G7 - France vs. England

Another Hapsburg mistake - the Treaty of Ghent has clauses which last until 1740. If other rulers want to break it before then, that is their problem. As the Treaty of Ghent acts primarily to protect countries against France there is a net benefit to France in the treaty being broken. There is no clause in the Treaty of Ghent which prevents Spain declaring war on France, or France declaring war on Spain. There are penalties for doing so, not least the requirement to cede effective control of America to France, which seems to me a very powerful reason for avoiding war. Plus if the ToG is broken then France has every right to contest the will of Carlos II and conquer Spain to put a Bourbon on the throne. It could even be argued that Spain would lose certain titles by default: what she gained through peace, she cannot expect to maintain through war should she declare war on France. Remember there were good reasons why Spain and France agreed to the treaty in the first place, and these reasons have not changed.

It is not in the interests of either France or Spain to be hostile towards each other, indeed this would run counter to the long standing French foreign policy aim of a pan-European Catholic alliance! I am not going to speculate on this topic further in public, though it has been well covered in private letters between France and Spain in the game. I have a great deal of respect for the Spanish player, who although he has been a thorn in my side, continues to maintain a regular correspondence with France which we both find of great benefit. Unlike Leopold, we both recognise that just because we can do things, it is not necessarily always wise to do them; we think hard before we act and have clear and realistic aims when we do.

I agree, the next few turns will be interesting. The greatest tragedy in this game is the inability of Leopold to listen to Spain, which has created a situation where Spain increasingly indulges and humours Leopold instead of providing wise counsel. Each side is assuming the other will see sense and act appropriately. It is this division among the Hapsburgs which is leading to paralysis: war might lead to a few minor Austrian gains, but it will certainly lead to Spanish losses with a net weakening of Hapsburg strength. Meanwhile there will be serious collateral damage to the Holy Roman Empire. By March 1706 we should see if the warmongering Austrian Hapsburgs will win out over the more reasoned and practical Spanish Hapsburgs?

Thank you for your good wishes!

I receive threats of war from at least one different player a month. I have planned for these eventualities, indeed have been surprised that certain players have not already declared war on France. After all, it is the logical consequence of their diplomatic actions. I cannot prevent nations from attacking France, but I can make them regret it. Each nation which joins in against France is ultimately a nation which when defeated will contribute to France's ability to sustain war against her enemies. Historically France normally fought large coalitions and came out stronger. The greater the enemy, the greater the glory to be won for France!

If there is one lesson everyone should learn from G7 it is that wars are easier to start than stop.

Frank - I have far more than 300,000 men, and Leopold certainly has more than 100,000 if you count his mercenary hires. For reference at the last count I had 142,300 serving in the French navy alone, so you can scale up your estimate of those in the French army accordingly. That figure will remain secret. It was your suggestion that France would be in some difficulty if another nation joined in against her in the New Year, and seemed to be relishing the prospect. It is that suggestion I responded to. If I have misinterpreted your view of this or the reason you posted the comment then I apologise.

You might find the wargaming aspect of the game very intriguing, but there is so much more to the game which is more interesting for me. Indeed the whole point of G7 was that it had extra depth to enable players to explore those other aspects.

France is not the aggressor and if you had been involved in the game since 1700 you would have been aware of the lengths France has undertaken to avoid war. There is not some grand plot by France and Russia to take over the world. I am not annexing England. There is minimal disturbance to the 'balance of power'. Indeed it can be argued that the biggest change in the balance of power in G7 was caused by France and Spain agreeing peace by the Treaty of Ghent. This was a major compromise for peace by France, and supported by many smaller nations who shared France's worldview. These smaller nations are not vocal in their support for France, but do write regularly to encourage France to make peace with Austria. Unlike some I will always listen to sensible, rational argument based on fact.

You may like France to be a 'badass' (not quite sure what you mean by that), but the France I played successfully from 1700 was primarily focused on peace, trade and colonial development. This is what I enjoy, but instead of this I am obliged to spend far too much time, money and game effort because I have been targeted by other players who have decided amongst themselves to have a go at France. They have no clear plan, have cut off communication, and seem intent on drawing as many other nations in as possible to support them. This is not sensible or rational, and is acting directly against the silent majority of peaceful nations who are being pushed towards taking sides. As to the gang, you only have to read the newspapers carefully to identify at least another 10 nations who are acting as though they are at war with France; at least half that number have directly threatened war with France.

If you are not directly involved in the conflict, I am sure there are plenty of other games which have the prospects of large battles and global war and which should be equally intriguing for you to comment on. It should be clear to you by now that your image of how I play France is very different from that depicted by others, and possibly how you expected it to be. However, I thank you for your kind comments about my 'attitude' and playing 'style'.

It will be very interesting. It isn't directly France's problem, though clearly I would be happier if he did manage to be successful.

Will the same problem happen in the Holy Roman Empire? Catholic Bavaria took over Protestant Wurttemburg. Has the religion of Wurttemburg now become Catholic? There must be many examples in other games of states with different religions annexing their neighbours.

I guess each game can be very different when it comes to this kind of detail.

OK Frank, you make some interesting points which I hope to be able to clarify as it might help others as well in their diplomatic dealings with France.

French Honour
This takes a lot of unpicking as it puzzled me for a long time. I still probably don't understand it all, but it should give you an idea. You are really asking 2 questions: why did French honour fall; and why is Austrian honour still so high?

French honour steadily rose based on my economic and colonial measures through until about 1702 when it was roughly somewhere in the middle (where you might expect). It then had 3 major (+5point) boosts which pushed it much higher. The first boost was when I took action to stand up for France against England, and the second much larger boost was when I was seriously discussing a marriage with Austria, and a 3rd boost when I signed the peace treaty with Austria. Leopold had visited Versailles for a few months at the time which also helped. Both the Court and I thought we had achieved a permanent Catholic peace across Europe, so there is hardly any wonder my honour had shot up to heights I have never had in a game before.

The falls also came quickly. I took a big hit when Austria broke its treaty and invaded France. This puzzled me as it was nothing I did, but it did represent a complete failure of French foreign policy and many of my nobles (who had received gifts from Leopold) were understandably concerned. Honour seems to reflect the opinion of nobles more than the opinion of other rulers. To restore the fall in honour I should have simply declared war on all Austrian allies and pushed my armies forward. This would have been very popular. However, I had good reasons for not doing, not least because I still hoped for a diplomatic solution. To physically get to each other France and Austria would have to trample over HRE lands. If I had treated other countries with such disrespect then Leopold could with some justification have claimed that France was trying to expand in Germany, and that could have been a rallying cry for nations to back him rather than France. Although Austria sneaked into an undefended French town the month after the treaty was broken, I was determined to hold on to the moral right which I hoped would aid France in the Diet. If the Diet failed to back Leopold then his will to fight on would have been seriously diminished and he could have faced further rebellion from within the Empire or even a split between those states who had treaties with France and those who sought to back Leopold for their own advantage. As the months wore on it became clear that despite the truth of the case being made in the Diet, Leopold was determined to do all he could to push forward with the war. (I won't go into all the detail of various French strategies in the Diet, you can read some of that in the newspapers). This long drawn out process made for impatient French courtiers who had a far more realistic understanding of Leopold than I did.

I also made one or two internal errors which with hindsight were rather stupid. I pressed ahead with some economic reforms which although historic and based on sound economics alienated both some of the nobility and a section of the church. Clearly the wrong time to do it. I was also very reluctant to make a serious attempt to retake Besancon (for many reasons), not least because I saw no reason to damage a French town which I would then have to rebuild whilst I was trying to build support in the Diet. I had also sent all my Siege Artillery and Engineers to England! Besancon wasn't a military priority: an insignificant town surrounded by far more important and fortified towns which would check Leopold if he tried to launch attacks from it. To an extent that is still the case today. However, from the point of view of the court, they want action to recover Besancon and drive the Austrians out and this led to a steady drop in honour.

I was far more focused on the campaign against England and made good progress with several victories. These victories did not generally boost French honour, but they did boost the honour of King James. So French honour has not bounced back as strongly as you would expect given my military performance, and probably won't until I rid France of Austrians and become a lot more aggressive.

The reasons Leopold's honour has held up much better is far easier to understand: he is boosted by other Hapsburg positions constantly making public statements to support him and the votes he has won in the Diet balance the steady reduction in honour for breaking his treaty. His honour is falling, but it still has a long way to go. In short he is doing what his nobles want; I am not doing what my nobles want. Honour does not reflect good play, but the opinion of those in 'society'. Of course I would like French honour to be higher, who wouldn't, but I would rather run France for the benefit of France than chase short term popularity.


Why I Chose France
I disagree that waging war to get glory is what playing France was all about. It was at the start of Louis' reign. But Louis adopted a much more defensive mindset as early as the 1670s. A good book which explores this facet is by John Lynn The Wars of Louis XIV, which is summarised in the Osprey Essential Histories The French Wars. His thesis is that the wars of Louis became what he terms 'war as process' in contrast to Napoleonic-style decisive battles, and that 'war as process' fits better into the context of limited logistics, administrative and diplomatic aspects of the time. I think he makes a strong case and agree that certainly from the 1680s Louis became much more defensive. Obviously he did fight wars, but they were rather long, cost a fortune and achieved very little.

I see an obvious parallel more in naval tactics than military tactics: the naval line of battle was developed to avoid losing an engagement rather than a means to win it.
Louis certainly did his best to prevent the War of the Spanish Succession, so I am following what he did in that respect. It was something both Spain and France agreed on at the start of the game. If we could resolve our differences in advance then we would not kill the game before it had begun. Instead less powerful players would be given the opportunity to develop and define their positions which should be to the benefit of the game overall. Leopold never agreed with that approach and when first Prussia and then Saxony sought to withdraw from the Empire, Leopold sent troops against them. The attack on France is Leopold's 3rd war and he may well genuinely have believed that simply by marching into France I would have withdrawn from England. He miscalculated and has been digging a bigger hole for himself ever since.

So France did set the tone of the game, I just did it in co-operation with Spain. It is not a question of appeasement or being unwilling to lead, just leading in a different way for the benefit of more than just France. I strongly believe that the larger powers have the responsibility to consider the wider impact they have on the game. It is not as simple as merely focusing on maximising trade and keeping out of politics, but it does mean avoiding the temptation to use the power I have to bully and dominate others unless they in turn are using the same tactics against weaker players. I agree completely with your comment about games being spoiled by players who are very egoistic, for that has been my experience as well. The approach I adopted was largely successful judging by the letters I have received over the years.

This is not incompatible with playing for personal glory. England and Austria both broke treaties with France: that is unacceptable. Glory comes from a King keeping his word and ruling well for the benefit of his subjects.


Game Balance
This of course is important for everyone. I don't think a balanced game consists of two or more blocks of alliances engaged in some kind of stand-off, watching each other. As you rightly point out France is the only superpower in 1700 and this is only likely to change if France makes a series of blunders. I am doing my best to avoid such blunders That is probably the key to playing France successfully: maintaining France's relative advantage over other nations. It is not necessary to extend France's power, merely keep what she has.
I know it has long been a feature of historical analysis, but I am very suspicious of the notion of 'balance of power'. Diplomats may have taken some comfort from claiming a 'balance' backed up through networks of alliances, but in reality in every era there have always been one or more dominant powers who it would be unwise for others to challenge.
Balance surely depends more on the attitude of the players. A France which invades its neighbours because it wants to throw its weight around should soon expect a large defensive alliance against it. A France which is played more peacefully has no reason to expect a large offensive alliance against it. To use a modern parallel, there are lots of countries round the world which for various reasons oppose the USA; they may vote against them at the UN, allow demonstrations against them, but they are not actively combining to suddenly turn and attack them. It was the same with Britain in the 1800s: plenty of enemies throughout the world, but they accepted British hegemony and the peace and security it brought.


Little Wars and Alliances
On paper, yes, the French/Russian alliance is significantly stronger than Austria/England; it remains stronger even when Spain/UDP are added in on Austria's side. However, despite Austrian insistence on linking 2 separate wars, she is not directly supporting William with troops or ships. She is fighting France, not defending England. The other consideration is that it is very difficult within the game to co-ordinate the efforts of allied forces. As Austria builds up her alliance against France she will find this out. A strategy can be planned and agreed in advance, but by the time letters have been sent and replied to, orders delayed, plus the usual confusion, it is virtually impossible for even basic ideas to work out in practice.

I agree that peace can get a little boring and of course there are times when 'little wars' do occur and brighten up the game for everyone. But there is a big difference between little wars involving 2 or 3 players; and those involving 10 or more players fought over countries which are nothing to do with the conflict! Most rulers who start a war don't think it is going to last very long. Louis was persuaded by his nobles that the 9 years war would only last 4 months! The English War probably falls into the 'little war' category, being a very limited war: it triggered no alliances, had clear objectives and was deliberately kept as local as possible. However, the Austrian war is completely different not least because Austria's stated objectives are confused and contradictory, various alliances are likely to come into play which will spread the war throughout the world, involve nations who really don't want to fight, there is no obvious resolution and many smaller nations may be destroyed. Leopold is seeking to retrospectively justify his actions and he can't. Players are angry with Austria for declaring war on France, and disappointed that France has not been able to keep the peace as I did since 1700. I have every sympathy with their situation, but my hands are tied whilst Leopold and others refuse to negotiate. As stated in an earlier comment, by March 1706 this will all become much clearer, for if by then Leopold is still not making his objectives clear, France will have exposed his real objectives for all nations to see.

The more perceptive players reading this discussion should by now have a good insight into my thinking and objectives. There is nothing new here which those who write to me regularly, or read French statements in the newspaper are not already aware of. Others may play France differently, but I am remarkably consistent! It is a character trait the enemies of France find most annoying

Thanks Deacon,
Glad you enjoyed it.
It wasn't initially clear that the first stage of the economic reorg was a cause of the honour drop, so it was probably largely as a result of the specific methods I used and their effect on certain groups in society. With the uncertainty caused by the Austrian war I had to pull the second and third phases of the economic reforms I started as I didn't want honour to drop any further. Ironically EH recovered quickly and is still very strong despite the attacks on my shipping, which I take as justification that the underlying plan was sound. The French nobles just don't like it

Well Frank, I guess on some things we won't agree.

I certainly don't think Austria is courageous in attacking France. It seems more to me like an act of desperation stemming from a warped view of what he is convinced French intentions are. You seem to fall into the same trap as others in expecting Louis to be played aggressively. There is no honour in being determined to force French aggression simply because it ties in with your own preconceived views of what you like to see in the game. Trying to manipulate France in this way is likely to lead to disappointment as although I am predictable in some ways, I am full of surprises in others. There is no evidence that Austrian honour shot up after he broke his treaty and attacked France, but then I reject the contention that Leopold is somehow acting in what he sees as the interests of Europe. It may well have done if it was in response to France invading the HRE in an aggressive manner, but what you suggest simply doesn't fit the facts of the game. The obvious modern parallel would be Japan's attack on the US. Japan may have been correct that the US was a long term threat, but made a fatal mistake in attacking in the way she did. Yes, she drew the US into the war, but I don't think Japan ever claimed she did it for the benefit of her allies! And this is precisely what Leopold is seeking to do.

Your worldview remains based on the idea that others are naturally envious of France. That may be so, but envy is self-destructive and far from noble. What these exchanges should prove to you is that I'm not going to play France as a paranoid nation in terror of being invaded, and neither am I going to seek to dominate Europe by preemptive strikes against those nations who are no threat.

The answer to your final comment should be obvious: yes, it is easier to end a war when there are only 2 or 3 players involved, but not easy when 2 of those players cannot even agree between themselves why they are fighting and refuse to negotiate with the France. The more players who join in, the harder it will be to satisfy all which is precisely what happened in the negotiations to end the real War of the Spanish Succession. Some nations dropped out before the Treaty of Utrecht, and others remained fighting for many years after.

I could not disagree more strongly.
But don't worry. In a way I am relieved, for you would be far too dangerous an ally for France