G7 - France vs. England

I think Stuart (Bailey) hit the nail on the head. The Treaty of Ghent expired back in April of this game year. Now I accept that I did break the treaty before that, and I did see a fall in my honour score from about 30 to 13. But because my score was so high I could survive that, which was in part one of the factors I took into account. If my honour score had been 10 I doubt that I would have survived the loss of 17 honour points.
If people will forgive me, surely the issue we should become worried about is are there actions which stretch the boundries of credibility with our understanding of the history of the time. As I see it, Austria made a bad treaty with France, it saw its natural ally England being invaded by France, it believed (careful use of words here)that France intended to pick England, UDP, Spain and Austria off one by one. And yes the war with France was rash, but the French were given a three month prior warning to reach peace with England. The eighteenth century was surely populated by rash monarchs. If actions are appropiate for the time I dont see what the big issue is.
Well people may now say that I would say that wouldnt I. But actually that is what I think the key point of the game is. Are we operating in a realistic interpretation of that time period.
No offence is intended to anyone by my comments, I do understand as above, that many have a different perspective, but surely different playing styles adds to the strength of the game?

Basileus, I think what you did is slightly different to the current flow of conversation and in-game I dont personally have a problem with what you did. You made a conscious decision to break a treaty that you signed with another active player. You have clearly suffered some set-backs as a result. There are plenty of examples in history of people breaking treaties.

I guess where your actions would have been questioned is if a new French player arrived and straight off the bat you attacked him stating that all treaties were null and void. Kind of side-stepping the "history".

Well, I won't speak to your actions, since I don't think it's really useful, other than to say that I think game history seem to me to suggest that you misinterpreted events. My personal take is that France was honest, in fact foolishly so. But as you say, history is full of monarchs who did so.

I speak more to the 17 points of honour loss. And yet you still remain, after breaking the treaty, on top of the honour rolls. Does this mean that the rich positions that can buy honour by renovating cathedrals and the like can buy their way past treaties more than smaller positions?

I hope not. And part of my desire to understand how Richard runs this.

I think, as an aside, that this illustrates one of the problems of using honour as a currency.

As I understand it, Honour above 12 or so is almost meaningless. It generates more income, and it gives you bragging rights, but the points between 1 and 10 drive whether or not you can control your army and your country. Above that threshold, what's the value of honour as a game asset?

Richard deliberately obscures details of honour, so it might have more effect that I know about, but I've seen no evidence and other players have reported no noticeable difference at higher honours.

So a loss of 10 points of honour when your honour is 12 is devastating. When your Honour is 20, it's an annoyance.

I'm curious if others agree with this.

On honour-I have always seen it, in addition to being a useful income stream (v useful if you are playing a smaller nation with a small budget), as a way of showing who is 'winning' at any given time. Moving up and down the honour table is like moving up and down the football table, the better you do the higher you are. Now sometimes honour scores can get very high mso you can take quite a loss and still be ok but then if I were playing a position and I suddenly lost a lot of my honour score, I would be worried regardless of how high it was to start with.
I am not sure that you can buy honour; I have tried the 'open lots of cathedrals etc' approach and it hasn't really had a massive benefit for my honour...I find playing honourably does that...though as an aside, in a Chinese position, your honour score works differently.

On treaties, I had assumed a treaty remained in effect regardless of player changes, for the life of the treaty. I am sure that is what I had been told when I started playing; also sure that if a treaty didn't include a clause saying how long it was valid sure then it was assumed to last for five years.

Again, on treaties it does come back to the issue of how does a new player know about them? I am certain when I first played, when the game was purely by post, you had to supply Richard with a copy of any treaty so a copy could go to a new player (and in theory get stolen from your offices by a spy!). So perhaps its just a case of us making sure we do do that-and I feel that means if you are playing by email making sure you send Richard a separate word document with the treaty in it for his records rather than expect him to pull it out of your main turn.
If it's not the case that we are supposed to give Richard copies of treaties, perhaps we need to have that as a rule?

On Honour, not sure if it can be used as a measure of "winning" as Jason suggests, it may represent a way to see if you are playing in a "historical" way, I think each individual player defines his own set of goals, if building Churches increases honour, then you may then be up in the honour table, but have you actually acheived a long term goal in the game. Some players may wish to go for territorial expansion,then the area of expansion would show how successful they have been, others may wish for riches & a trading position would suit them, then a high EH score would be an indication of success rather than honour. Honour is so much in focus because it appears on the newsletter, if the list was of the richest antions, or the largest armies, would it put a differant dimension on game. Honour reflects historical game play, but it need not be seen as a straightjacket, to prevent other actions from happening.


On treaties, look at the history of Austria & Prussia for historical examples of treaty breaking. Frederick broke them, also let secret treaties become common knowledge. Yes he was publically critisied in his own times, there has been a long on going debate among German scholars as to his case of preventative action against Saxony. I am not trying to protect treaty breakers merely say that it did happen.

Treaties will remain a problem so long as there is a player turnover. It isn't as if anyone leaves a political testimony to there successor in the game as was historically the case, new players are reliant on an introdution from old hands. If you are lucky then over time trust will be built up & new treties can be formulated.

I dont see how it could be introduced mid game but perhaps if a new game starts positions could in future show a list of treaties, treaty type and expiry date.

So if you take over say the UDP in 1703 you may see on your list

1) Mutual defence pact with England expiry 1704
2) Non aggression pact with France expiry 1705
3) Trade agreement with L-C & Munster to charge 0% tarrifs expiry 1707

Perhaps when a Government changes rather than being considered automatically null and void the new Government and the party who signed it with the old Government could be given a option to repudiate the treaty on say three months public notice. With failure to give notice and just attacking without warning being considered really bad form! And the action of a total cad and a bounder.

Thus in the above example the Peaceful Trade based Dutch Republican Government has been replaced by a Protectionest Anti French Orangist Govt which repudiates the non aggression pact with France and the free trade agreement.

Of course at this point the English Govt may decide it no longer wishes to be allied with this "Dutch Nutter" and repudiates the Anglo-Dutch treaty.

I am not sure what others think but my feeling it that if governments change its reasonable to change your position but for Governments to formally repudiate a treaty should be quite a big deal.

I agree with your proposal in principle Stuart, as I have said previously in the thread.

In LOAK such a list of treaties was printed once a year, maybe that is a bit extreme, maybe every five game years, or maybe the signature of such important treaties should be made more public in the Newsletter, that would give everyone more access each player could then create his own at home list of treaties. I think Historically ambassadors would report such signings as a matter of course to there governments at home, so having there content made public shouldn't be too much of a problem. Maybe it would also encourage players to act differantly if they know who is allied to who.

Ok, there will be calls for secret treaties, but they must also be seen in context, eventually over time there signature & content would seep out. Plus should it be seen as a great secret that your merchants have to pay 0% taxes when they import to another nation, such things would soon become public knowledge.

I'm travelling, so haven't had time to distill my thoughts, but in general I think:

1) Reciprocal treaties could be repudiated by a new player with say 6 month notice. IE treaties that agree to mutual defense, mutual trade, mutual non-aggression, etc.

2) Treaties that are not reciprocal aren't repudiatable. This would include even I give you trade concessions for a non-aggression treaty. To be repudiatable, the treaty needs to be trading the same things. IE, if I pay you 1M pounds not to attack me, once I've paid, the treaty stays, or if France agrees with Spain to let the austrian candidate take the spanish throne, then the concessions and agreements around that can't be undone later. The thought needs more refinement, but once you make a trade for something, if you've paid up, then the other party can't get out with a player change. My concern is that if you allow all treaties to be abrogated, then you create a situation where one party can end up paying and getting nothing despite having acted in-game in good faith because the new player doesn't want to live up to the bargain even though his position got something. Richard, of course, could judge a treaty so unbalanced that breaching it wouldn't cause much honour loss and could counsel a new player so. This helps avoid the problem of "I'm quitting, and I liked player y, so I'm going to do a treaty to give him all my stuff."

3) Agreed treaties all ought to be published in the paper. The easiest mechanism is to have all parties agree, then all individually submit the treaty to the paper. When the paper receives the EXACT same treaty from all parties it is published, and then the players turns can permanently note the treaty publication date. New players could then just get a copy of that paper with their set up. This does make secret treaties unenforceable by the honour rules of the game for public treaties, but that seems reasonable to me. If you're making secret agreements, then there is no public commitment upon which your honour hangs, and you can deny it all. A player might, depending upon the circumstances, take some honour hit, but it isn't anything like a public endorsed treaty.

Just my own brief twopennorth on treaties and honour, from a my-kind-of-commonsense point of view, rather than informed by much game experience. Since we're aiming at mirroring real-world activities it seems obvious that treaties should outlive the ruler who made them. A successor inherits the treaties made by their predecessors, with all their obligations and perquisites. They may well choose to renege/ignore them, of course, just as real-world rulers do and did - and that should of course involve a loss of face (and rulers will of course try to "spin" their actions to make them seem more acceptable, just as in the real world). The particular problem we get in the game I think is the inheriting (?) of all (?) the real-world treaties made before 1700 - mainly because few of us I think have a complete knowledge of those treaties (me less than many of my fellow players). Perhaps each game should start with an included summary of those treaties considered to be in force? (Sounds like a lot of work for Richard). Or else a blank slate??

On Honour and "winning". I think it says somewhere in the basic rules that each player sets his own goals and measures winning by how they manage to achieve them. So setting being highest in honour as a personal goal, and achieving that, is a kind of winning (as much as any kind the game allows!) but only for the player concerned - other players aiming at being the most powerful or the most technological or whatever certainly won't think the high-honour achiever has won the game! It's a weird game, in which everyone can be a winner. Hooray! (As to the in-game usefulness of honour, apart from those effects folk have already listed, I think it's also true that in a diplomatic face-off between two players trying to influence some npcs the highest honour will have a distinct advantage...)

Treaties: Just a thought but one way out of the problem would be to ensure that they are all time bound. Assuming no player would knowingly enter into a treaty that was against his nations honour and interests and then leave the game..... a new player would just get copies of the current treaties relating to his nations influence and have to get on with it. If the average time span of a treaty was say, 5 yrs it shouldn't be a problem as other players need the constancy provided by the 'contract'. If however a dowry was paid then we should accept that this is forever. (no pre-nups!)

However if when taking over a position Agema thinks the game is completely stacked against the player Richard could step in like some deus ex machina and prove some advice or dare I suggest .. actual help?

Winning however is, I think, linked to our personal goals and objective. So lets keep the fog of war around this and get on with knocking lumps of each other or creating teams of players who can work together for the enlightenment of Man.

Well as the new edition of the rulebook has introduce a new peace conferences system we will see how this works in game 7.

Seeing as how the Game system has been up & running for over 20 years, with various improvements & tweaks. I suspect that the problem of treaties has also been around for the entire time.

There probably is no hard & fast solution. It may well be that the making /breaking, of treaties has become an integral part of the game.

It is something that the Players & Agema will always have a problem with, there probably is no cure, maybe only some mild pain releif.

Yes it is annoying, yes it throws out all your well laid plans, but it is how you react to those setbacks that stop the game from becoming a boring number crunching exersise.

Another turn and more exciting action. England is still determined to get into a fight with Spain, and Spain try to defuse the situation. I wonder who will win.

Ardagor: what a turn?! What makes the English want to fight Spain? They are in turmoil; have two kings, their capital is burning and they tweak the nose of the only major European power yet to fight a real war in G7. Oh dear, it looks bad.

Who bets the Spanish take a couple of English colonies, destroy trade and come out with more honour?

An France strikes back. Interesting.

And Moldavia?

Ohhh. Stuart giz a commentary as only you can.......

Ardagor wrote:Another turn and more exciting action. England is still determined to get into a fight with Spain, and Spain try to defuse the situation. I wonder who will win.

What are you a Man or an Orc? Of course England will win! After all we have two kings and numerious free born factions in our Parliament V one King and lots of highly paid, highly trained and well mounted lackies on the other side.

Plus you fail to spot the master plan to restore English Unity......England attacks Spain, this triggers the League of St George & the Papacy declares war on England. KJ & Catholic Englishmen like the Duke of Norfolk refuse to accept Papal Authority since the Pope is now the enemey and convert to Anglicanism with KJ head of a more "Catholic" church to keep the Jacobites happy while Puritans are happy because we are now fighting Spain and the Pope, ditto Portugal, Flanders, Venice, Genoa, The Knights of St John and Austria. Nasty papists the lot of them!

A united England powers on to victory to prove we are Power No2 after France. If that does to work its on to the third ranked power, then the fourth, then the fifth.

Regor wrote:Ardagor: what a turn?! What makes the English want to fight Spain? They are in turmoil; have two kings, their capital is burning and they tweak the nose of the only major European power yet to fight a real war in G7. Oh dear, it looks bad.

Who bets the Spanish take a couple of English colonies, destroy trade and come out with more honour?

An France strikes back. Interesting.

And Moldavia?

Ohhh. Stuart giz a commentary as only you can.......

Still play by the traditional postal method so you are ahead of me but I will post my traditional summary for G7 watchers on the forum when I recieve it.

The above news that the French are fighting a war is not unexpected since their beloved King was in danger!

Spain & England we always going to have something between a exchange of words and a full blown war after recent events.

But what the hell does this "And Moldavia?" bit mean? Has Moldavia finally got fed up with being ignored in Constantinople and joined the Russian Empire? If the Hopsdar trys to take Wallachia & Bulgaria with him it will mean trouble!

Stuart I await your comments as I think you are closer to events than I. I'll leave you in anticipation of the results though: However its a bl**dy good 'un! Who would play a different game now? Once you comment I may be tempted to make an observation or two tho'

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Ardagor wrote:Another turn and more exciting action. England is still determined to get into a fight with Spain, and Spain try to defuse the situation. I wonder who will win.

What are you a Man or an Orc? Of course England will win! After all we have two kings and numerious free born factions in our Parliament V one King and lots of highly paid, highly trained and well mounted lackies on the other side.

Plus you fail to spot the master plan to restore English Unity......England attacks Spain, this triggers the League of St George & the Papacy declares war on England. KJ & Catholic Englishmen like the Duke of Norfolk refuse to accept Papal Authority since the Pope is now the enemey and convert to Anglicanism with KJ head of a more "Catholic" church to keep the Jacobites happy while Puritans are happy because we are now fighting Spain and the Pope, ditto Portugal, Flanders, Venice, Genoa, The Knights of St John and Austria. Nasty papists the lot of them!

A united England powers on to victory to prove we are Power No2 after France. If that does to work its on to the third ranked power, then the fourth, then the fifth.

Me? An Orc obviously.

I suppose a war with Spain will enforce some kind of unity but it does appear to me that England is not properly prepared for a serious fight with Spain after all the trouble the last few years, but the Duke of Norfolk obviously disagree with this and he does have the full power of the armed forces of England at his disposal and if he think he can win...

I guess it's my turn to contribute to the churn in the game. I'm going through a career transition so that wonderful salary I had is going away, as well as the amazing stress and misery that accompanied it. As a consequence, I'm cutting expenses to start to align with the new world and have dropped game 7, game 3, and swashbuckler.

Best to those still in those games, and maybe somebody will pick up King James here and have a go. I had some great plans!

Deacon, Arrrgh. Sorry to see you go. Will miss you but hope you'll contribute here?

I'm going to try to stay in game 8 and see if I can learn to do cheaper turns :-).

I will hang around and watch the fireworks from the sidelines.

Pity poor James in Game 3. I don't imagine that Richard will be easy to persuade to lift the excommunication as I would have been! :-)

I'm actually happy, if terrified, about the transition.

To say that I loathed my job would be an understatement. After the president of the company screamed at me for 10 minutes for doing something completely normal that I'd done many times before, I asked for, and was granted, a separation package. No details yet, but I'm hopeful it's enough to set me on the road to a job that doesn't suck, even if it pays less.

Deacon: in the "real world" i hope it is a new beginning for you. No one deserves or should be in that position. I'm glad thats over for you. Good Luck and Let me know if there's anything i can do to help. R