Home
Portal
Search
Latest images
Register
Log in
Very good. 
But i didn´t find the year 1700.
But i didn´t find the year 1700.
+14
Stuart Bailey
Richard D. Watts
Kingmaker
Basileus
Frank
The Hessian
Ardagor
Regor
Deacon
jamesbond007
baggins
Goldstar
tek_604
count-de-monet
18 posters
G7 - France vs. England
Frank- Baron
- Number of posts : 91
Age : 50
Location : Nürnberg, Germany
Reputation : 6
Registration date : 2009-11-29
Richard D. Watts- Baron
- Number of posts : 116
Reputation : 7
Registration date : 2008-04-21
Having read some more of this thread, I thought you'd find it interesting to hear my admittedly unique perspectve on the 'whoever pays Richard the most wins' theory. To be blunt, this is not how the dynamics of the game works. Quite often those who pay the most end up with the most problems, and can sometimes get the impression that those with the biggest wallets win. Simply put, the more you do the more complexity is added to each game.
I haven't got the time to enter into a long drawn out debate, but hope what follows helps to explain what seems to occur, and give another perspective from Agema's angle on it: Some players enjoy complexity, and with this in mind play the game and issue orders in a style which is complex. So for example, in game 7 the French assets list and suchlike runs to a shade under 30 pages. Yes it is a large position, but the size of the position didn't grow by accident but because the player ran his position with detail in mind. To give a specific example, one player might raise four infantry battalions, and issue the order; another can do the same and detail the musket pattern, issue iron ramrods, detail the kind of hats worn, the uniform colours, the sort of shoes, whether gaiters are worn and their colour, the name of the regiment the battalions belong to, the year historically it was established, the name of the colonel, the turnback or cuff colour, and so on. Obviously the first order is easier to deal with than the second.
This isn't a criticism but a matter of style of play; some players enjoy the detail or at least just work like that, while some prefer to take a more strategic top down view without detailing the minutae. Both styles of play are valid, but in the real world if a player wants to have more complexity they end up paying more. Where this becomes too expensive for what they can afford this becomes an issue. This is however very rarely raised with us - players have understood in the years we've been doing this that large turns cost a fair bit to deal with.
The size of the position is relevant to this, but the main factor seriously does seem to be style of play. I've known a player take on a small pirate position and turn it into a vast complex Byzantine-style labyrinth of networks and the like, while other players will take a nation such as Russia, Spain or France and play it with far less complexity. Both styles of player are welcome, and it is very hard for players to change their style and still enjoy playing because this seems to boil down to a personality thing. However, it does mean that the idea if you pay us more you'll win is incorrect; the player for France in game 7 certainly paid us more than most players turn after turn on account of the complexity and style, but he didn't necessarily see victory after victory because of it, did he? If the theory were true, seeing he was ending up paying more than his opponents, he should have wiped the floor with them. Yes he didn't want to pay more for his turns than he did, which is absolutely legitimate and not a criticism just an observation, but his style of play meant that there was a high cost involved. In the end of the day the player has to decide whether he deems the cost worth the return or not, no one else can do that for a player.
Anyway, please don't take offence to any of this - the intention is to shed more light on the situation rather than turn up the heat - but having heard the 'poor Richard can't cope' scenario being played out I felt compelled to respond. I've been doing this since 1989, full time all the while, and would like to think that by now I have a handle on how this stuff works and yes Agema can cope or we'd have gone bust years ago!
I haven't got the time to enter into a long drawn out debate, but hope what follows helps to explain what seems to occur, and give another perspective from Agema's angle on it: Some players enjoy complexity, and with this in mind play the game and issue orders in a style which is complex. So for example, in game 7 the French assets list and suchlike runs to a shade under 30 pages. Yes it is a large position, but the size of the position didn't grow by accident but because the player ran his position with detail in mind. To give a specific example, one player might raise four infantry battalions, and issue the order; another can do the same and detail the musket pattern, issue iron ramrods, detail the kind of hats worn, the uniform colours, the sort of shoes, whether gaiters are worn and their colour, the name of the regiment the battalions belong to, the year historically it was established, the name of the colonel, the turnback or cuff colour, and so on. Obviously the first order is easier to deal with than the second.
This isn't a criticism but a matter of style of play; some players enjoy the detail or at least just work like that, while some prefer to take a more strategic top down view without detailing the minutae. Both styles of play are valid, but in the real world if a player wants to have more complexity they end up paying more. Where this becomes too expensive for what they can afford this becomes an issue. This is however very rarely raised with us - players have understood in the years we've been doing this that large turns cost a fair bit to deal with.
The size of the position is relevant to this, but the main factor seriously does seem to be style of play. I've known a player take on a small pirate position and turn it into a vast complex Byzantine-style labyrinth of networks and the like, while other players will take a nation such as Russia, Spain or France and play it with far less complexity. Both styles of player are welcome, and it is very hard for players to change their style and still enjoy playing because this seems to boil down to a personality thing. However, it does mean that the idea if you pay us more you'll win is incorrect; the player for France in game 7 certainly paid us more than most players turn after turn on account of the complexity and style, but he didn't necessarily see victory after victory because of it, did he? If the theory were true, seeing he was ending up paying more than his opponents, he should have wiped the floor with them. Yes he didn't want to pay more for his turns than he did, which is absolutely legitimate and not a criticism just an observation, but his style of play meant that there was a high cost involved. In the end of the day the player has to decide whether he deems the cost worth the return or not, no one else can do that for a player.
Anyway, please don't take offence to any of this - the intention is to shed more light on the situation rather than turn up the heat - but having heard the 'poor Richard can't cope' scenario being played out I felt compelled to respond. I've been doing this since 1989, full time all the while, and would like to think that by now I have a handle on how this stuff works and yes Agema can cope or we'd have gone bust years ago!
Guest- Guest
Thanks for this Richard. 
Frank- Baron
- Number of posts : 91
Age : 50
Location : Nürnberg, Germany
Reputation : 6
Registration date : 2009-11-29
I have a question to The Real Louis of France. Can you please tell us how much your average turn cost was with France? It will be nice to compare. 
Thanks
Thanks
Richard D. Watts- Baron
- Number of posts : 116
Reputation : 7
Registration date : 2008-04-21
On the game 7 thread Agema's being told that real-turn cost was a limiting factor by a player, but on the Game 9 start up thread the same player is advocating a two-week turnaround? Let us just say we manage that, this means the cost for a player goes up in real life terms over a real year by a factor of 40% (24 turns a year instead of say 17). That means it'd cost players more real money, which would make the situation far worse for the player in question wouldn't it? If the proposal is we do that but work for less money, to be honest that would Agema unviable as a business and then - seriously - there'd be no Glory of Kings left. I guess that's one solution, but not one we're going to contemplate!
To sum up, Agema's being sent mix messages, at least I think we are! If real life cost is a limiting factor then we understand that, but if we speed up turnaround that will make it worse for players. Our current view, and policy, is that a three work turnaround is the best compromise - but can you see how these two issues are interlinked?
The bottom line is this, player retention has improved with a three work turnaround compared to two week, so we take that to mean most players prefer it in practice rather than in theory.
To sum up, Agema's being sent mix messages, at least I think we are! If real life cost is a limiting factor then we understand that, but if we speed up turnaround that will make it worse for players. Our current view, and policy, is that a three work turnaround is the best compromise - but can you see how these two issues are interlinked?
The bottom line is this, player retention has improved with a three work turnaround compared to two week, so we take that to mean most players prefer it in practice rather than in theory.
Guest- Guest
On page34 of the G7 thread it was pointed out by other players that a great deal of confusion arises in games through players being unaware of what is happening within their own borders and there is some resentment at having to use up their diplomatic orders to clarify that they feel they should know. From the number of independent comments this is clearly a larger issue than I had realised, and a rather hot issue at that! When it gets to the point that for 4 game years in G7 all the players thought they were dealing with King James (b.1688), not his murdered father, there is clearly a need for some clarification.
I accept Richard's comment at the top of page 36: I did complicate the position and have acknowledged this on multiple occasions. However, as he well knows, the issue over the cost of game turns and proportion of orders completed for that cost had been raised privately on several occasions by me. I am not trying to pick on the GM here as those matters should remain private. If other players have the same issue then it is down for them to discuss privately their concerns. So Frank, if you don't mind, I will not reveal how much my average turn cost was for France as that could only make this even more like a political campaign which I have done my best to ensure it isn't! Richard has admitted it was significantly higher than many other players.
However, Richard's comment that he who pays most wins is somewhat sidestepping the point. I agree that a player cannot simply pay more and win. However, as many players will have experienced, it is often the case that if an order is not completed, that has negative consequences. If month after month orders are not completed, the effect is that the player will lose by default. This was not noticed by me as a major problem until Agema allowed unlimited orders and made various other rule changes as discussed elsewhere on this thread. The key issue is that in certain circumstances positions are obliged by the actions of other players to submit more orders than they would like. If they submit orders then they have to be paid for: no one expects Agema to work for nothing! In G7 France was in that position for a long time; Churchill is now in that position. If Churchill can't pay enough for his orders to be completed, whilst those who are attacking him pay enough for their orders to be completed, then mathematically Churchill is likely to lose. Orders are not merely driven by player ambition or whim, but by the pressure put on that position by other players. That should not be a controversial statement to make and is not a reflection of the fairness of the GM, who will of course administer the game to the best of his ability. I am sure that Richard will not take offence as I clarify my own remarks.
A second and unrelated discussion arose on the Game9Startup thread which included concerns over the activity of NPC positions and game turnaround times. On this thread I spent some time defending Richard and suggested that there was a trade-off between complexity, number of games and game turnaround. As Richard clarified in his comment (above) there are business issues involved. My suggestions were stated as 'discussion points' to try and meet the concerns others had voiced about the pace of the game. I share some of those concerns, but not all for the reasons I stated. A simple game played for a fixed fee (say £10/turn) under old rules at the rate of 24 turns/year would cost £240/year. That would be £100/year less than paying £20/turn for 17 turns/year and would allow players who wanted a faster paced, but simpler game to achieve more. There is no mixed message being sent by me. Whether that helps Agema as a business is not a judgement for me, but as I pointed out, one for Richard.
Players raising concerns about aspects of the game and discussing those concerns need not be taken as a criticism of Richard, and I hope it has not been. It is in everyone's interest for the game to continue and from what I remember it is often from players that changes to the rules are suggested. Not all these changes work (as we saw with the sickness rules, counting the number of recruits needed to restore units). I am sure Richard will agree that he takes the views of experienced players into account when designing his game. Whether he likes it or not, though, there is a concern that NPCs do not seem to be played as actively as they could be, that they are often unaware of treaties existing in the game which should govern how they act, and as a consequence game play experience can be weakened. This, again, I considered as an unintended consequence of incremental rule changes rather than a deliberate move by Richard. A valid observation, made I hope in the spirit of goodwill towards both game and GM.
I accept Richard's comment at the top of page 36: I did complicate the position and have acknowledged this on multiple occasions. However, as he well knows, the issue over the cost of game turns and proportion of orders completed for that cost had been raised privately on several occasions by me. I am not trying to pick on the GM here as those matters should remain private. If other players have the same issue then it is down for them to discuss privately their concerns. So Frank, if you don't mind, I will not reveal how much my average turn cost was for France as that could only make this even more like a political campaign which I have done my best to ensure it isn't! Richard has admitted it was significantly higher than many other players.
However, Richard's comment that he who pays most wins is somewhat sidestepping the point. I agree that a player cannot simply pay more and win. However, as many players will have experienced, it is often the case that if an order is not completed, that has negative consequences. If month after month orders are not completed, the effect is that the player will lose by default. This was not noticed by me as a major problem until Agema allowed unlimited orders and made various other rule changes as discussed elsewhere on this thread. The key issue is that in certain circumstances positions are obliged by the actions of other players to submit more orders than they would like. If they submit orders then they have to be paid for: no one expects Agema to work for nothing! In G7 France was in that position for a long time; Churchill is now in that position. If Churchill can't pay enough for his orders to be completed, whilst those who are attacking him pay enough for their orders to be completed, then mathematically Churchill is likely to lose. Orders are not merely driven by player ambition or whim, but by the pressure put on that position by other players. That should not be a controversial statement to make and is not a reflection of the fairness of the GM, who will of course administer the game to the best of his ability. I am sure that Richard will not take offence as I clarify my own remarks.
A second and unrelated discussion arose on the Game9Startup thread which included concerns over the activity of NPC positions and game turnaround times. On this thread I spent some time defending Richard and suggested that there was a trade-off between complexity, number of games and game turnaround. As Richard clarified in his comment (above) there are business issues involved. My suggestions were stated as 'discussion points' to try and meet the concerns others had voiced about the pace of the game. I share some of those concerns, but not all for the reasons I stated. A simple game played for a fixed fee (say £10/turn) under old rules at the rate of 24 turns/year would cost £240/year. That would be £100/year less than paying £20/turn for 17 turns/year and would allow players who wanted a faster paced, but simpler game to achieve more. There is no mixed message being sent by me. Whether that helps Agema as a business is not a judgement for me, but as I pointed out, one for Richard.
Players raising concerns about aspects of the game and discussing those concerns need not be taken as a criticism of Richard, and I hope it has not been. It is in everyone's interest for the game to continue and from what I remember it is often from players that changes to the rules are suggested. Not all these changes work (as we saw with the sickness rules, counting the number of recruits needed to restore units). I am sure Richard will agree that he takes the views of experienced players into account when designing his game. Whether he likes it or not, though, there is a concern that NPCs do not seem to be played as actively as they could be, that they are often unaware of treaties existing in the game which should govern how they act, and as a consequence game play experience can be weakened. This, again, I considered as an unintended consequence of incremental rule changes rather than a deliberate move by Richard. A valid observation, made I hope in the spirit of goodwill towards both game and GM.
Richard D. Watts- Baron
- Number of posts : 116
Reputation : 7
Registration date : 2008-04-21
Thanks RKL for a clear and well-reasoned response; apologies from me also if any offence was given. I know enough about human nature to know we gamers get exasperated with each other at times, but that is hopefully a good sign because it means we're actually bothered!
There is actually a solution from Agema's perspective: if players want faster turnaround they can have it by sending in shorter orders. That will reduce the workload and therefore speed up turnaround, and reduce cost as well per turn. However I suspect many players won't want to do that since it may dampen their enjoyment and besides many want a three-week turnaround from what I can gather, but I guess we all have different views on that so it's one of those impossible questions!
Please be aware I do look at the forum now and then so your ideas and suggestions are observed and can lead to changes, but Agema treads very slowly and carefully when bringing in major changes (well we think we do!!!).
Thanks to everyone for your enthusiasm!
There is actually a solution from Agema's perspective: if players want faster turnaround they can have it by sending in shorter orders. That will reduce the workload and therefore speed up turnaround, and reduce cost as well per turn. However I suspect many players won't want to do that since it may dampen their enjoyment and besides many want a three-week turnaround from what I can gather, but I guess we all have different views on that so it's one of those impossible questions!
Please be aware I do look at the forum now and then so your ideas and suggestions are observed and can lead to changes, but Agema treads very slowly and carefully when bringing in major changes (well we think we do!!!).
Thanks to everyone for your enthusiasm!
Deacon- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1859
Age : 61
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 44
Registration date : 2010-04-13
To be clear on my own statements on the issue, I wasn't saying that I thought it was true that he who paid the most wins, but was responding to someone who I thought was suggesting that they had 'defeated France' in game 7 by making it too expensive for him to play.
I was saying that I think that's a bad idea, and a bad way of looking at the game. If I thought it were true, I wouldn't play the game.
That said, I have to agree with RKL that it is hard to argue that having more money for turns isn't advantageous for the reasons he outlines.
But, as you say, some players like complexity, and I am certainly one of them. What my soldiers are wearing matters to me! (funny you should mention this since it is on my current turn...)
I'd also say that we've only reached 3 week turnaround time in game 8 with this most recent turn which came back with almost miraculous turnaround time.
I would like the option of s game with faster turnaround time. I would accept reasonable limitations on the game to accomplish it, and was hoping to see if others felt similarly.
Possible limitations could include:
1) email only
2) limited orders
3) restoration of the honour restrictions on military change orders
I'm sure others could propose other things.
I was saying that I think that's a bad idea, and a bad way of looking at the game. If I thought it were true, I wouldn't play the game.
That said, I have to agree with RKL that it is hard to argue that having more money for turns isn't advantageous for the reasons he outlines.
But, as you say, some players like complexity, and I am certainly one of them. What my soldiers are wearing matters to me! (funny you should mention this since it is on my current turn...)
I'd also say that we've only reached 3 week turnaround time in game 8 with this most recent turn which came back with almost miraculous turnaround time.
I would like the option of s game with faster turnaround time. I would accept reasonable limitations on the game to accomplish it, and was hoping to see if others felt similarly.
Possible limitations could include:
1) email only
2) limited orders
3) restoration of the honour restrictions on military change orders
I'm sure others could propose other things.
Guest- Guest
Richard D. Watts wrote:Thanks RKL for a clear and well-reasoned response; apologies from me also if any offence was given.
Relax Richard, no offence was given. All players have to be able to trust the GM's judgement and before anyone else suggests it, I don't think there was any time in G7 when I did not accept your judgement even when decisions went against me! I did not leave due to a disagreement between us, but for personal financial reasons as previously stated. I would be very happy to see a new player for France in G7.
It is never easy to state nuanced arguments without the risk of misinterpretation - something I was constantly up against in G7 during my time as Louis, though in that case it was down to deliberate misinterpretation by others to generate propaganda! If recent discussions have drawn attention to unintended consequences arising from rule changes, then this can only have a positive impact on the game in the longer term.
Deacon - I read your comments in the way you intended them, and I think overall we are probably in agreement. Adding standardised uniforms (costed by the player) should not add a great deal of time to processing of an order. And I don't see why it should take any more time to process a movement order depending on whether that unit has a uniform or not!
When we look at how much the game has changed since 1989, I think there is a case for a simpler version of the game which could allow a quicker turnaround. It need not affect all games, but it may suit a certain type of player or even help introduce new players to the game who could then move on to a more complicated version as they get drawn in to the game world. Sometimes the players have a better appreciation of how rules interact and affect their behaviour than the GM, so it is good to know that our opinions are being sought and considered.
As Deacon wrote: I'm sure others could propose other things.
It is never easy to state nuanced arguments without the risk of misinterpretation - something I was constantly up against in G7 during my time as Louis, though in that case it was down to deliberate misinterpretation by others to generate propaganda! If recent discussions have drawn attention to unintended consequences arising from rule changes, then this can only have a positive impact on the game in the longer term.
Deacon - I read your comments in the way you intended them, and I think overall we are probably in agreement. Adding standardised uniforms (costed by the player) should not add a great deal of time to processing of an order. And I don't see why it should take any more time to process a movement order depending on whether that unit has a uniform or not!
When we look at how much the game has changed since 1989, I think there is a case for a simpler version of the game which could allow a quicker turnaround. It need not affect all games, but it may suit a certain type of player or even help introduce new players to the game who could then move on to a more complicated version as they get drawn in to the game world. Sometimes the players have a better appreciation of how rules interact and affect their behaviour than the GM, so it is good to know that our opinions are being sought and considered.
As Deacon wrote: I'm sure others could propose other things.
Guest- Guest
I enjoy this game. It has changed a lot over the years, but it remains an enjoyable (strangely addictive) game. Like any product or service, if I felt the changes didn't agree with me, I'd look elsewhere. As I'm sure many others would.
If I wanted quick turnarounds and limited orders then I'd probably go for one of the many online games out there. I appreciate that some players have a lot of time available to devote to their turns, though with pretty stretching work, study and social demands I find that a 3 week turn around is sufficient. 4 weeks would loose my interest, 2 weeks would be too much.
I recall that there used to be a version of this game that would have suited folk like RKL and Deacon down to the ground. It was far closer to reality with the level of detail that they've both commented on as enjoying. It was an Agema game, is it still out there? Could that fill people's needs and expectations?
If I wanted quick turnarounds and limited orders then I'd probably go for one of the many online games out there. I appreciate that some players have a lot of time available to devote to their turns, though with pretty stretching work, study and social demands I find that a 3 week turn around is sufficient. 4 weeks would loose my interest, 2 weeks would be too much.
I recall that there used to be a version of this game that would have suited folk like RKL and Deacon down to the ground. It was far closer to reality with the level of detail that they've both commented on as enjoying. It was an Agema game, is it still out there? Could that fill people's needs and expectations?
Basileus- Prince
- Number of posts : 458
Age : 63
Location : Wales/Cornwall
Reputation : 13
Registration date : 2011-07-01
Deacon, I never meant that I had beaten Louis by making it too expensive for him to play. I would not wish to be involved in a game where I could "buy" victory. Not least of which I would never win under that criteria 
But I think that it is perfectly reasonable to overwhelm another player through successful diplomacy. Hasn't diplomacy always been a core aspect of the game?
On the issue of playing style and the debate above. Through the game, I did gather the details of one of the French armies (battle of Besancon), from my perspective Louis had details of the colour of cuffs on uniforms, hats etc all in regiments etc but none of the troops drilled. Louis - it just amazed me. But in the end my drilled troops didnt do better than Louis' fancy uniformed troops, I thought that they would but they didn't. The outcome was determined by tactics, strategy and a bit of luck on my side. I probably lost more troops but ended up with the town.
To cut to the point that I tried to explain earlier, the game is more sensitive and better balanced than some of the debate above would indicate. It is certainly not won by spending more money than someone else.
But I think that it is perfectly reasonable to overwhelm another player through successful diplomacy. Hasn't diplomacy always been a core aspect of the game?
On the issue of playing style and the debate above. Through the game, I did gather the details of one of the French armies (battle of Besancon), from my perspective Louis had details of the colour of cuffs on uniforms, hats etc all in regiments etc but none of the troops drilled. Louis - it just amazed me. But in the end my drilled troops didnt do better than Louis' fancy uniformed troops, I thought that they would but they didn't. The outcome was determined by tactics, strategy and a bit of luck on my side. I probably lost more troops but ended up with the town.
To cut to the point that I tried to explain earlier, the game is more sensitive and better balanced than some of the debate above would indicate.
It is certainly not won by spending more money than someone else.
Guest- Guest
Basileus - I think you'll find if you look back in the papers that you walked in to Besancon without resistance having surprised France by breaking your treaty! According to my records it was an undefended town around which fortifications were being built. Once you occupied the town, that work was destroyed, yet solid fortifications suddenly appeared which had not been made known to France. You then left a garrison in the town and pushed the rest of your troops towards a defensive position on a hill. A French army of observation was moved into position to shadow you. An artillery duel and a confused series of skirmishes then took place and as French forces readied for their main assault, you left the hill and withdrew back to the town. Another French army made a feint attack to test the defences of Besancon and encourage you to withdraw from outlying positions. This army, underequipped, with no artillery, failed to do much other than destroy more defences you were building, rather unnecessarily in my opinion! My priority as stated several times here was not to waste troops attacking heavily defended positions, but to engage your main force when it arrived. Your strategy to engage in a war of attrition against France and wear my troops out failed completely. Besancon would have been a tough town to retake, but I fully expected you to be forced to withdraw else find those troops indefinitely cut off.
Anyone who looks at the sequence of events in the Herald will accept the above. So please don't present marching into an empty town as being the result of some grand tactical plan. You had a great deal of luck as you managed to march past France's border watch towers, past another heavily garrisoned town and French fortified lines without any kind of warning being received. If that isn't luck, I don't know what is!
You make a valid comment about drill, but forget that during this time I was still building up multiple French armies and putting them in formations which would then be drilled. I had plenty of time to drill: France was at peace with Austria until you broke your treaty. I was not expecting conflict with you, but an alliance!
Anyone who looks at the sequence of events in the Herald will accept the above. So please don't present marching into an empty town as being the result of some grand tactical plan. You had a great deal of luck as you managed to march past France's border watch towers, past another heavily garrisoned town and French fortified lines without any kind of warning being received. If that isn't luck, I don't know what is!
You make a valid comment about drill, but forget that during this time I was still building up multiple French armies and putting them in formations which would then be drilled. I had plenty of time to drill: France was at peace with Austria until you broke your treaty. I was not expecting conflict with you, but an alliance!
Guest- Guest
Ah yes, the new turn is here and - it's as interesting as ever 
Deacon- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1859
Age : 61
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 44
Registration date : 2010-04-13
I decided not long after the report of the last turn to join the game as the Jacobites, having decided that peace in England would be a horrible development for the game .
I hope we can all still be friends even if some disagreements may arise....
.I hope we can all still be friends even if some disagreements may arise....
Guest- Guest
Lol. I'm sure we'll get along like a house on fire 
Richard D. Watts- Baron
- Number of posts : 116
Reputation : 7
Registration date : 2008-04-21
Frank, the game 7 newspapers for the year 1700 are now available at Drivethru, on this web page:
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/102764/1700-AD-The-Glory-of-Kings-18th-century-wargames-campaign-newspapers
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/102764/1700-AD-The-Glory-of-Kings-18th-century-wargames-campaign-newspapers
Deacon- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1859
Age : 61
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 44
Registration date : 2010-04-13
The Real John Churchill wrote:Lol. I'm sure we'll get along like a house on fire
Shall we see if we can burn down dear old Albion between us?
Frank- Baron
- Number of posts : 91
Age : 50
Location : Nürnberg, Germany
Reputation : 6
Registration date : 2009-11-29
Richard D. Watts wrote:Frank, the game 7 newspapers for the year 1700 are now available at Drivethru, on this web page:
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/102764/1700-AD-The-Glory-of-Kings-18th-century-wargames-campaign-newspapers
Thanks Richard. Downloading it now.
Guest- Guest
I had hoped to remove the Jacobite problem and set England on the path to recovery. Let's hold off I the burning just now shall we? 
count-de-monet- Duke
- Number of posts : 379
Age : 57
Location : Reading, Berkshire
Reputation : 18
Registration date : 2008-04-20
Was the arrival of the Jacobite position "officially" announced in the newspaper (and I missed it) ? The latest turn does perhaps lean towards it being considered obvious, but with the trickster Richard is I would never put it past him to stir things up with an announcement from Agema looking like an active position
I am just trying to work out the impact of how do we know a position has been taken up or not from my own ongoing particular difficulites.
Welcome to G7 Deacon, I dont know where this ride is going to take you but it will at the least be very interesting.
I am just trying to work out the impact of how do we know a position has been taken up or not from my own ongoing particular difficulites.
Welcome to G7 Deacon, I dont know where this ride is going to take you but it will at the least be very interesting.
Deacon- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1859
Age : 61
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 44
Registration date : 2010-04-13
I'm just hoping for an interesting ride. If I were a betting man, I wouldn't be laying my money on me!
But the situation seemed so interesting, and so ripe for a lot of pot stirring, that I thought I'd give it a go.
Given that I have said I was a mere spectator on this thread several times, it seemed only sporting to announce my arrival when that changed.
Guest- Guest
It certainly will be interesting for you, and all of us. Perhaps we will see a Catholic King after all.
Deacon- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1859
Age : 61
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 44
Registration date : 2010-04-13
I'm just looking forward to playing a mad 17 year old who can spout lines from The Princess Bride!
Guest- Guest
Deacon wrote:I'm just looking forward to playing a mad 17 year old.
Mad in the sense of angry over the death of his father, I hope. Somehow I think the game already has its fill of the unhinged.
Seriously, though, I'm glad you've taken the plunge and joined the game as King James. Now all you need is a new player for France to back you. Incidentally, given your interest in uniforms, you might like to know I obtained permission from King James for a distinctive Bourbon tartan, which some units were allowed to wear. Not strictly historic, but a visual reminder of French support for any future player of France.
I will be very interested reading how this plays out between you and Churchill.
Seriously, though, I'm glad you've taken the plunge and joined the game as King James. Now all you need is a new player for France to back you. Incidentally, given your interest in uniforms, you might like to know I obtained permission from King James for a distinctive Bourbon tartan, which some units were allowed to wear. Not strictly historic, but a visual reminder of French support for any future player of France.
I will be very interested reading how this plays out between you and Churchill.
Guest- Guest
I have to admit. I'm pleased to have Deacon playing The Jacobites. It will be interesting to see how it developes. Obviously we'll start as enemies, but who knows what time will bring.