when I play a Total War computer game I set myself historical limits. An example being, my son is amazed that I might play as the Ottoman Empire in Empire Total War for 80 game years and still only have conquered a couple of provinces. To his mind I should have conquered the whole map by then, and when he plays he will have conquered the world in 20 game years, but to me, I have enjoyed historically playing as the Ottomans with a bit of conquest. Glory of Kings works the same way for me.

game 8 is in, and quite a turn, looks like some players are publishing correspondence already, very naughty but great fun! prussia vrs the rest...maybe (the v quiet) mr france has finally found an ally

Publishing received correspondence is not something I would do, might refer to it but publishing it seems a bit harsh. Unless it was intercepted by someone else, in whch case, sneaky but valid

It would seem that prussia is in fact publishing his own correspondence to Emperor Leopold. This must be the letter missing from Prussias statement in last months newspaper. He is trying to show he is not what is being publicly portrayed by the Emperor. Ive no idea what hanover is about but it is all very interesting if somewhat one sided by immediate looks of things.

Ah, got it,

ah i see, useful clarification, well its all very interesting. game 8 looks like it is full of experienced players, most of whom are playing the long game so its interesting to see Prussia move first. I am very happy in game 8, it seems more satisfying to take the position from the start rather than inherit a diplomatic or economic mess from someone else!

Well if i would play Hanover i would also be pissed if someone try to take away my legacy. Especially if it is the own son-in-law.