G7 - France vs. England

You have an interesting point.
There is certainly a Jacobite faction in the game, but don't know how active it is.
In previous games I found it very frustrating to have to keep backtracking over the same ground. For a while I played one position and was hit by 3 years of famine one after the other. Totally wrecked the economy and in the end I quit.
From my experience in game 7, the Spanish hapsburg player is very capable. It must be hard for him to keep control of Austria and the Spanish Netherlands and officially keep out of the war with France, and fight pirates and organise the League of St.George.
Have you kept up with reports from the newspapers for game 7?

I have looked at some newspapers for game 7. But not totally up to date.

The spanish hapsburg player has only one position to look after. Austria is another player.I presume?

The spanish netherlands are often a point of war dureing the spanish succession,between france and spain.So the spanish player is lucky that france has focused on england instead.

Spain is a great position to play. They get alot of recruits,gold and money.Which nation do you play?

Which nation are you?

Yes, it is a bit strange. Austria is another player, but Spain, Spanish Netherlands seem to follow Austria, or they follow each other. Provides a useful balance against France.
I did play Spain once in (I think) Game 3, but was hit by famines again. I never really took to the position, but I guess in 1700 it would have been a good position to start with.
I'd rather not say which nation I play in game 7 unless I'm asked to join in alliances on one side or another.
Do you think France would have won if it had attacked Spain (with your support as Bourbon Spain?)

Spain grows very strong,very quick.But in 1700,France is by far the strongest country.So france would definatly have beaten spain.

War is very expensive in real life and it is the same in lgdr. So sooner or later you have to call a truce,even if you are winning.

The problem with Austria and spain being allies is that they are a fair way apart. So it takes them along time to help and support each other.

Spain and france are usually allies. This is the great thing about the spanish succession. Spain has to choose its friend. France or austria. If austria lose they often take milan by force.If france lose out,they often take the spanish netherlands by force. Either way spain finds itself at war and loseing ground.

These are the usual spanish succession results.Spain struggles early on and cannot respond. But after a few years, they are as strong as anyone. Then they remember who attacked them and stole its territorie.

So the succession is often the first spark of war in lgdr.

Must have been some disappointment to you then that France didn't back you and Spain allied with Austria.
Still, if Spain is as rich and powerful as you suggest, why didn't he declare war on France?
Austria does control many of the countries that make up the Empire and Spain seems to be allied with most of the Italian states. Doesn't Spain own Naples?
Game 7 does seem to be developing slightly differently to the usual scenarios you have outlined.

I never asked france to back me in game seven. But i am spain in game eight. Alot depends on which players are which positions.Some are longstanding friends and enemies.Some are warmongers and some are peaceful and only interested in building a strong wealthy country.

Spain does own naples.war can ruin nations.financially you could only last a couple of years at most,before going skint.So the clever thing to do is let nations go to war,then ravage them,when they are beaten,skint and very weak.

Spain and france are so strong,but wars can ruin positions and turn you from the strongest too the weakest.Never take war lightly.You will be shocked at the expense.Recruits and armed forces can be lost very quickly and take years too recover.

Austria controls none of the countries that make up the empire.It simply heads a consortium. Which can disband and split anytime it likes. Richard plays most of the empire nations,with the odd player or two also having a nation or two.So you never know which way the empire will swing.Although it should always try and stick together to defend the empire.The empire,not neccessarily austria itself.

Game seven is still fairly typical of a game of lgdr.England and france were traditional enemies. you often get higher honour in both of those two countries by having a go at each other and being enemies,because they were historicaly.They often fight each other in lgdr games.

Looks like you have a good insight into both sides, then.
I agree that war can be very costly. I suppose there is a trade-off between recruits for trade and recruits for troops.
In game 7 France has been at war now for about 2 years yet doesn't seem to be suffering economically. Spain seems to be backing Austria but not getting involved directly, though I think a lot of Austrian forces are Spanish. Spain is clearly lending money through its banks to Austria and supporting them with trade.
Perhaps someone should tell Austria he doesn't control the empire. On the Germany map Austria directly controls Silesia, Moravia, Bohemia, Austria, Styria, Salzburg, Tyrol, Trent, Carinthia, Carniola which makes 10 votes. Spain controls Upper Guelderland, Flanders, Luxembourg, which makes 3 votes. Most other states have 2 but now Bavaria also controls Wurtemberg and they vote with Austria, that makes 15 which is a majority for Austria. I don't think all the little states have enough votes to stop Austria.
One of the things I don't understand is that Bavaria took over Wurtemberg without much resistance, but when Saxony tried to leave the empire he was attacked by Austria. It looks like in game 7 countries can't leave the empire.

I probably shouldnt share this, but I am fairly certain that Saxony could have left the Empire if circumstances had been different. Sharing this view as the perspective of Austria (Holy Roman Emperor) who stopped Saxony doing this.

Sounds interesting. As I remember it things got quite bitter. So what was the problem with Saxony?

Well I hope it wasnt too bitter. I think the reality was that when war approached The Elector found that he could get a better deal by staying in the Empire, I offered him a RiechsMarshal post and a free hand against Hesse. Then he found that it came with a barb or two, I expected to use Saxony as the base for another campaign which never materialised. The player then dropped out (I presume) and there was a short war which didnt achieve much apart from confirm Saxony stayed in the Empire

Sounds like a good deal for Saxony. I guess there must have been some fairly big catches which he didnt like to turn it down. Dishing out parts of the Empire to keep others in is an interesting tactic.

I suppose what he really wanted was independence of action and in the end that wasnt what he ended up with. In part, it really comes down to different perceptions of roles within the Empire, but role playing the part as Emperor I didnt want to see parts of the Empire split off.

I can see how that would have been a concern for both of you. Are you suggesting that your priority is to keep the Empire together even if the players want to leave? Seems a bit tough on new players.
In another game I played Hannover for a while and had complete freedom from the Emperor. I annexed Brunswick without any real bother but was hit by 3 years of famine which wrecked things and I moved on.

I would also say that it is a bit tough on new players. That was why I agreed to give players within the Empire more freedom. This was extended to Bavaria to take Wurtemburg - Saxony to attack Hesse - Prussia to attack Swedish territories. But I would say that as Emperor I believe there is a duty to try to keep the Empire together. This would apply to any other ruler in Europe. The problem is the extent which states within the Empire consider themselves to be sovereign and that generally other players arent faced with a series of internal players and when they are they dissapear quite quickly as we saw with the Spanish Bourbons and French Hugenots.

I can see that. I suppose it depends if as new players they realise that they wont have the freedom they expect. Don't you think there is a risk that Austrian control can kill the game? I certainly wouldn't have played Hannover in the other game if I knew all my decisions had to be agreed by Austria? I can see how it would work if most of the other countries were inactive, but not with countries that have active players.
Does it mean that Austria can levy taxes and take recruits from the rest of the Empire? If so then you must be the most powerful player in the game.

As with the real world, a balance of power develops and a powerful Austria develops many enemies. The historical position is that in 1700 the Emperor could levy taxes and troops through the Circles. But the states would only agree this in relation to the Ottomans given the recent threat the Ottomans had posed to the Empire. In the game I would view Austria as only a middle ranking power behind France - England - Holland - Spain - Ottomans as the first ranking powers. My attack on France is in large part as a middle ranking power trying to stop France dominating Europe.

It still seems odd to me that other players would wilingly accept Austrian control. I have played in most games from time to time and not found it to be the case. Austria must be more powerful than Holland given population sizes, though I imagine Holland has more from trade.
Did you have the backing of the rest of the Empire when you attacked France? I dont suppose you need it, but it would be quite something if you could convince all of them to attack France as well.
Is France really trying to dominate Europe?

"France - England - Holland - Spain - Ottomans as the first ranking powers."

my in-game ego is dented !

Sorry count - de - monet, and Russia and Persia and.........
The French plan, which was boasted of by France to a minor power, was to take out England, then Austria and to finally turn on Spain.

The Tsar's fickle ego is satisfied ! I toast you good sir with my finest vodka

Basileus wrote:.
The French plan, which was boasted of by France to a minor power, was to take out England, then Austria and to finally turn on Spain.

That seems a bit much. Was this before or after you declared war? Wonder why France didt include Holland in his list of targets?

Sorry, can only say it as I understood it at the time, also conscious as a newbie on this forum of not breaching protocal, but I had heard it from a minor power before declaring war on France, also I didnt want to see England overun which it certainly looked in danger of being.
As to Holland, the French view in the game has seemed to change from time to time on Holland, depending on how active Holland is.
I am sure we can all this view differently from various perspectives. I would suspect most would have done the same as Austria in similar circumstances.

I'd hate to think you were tricked into declaring war on france by 'a minor power'. It is good to discuss these things without having to be 'in character'. I dont know what I would have done as Austria but declaring war on france does seem very risky.
Holland does seem very quiet at the moment so wouldn't that be a good time for france to attack her as well?

Oh, I never thought of that
I feel rather foolish and I started a major war as well
Good job real people arent involved

Basileus wrote:
Good job real people arent involved

All my characters are real to me and i feel all their pain and pleasure