G7 - France vs. England

Jason - and others - at no time have I accused any individual of collusion simply because they are logged in. If you read what I wrote (and tried to clarify) in context over 3 posts you would see quite clearly how that comment was made. I accept that I did not write with my usual clarity and should have stressed the potential for collusion. So I apologise for any offence caused and will try to be more careful in future. The basics of what I was trying to say is this:

1. Richard has warned players on the forum against collusion through the private messaging system. It exists: he knows it exists. That needs no accusation from me, so nothing to get excited about. And I have not personally accused or insulted anyone, singled out any player, merely pointed out as the GM did that collusion exists. I do not consider that is a controversial statement to make.

2. Richard will pick up whatever evidence he needs by looking at forum use and by the co-incidence of similarly worded statements/articles being submitted to the newspapers or such rapid and similar responses to an event. It is easy to spot as it takes at least 2 turns for a letter to be sent to a player and for that player to respond. Hence my rather light hearted comment about players being psychic. To post or use the private messaging system you have to be logged in. I don't know how you can use it without being logged in. Perhaps someone who is more technically expert than me knows how to do it, but if they are, good for them.

3. The comment was made in the context of RJC's observation that communication via the forum can put additional pressure on players. I happen to think that RJC has a point. I may have criticised RJC strongly for his in game actions, but in this instance I was thought I was making a positive comment to support him. I certainly never intended it to be read as an accusation which was met with individual outrage.

I intended to highlight to RJC that logging on to the forum for long periods without posting could be seen as evidence of collusion, particularly at times immediately following receipt of game turns when I had noticed the number of users logged on shoots up. I did not mean to state that everyone who logs in for long periods is only doing so because they are plotting away with their friends. Neither am I going to start going through posts or comparing newspaper statements to gather 'evidence' and informing on players to the GM. I find it rather incredible that others think that I would do that.

So if you do not accept the substance of what I thought I had written, then I hope you will accept my apology.

To answer Albreda's point about the Treaty of Ryswick ... the carefully constructed French academic reply Stuart refers to runs like this:

The Treaty of Ryswick ended the 9 Years War in 1697. So as a pre-1700 treaty it is not clear the extent to which players are bound by it anyway. However, it is an interesting question, because of the use players have tried to make of it in the game. As Stuart rightly points out the 5 year rule renders it somewhat invalid for any game purpose other than propaganda, but if the 5 year rule didn't exist, then ...

In it France promised not to support any further attempts by King James to regain the crown of England. That much was agreed by me when I played France. Certain players are convinced that this meant that France recognised that the House of Orange were legitimate kings.

However, France never did this. James never abdicated or in any sense gave up his rights as King. James was King in Exile, by right of blood. For the Pope, Louis and most Catholic monarchs (including Leopold), William was a heretic who had usurped the crown. He was never king in his own right, but the consort of the Queen, Mary Stuart. They ruled jointly in Mary's lifetime and then William struggled to be accepted during the remaining years of his life by a Parliament increasingly disturbed by his use of English wealth to fight continental wars against Louis. Louis was a staunch defender of the hereditary principle (as was Leopold in real history). Ryswick did not establish the House of Orange as a replacement for the House of Stuart. It was at best a ceasefire and was initially rejected by Spain and Austria.

To avoid any complication (propaganda) in the game, I deliberately waited until KJ (the father) was dead before agreeing to support the son. I also had to double check with the Pope and all these negotiations pushed the earliest date well into 1702 and therefore beyond the 5 year rule.

After William died and I left the game, the GM has ruled that the King James that Churchill murdered was the father. Consequently France could have unwittingly broken the Treaty of Ryswick. However, I don't think that can be held against me given during the time I was playing I thought that KJ had died in 1701. It was in part to avoid any such accusation that the 2 treaties which made peace with England were in the name of King James (b.1688). There is nothing in the Treaty of Ryswick that would have prevented Louis backing the claim of King James (b.1688) even during his father's lifetime. Similarly there is nothing which would have prevented Louis declaring war on UDP and attacking William that way.

So the case against France is as simple as this: if you believe the House of Orange replaced the House of Stuart, then as events turned out France broke the Treaty of Ryswick. In real history, of course, this was never tested as William had no son and various Acts were passed to settle the succession on Anne which have not been passed in the game. And to add to the confusion there were different translations of the treaties.

To further strengthen France's case you only have to consider that the issue of the Stuart succession did not go away until 1759, with multiple attempts in the first part of the 18th century. If Ryswick really had been as cut and dried as certain players contend, all these attempts would have been challenged with Ryswick being cited. As far as I know they were not.

For those interested in researching all the various Jacobite documents, there is an excellent site: http://jacobite.ca/documents/index.htm

A simpler look at the Jacobite Succession by primogeniture is on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jacobite_line_of_succession which clearly shows King James to have the superior claim over Anne.

For treaties from before the game, I agree it doesn't work well. If you recall I did not consider Ryswick to be in force at the time I started to support the Jacobites. However, as Stuart points out, I did reply to the accusations that I had broken Ryswick which were made against me in the Diet. This was a good propaganda tactic by those who figured out that I find it hard to resist digging into the detail.

However, the same does not apply to treaties written within the game between players where the clauses are simple and agreed in a common language. Unless of course players want to start sending treaties to each other in Latin

In the case of Ryswick if the GM wanted to make it an enforceable treaty then he would simply have to state briefly what the terms were held to be by him as GM. Players would then accept that reading of it; if not then they would be in breach of it. If this is done before the game begins then everyone is bound by those terms.

In other treaties, particularly those that establish the political functioning of states (I am thinking in particular of those outlined in Advice for Princes), which includes the Treaty of Westphalia, perhaps it needs to be made even clearer.

Clearly there is a fine line between going over the top with historical detail and using history to open up game lines. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but I think the general idea is that players are free to do as much as they can justify and take the game in whatever direction they decide to. Whether they justify it by treaty or conquest or any other means depends on them.

A good example of that would be page 16 of Advice for Princes where the status of Prussia is considered. It appears from the rule book that if the Duke of Prussia crowned himself King of Prussia he would lose the legal right to rule over Brandenburg and other possessions in the German part of the HRE. But in practice, if he didn't rule them who would? Would the emperor annex those lands directly, in which case under what authority as that would breach Westphalia. So even within the rules there are complications and potential areas of disagreement.

You know the sort of player I am by now and that I find this kind of detail interesting. However, does it get in the way of clarity of decision making by players, almost certainly yes. In France it was straight forward, but check the rules for most other states and they all have various restrictions attached. Imperial politics is a nightmare, but I don't think it is much worse than the situation for Venice or Poland. In practice it may all be much simpler than the treaties or institutions suggest, but this kind of detail does give the GM the opportunity to create confusion if he so wishes.

Glad you're back with us, Jason.

Even to me England-France became a sideshow compared to Austria-France, though I think the comment was from another player.

The documents are fascinating. Particularly relevant to the discussion is the Protest Against the Treaty of Ryswick 8th June 1697. No doubt there that James still considered himself to be King!

I also enjoyed Selections from the Instructions of King James II to his Son. Unfortunately in the game, of course, he failed to be "very careful in the choice of his chief ministers", well either that or a poor judge of character.

Nice one, RJC

For the war with England, I published terms of engagement for the benefit of other nations. These terms were very simple: hostilities would be restricted to Europe rather than other spheres. If France was attacked elsewhere then I would respond there. It was in nobody's interest for there to be a global free for all. Remember, this was not intended as a global war by France, with the aim of seizing English territory. It was a strictly limited campaign with published objectives and published peace terms, very much in line with the period idea of limited war.

So most of the action took place in Europe until England attacked French ships in the Caribbean. So France cleared England out of the Caribbean by capturing Jamaica and its fleet. That effectively ended the war in the Caribbean. OK, there were still some losses due to pirates and the Sons of Liberty who appeared on the scene about that time, and this I think is still the case. Various other nations/players sought to take advantage by flying false flags (including Jacobite flags) and attacking ships of other nations, but that seemed to die down once French patrols started.

There has been no conflict in Africa, India or elsewhere. I can't speak for English colonies, but French colonies are very heavily defended and anyone who sent spies in hoping for a quick result would be disappointed. The Dread Moghul enjoyed a good trading relationship with France and no doubt has the same with England so why spoil it?

The main spread towards global war came when Leopold began hiring pirates and 3rd parties to attack French ships and basing them in Spanish ports against the wishes of Spain in an attempt to involve Spain in the war. Spain has always been very hostile to pirates and did not take kindly to being used in this way, or at least that was his opinion in letters to me and I have no reason to doubt him in this.

The Austrian navy was always very small and I had no evidence of Leopold hiring large numbers of ships from elsewhere. This may have changed now with the entry of UDP into the war, but properly deployed the French navy should be able to deal a very heavy blow to such ambitions. I always thought it more likely at some point I would end up at war with UDP and it is one of the things I very much miss being able to be part of in the game.