G7 - France vs. England

I think that talking details about the content of the letters is across the line, and remind folks of Richard's warning.

That said, as an interested observer with no particular stake in the game, I don't see anything in the post that suggested he is encouraging an assassination of louis or attempting to drive the position out of the game.

I read it that he was saying that he thought louis was so headstrong and blind that even if stabbed in his own bed he wouldn't 'wake up' to the reality of the political world, and that he thought long-winded rants as a mode of diplomatic communication were unproductive and drove him away from louis.

Having not read the letter, I can't say, but I can objectively say that if it had that effect upon the player who read it, then it probably didn't accomplish its objective of persuading.

Looks from the paper like The french merchant marine is taking a pounding.

Oh Deacon that was so well put. If only I had thought of that in aquiet refective moment.
Im going back to my bed now to hopefully beat this manflu and feel better about the world!

The Hessian wrote:
What worries me is that Regor punctuates his prose exactly like Louis!!!!!!

If, my friend, you truly think that ... then my camouflage is exceptionally good!

I'm just loving this game. I dont want to see my position bashed to pieces, but I know I am getting lots of diplomatic mail, and lots of things to think about.

I dont want to see this war continue endlessly or needlessly either, but while it is, Im enjoying the (bumpy) ride.

And to make things clear, Moscow is bearing no grudges whatsoever, regardless of what happens or comes...yikes, after a session of vodka drinking I need good ol Boris Golitsyn to remind me who the "bad" guys and who the "good" guys are.

I'm not in game 7 (as i hope you know) but chaps - you cant continue your game correspondence via the forum, its just not right. I think the forum is to clarify issues about the rules and take advantage of experience to avoid cluttering up ones orders with obvious questions.

Resist, desist please. i think this page is pretty embarassaring all round. if this continues then i would suggest the rules of the forum change to it being moderated by an editor who pre-approves postings, and that would be a shame.

i have enjoyed the forum immensely but one player (i forget who) opposed its creation and i have to say if this continues im sorry to say - id be very sad to say - that this is too negative to persist.

if players refuse to speak to each other in-game then so be it, the field of battle, and the will of god (or allah) will decide! but i would say in the end unless a player leaves you will have to live with them for years, and creating an ever lasting enemy is probably in no-ones interests.

On the wider issues - I think a little mystery here is a good thing so whilst I may speculate I don't really want to know who Mr Ed or any of you are.

As to how we play the game - well its personal choice. I try to play a different character to my own but they tend to join up after a few game years.

Re perceived abuse I think that historically there was a lot of plotting, defaming and so on. I won't take any of it personally and in any case you can either retaliate, get even later, turn the other cheek or seek the assistance of others to refute the claims, threats and so on.

This is a game (notwithstanding all the effort we put into it) and i would be very unhappy if players left feeling abused. I'll accept them having been 'bested', worn down, unlucky or fed up and i may have helped put them there but that's all.

Anyhow game 7 is really very interesting and all this hoo-ha is the grit that begets the oyster!

Perhaps a return to the old 'Agema Court' is what we need. Though that'd be a major headache for Richard, perhaps it'd be a good idea just this once? For the sake of all players concerned getting a fair outcome?

Regor,

I agree. For me, this is a roleplaying game. Who is your leader? What do they dream of? What are their foibles? I think playing this just as a war game would take much of the savor out of it for me.

yes spot on - it took me three attempts to 'get-it' and to some extent the war-gaming is the least of the fun!

Playing Napoleonic Battles is where I go for that - and get beaten there too ...regularly.

Looks like the real Louis has made an appearance in another topic on this forum.

I stand by my previous posts on this topic and thank the rest of you for recognising as I do that personal abuse and organised campaigns against individual players (whoever they are) should have no place in the game.

Albreda - I have some sympathy with your point in what looks like an extreme case where the players won't write to each other and the situation is out of control. More generally I never liked the idea of a Court Agema anyway.

Deacon - I wonder just how true to life the game character of Louis is? It may have been equally difficult to negotiate with him in real life, and equally frustrating.

Hmm yes, just registered yesterday on the Forum Fancy that, King Louis registers on the Forum yesterday for the first time and his first post is - I am the true King Louis
That all being said, just got my turn when I got home last night about 10.30pm. Wow what a turn. I know that I am having fun but this has to be a memorable Glory of Kings game
Very interesting point. Is this "game" Louis like the real Louis? I think that the "game" Louis might be like the real Louis of the 1660's, 1670's, 1680's. When France was rising to the height of its power. My understanding is that the real Louis of 1700 was trying to avoid war (Including the War of Spanish Succession) because by that point he had achieved all that he wanted to with regard to territory and new borders. The Louis of 1700 was more conciliatory but his wars of the previous decades had made everyone suspicious and mistrust France. Which brings us back to where we are in the game

I just thought, reading all the comments, that wars didn’t used to get ‘out of hand’ like this one has.

One of the many reasons for that was that in the old days we could present our terms to Agema and they would mediate. Their decision was final.

There is so much bad feeling in this game that Richard would be wise to step in – otherwise one or more players is going to be trounced, neither side is going to give up and I seriously doubt that any ‘neutral’ player who steps in to mediate would either a) be entirely neutral or b) be able to enforce a decision that one side isn't happy with.

A one off Agema Court session might not give both sides their ideal satisfaction, but stands a far greater chance of being impartial - and would help ensure that all players remain in the game.

I am in favour of peace, and Im still pushing as best I can for it.....but I have to admit there is a small part of me that hopes it just kicks off massively

This game does have an "edge" to it, I just think all players need to understand its a game and what happens in the game stays in the game and doesnt get personal.

I think Basileus has every reason to be calling me all the names under the sun, and not just for this current incident. Ive stuck my nose in (with good excuse I believe) in Imperial affairs in Prussia and Saxony. In the forums he hasnt had a bad word to say...and for that he should be praised - and I am grateful.

I would go for that. I always thought that Court Agema was a good idea. I didnt necessarily get what I wanted. As Sweden once I fought a war against Denmark in which I thought I had conquered Norway and so thought it would be incorporated into Sweden as peace terms. Ended up with Norway becoming an indepenedent Kingdom
To be fair to Richard. I think any submissions should be limited to 150 words or so, or he would drown in the documentation.
I raise a toast in Peach Schnapps to the gentleman who drinks Vodka

I agree. I like the court of agema, as it gives players the chance to save face. There are histiorical parallels, as rulers did send their plenopotetiaries to negotiate on their behalf and had to live with what they got.

Also, with multiple players fighting, netotiating peace month by month by letter is incredibly demanding, so i think the court can be justified and you had better send your best negotiator.

Court Agema is very much the same as a neutral country in most ways, and benefits from being impartial and ENFORCABLE - which is the important thing.

Personally, I would love to mediate for both sides but I doubt either would agree to it unless they were sure of getting what they want. And what if I ruled against one over another? Then I could be a target!?!? lol

In my time playing in the various games I've been both a Saint and a Sinner and I think some of the 'heinous' acts that have been allegedly committed by the combatants in G7 would barely raise the eyebrow of some characters I've played. Regicide, torture and using treaties to keep a victims allies at bay were common tools for me and they worked a treat.

Nowadays (I'm back by the way) I keep characters separate and play fair even when I feel other players are not. That said, one of my positions will favour the 'Sinner' part of me (not to the detriment of other players), but the others are going to be 'Good Guys' - I promise!

Here I am again to spoil the party

The consensus of this discussion seems to be that some kind of Court Agema is the best way of resolving this situation.

France was forced into 2 wars: France vs England and Austria vs France because of the actions of others. It is the refusal of England and Austria to come to terms which has led to these wars getting out of hand.

France's position on peace is well known - it has been published several times in the Herald, as have different French peace terms, and I have repeated nothing here which is not already in the public domain. However, I can repeat statements ad infinitum and it won't solve anything until the players concerned engage with the process. It has become clear over the last few days that players deliberately won't reply to the rather long letters I send. If they won't, then Court Agema is the only way forward and I will not stand in the way of what is clearly the consensus on this forum.

For those who may still doubt who I am, I am changing the picture against my name to be the signature I use on treaties.

Acutally, the more I think about it the more I'm tempted to act as mediator. What's the worst that could happen?

Would people go for that? Or more importantly, would the combatants go for it?

What are peoples thoughts?

Why isnt the Pope taking on the mantle of the "Court of Agema" ? I know Rome cant deal with all issues, but here we have Austria and France head to head (both Catholic). Spain on the fringes - also Catholic. The sticking point as I see it, who reigns in England. One claimaint (The Stuarts) is Catholic.

I've never played the Papacy, but in my mind one of its key attractions would be the ability to be a chief arbitrator in Europe - he should carry alot of clout.

Where is he ?

I agree. But like you highlight, the Pope being Catholic would have a pro-Stuart slant?

Random thought...would the Pope be overly pro-Stuart? Yes, the Stuarts are Catholic but will be indebted to France...might a Pope be fearful of an overly powerful France and try and limit their power a bit?

An interesting thought....

but in this case, King William has the support of Austria AND Spain, to argue the case against the Stuarts.

Good point Count...as a non-player in Game 7 I lose track of who is on whose side

It could come down to who the Pope fears more, a powerful France or a powerful Austria/Spain...

I am not sure if the Pope is active or not - he has no reason to correspond with me. But I would like to think that the Pope would wish to maintain peace amongst the Catholic world and so France, as well as Austria/Spain would be winners and losers in any deal.

In theory both Catholic sides would have to take heed, for fear of ex-communicaiton, the church with-holding tithes etc...unless of course the solution was so one-sided. In which case the conflict just goes up another notch on the "interesting parometer"