G7 - France vs. England

Just a thought ! Im not saying that is what happened, but from what you say it is a possibility.
If you dont know why you are still fighting then any ideas on how to stop the war? It would be a very popular move, but how can you get france to agree. After all you did attack him. I cant see france just laughing it off. what would you do in these circumstances if you were france?

Guys, a really interesting set of view/comments on Austria and the Empire. thank you.

I think the novel G7 start-up twinned position has now generally gone the DEIC folded and the HEIC was stillborn. The French colonies went and left a big financial gap. Part of the reasoning i think for France going to war with England was that 1) England had wronged France to tune of £1m. 2) France expected to win quickly 3) Any losses in troops would have seen a reduction in costs 4) The relative positions were not understood. 5) France had a high honour score.

She did not attack the Dutch as they were not seen as a threat.

France's honour has plummeted. England has a new player. The world has turned and France has set up a puppet Jacobite rival James to confound William. I cannot see peace breaking out in England because of that!

However at a large cost England is neutral. France has been invaded and the UDP is more of a threat. Hence the sabre rattling.

The real issue is what Spain and Russia will do now?

Your thoughts?

You seem very well informed about France
How do you know France's honour has plummeted?
Agree ... what will Spain and Russia do now?

One keeps ones ear to the ground Well they are not on the 'leader board' any more and Russia is friends with France whilst Spain is chums with Spain

By leader board,do you mean honour board? the honour board has no reflection on who is the richest or the strongest militarily. The honour board is vastly overated.

Spain is chums with Spain ? I hope so!
France dropped off the leaderboard a long time ago, but then Austria seems to be still on it. I don't quite trust the leaderboard as some nations seem to have honour which is very sticky if you know what I mean.
If France's honor dropped because of war with Austria then why hasn't Austria's honor dropped. After all Austria did attack France. Catholic nation attacking Catholic nation should seriously damage honour? Surely France attacking England (a protestant nation) should have increased French honor not reduced it?

Ok Ok so Iwas trired when i typed that !

its best no to try to gain the leaderboard as you don't know really how you achieve honour in my opinion.

France, if I understand this correctly took a hit from its war with England. This only matters if your orders due to low honour are not complied with and your units desert.

I'm a relative newbie too (ie not playing in several games) so my views are not as comprehensive as other honour merchants....

anyhow avoiding war can often save time money and honour !

I guess we're agreed - dont understand how honour works.

rather like the honour system in real life then

I must confess.Honour is my biggest failing in the game.I always find it hard to raise my honour score to a high level.Never cracked it. Lowering taxes raises honour,but is that a good idea?

Frankly getting onto and staying on the leaderboard is not something I try to achieve. OK its nice to be there but honour (dare I say it - yes dare, dare ) isnt everything.

I try to act in the spirit of the age, get on with other players and have my own set of objectives that I update annually in a pragmatic way.

My game play teeters on a knife-edge with disaster always close.

And sorry I'm not the one to answer tax questions. Except to say I'd go for power and influence then lower taxes - but incrementally - if you were really concerned about how the priests, the nobs or the mob see you!

Bon Chance!

I agree. I never chase honour. I accept whatever comes my way.The real leader board is "who gets the most money". This is where you want to be at the top.

Yep best way

Honour is a strange one. I've never really seeked it but it usually comes my way quite easily, by being nice, not invading other people, giving gifts and hosting banquets

Also, it can be a useful additional income source for a smaller power

Austria's honour did drop with the attack on France, but it was massive before that and so could take the major hit. I`ve played the game on and off since 1990 and have never had a position with such a high honour score before.

On the issue of peace, I would honestly welcome it, but I suspect we wont see it for another year or so.

Well, you must be doing something right if you can keep that high honor.
Reading the Herald it looks like peace terms have been presented a few times by France and once by Spain, but nothing has come out of England or Austria. At the risk of sounding dopey on this one, what is stopping you sending your own peace terms to France?
Assuming you are in a position of winning the war, what is it that you want out of the war that France can provide. There has to be some basis for negotiation otherwise both sides will remain deadlocked.
France seems to have stated its objectives clearly enough. I imagine France will stop once those objectives have been met, but where does that leave Austria. OK, you've agreed to a 6 month ceasefire (not sure if France has), but what after that? It must be costing Austria a lot in upkeep and there doesnt seem much sign that France is changing its position. If anything things seem to be getting worse.

England can't make a seperate peace with France. The peace terms being presented to England by France are also over the top. He is gunning for regime change, and of course the English King can't agree to that!

tek_604 wrote:England can't make a seperate peace with France. The peace terms being presented to England by France are also over the top. He is gunning for regime change, and of course the English King can't agree to that!

So are you suggesting that because England cant agree to a peace with France, neither can Austria?
Without wanting to seem inflammatory, Austria seems to have been tricked into a war it doesnt know why it is fighting, with no objectives to end the war. If what you say above is correct, then the war will drag on until either France gets regime change or is defeated. With the combined might of England and Austria this hasnt happened yet. Has England put forward peace terms?
I might be being thick again, but:
1. hasnt france got a Jacobite king? what is to stop him from ruling England?
2. if William is king of UDP and also England then why hasnt UDP declared war on France to support William's claim?
3. why hasn't france delcared war on UDP?
4. why hasn't france just destroyed England.
Modern paralels suggest those who want regime change get it.

Austria got involved in the war for its own reasons. England certainly hasn't tricked Austria into the war! True, the King of England should put forward peace terms, but these are never going to be accepted when the French have an undefeated army on English soil. As for your questions...

1. James II (the Jacobite) is commanding the army on English soil. The peace proposals put forward by France would put him on the throne. He can't rule England while there is a King recognised by Parliament. Parliament won't recognise James, as he would disband Parliament, and rule directly. The peace proposal also says that on the death of James, Louis of France would become King of England. Something tells me James wouldn't last long...
2. William is not King of the UDP. He may be Stadtholder, but the UDP is run by the Estates, not by the King of England.
3. France doesn't see the UDP as a threat, although if victorious in England, he probably will in the future.
4. They can't.

Don't try using modern parallels when talking about the 18th century. My use of the term "regime change" was shorthand for saying the French want to put James II on the throne.

Austria would accept £1m payment by England to France to cover the dredger issue and perhaps the transfer of some minor English colonies to France from England. I dont think that England should suffer anything more than that over the issue which was really just a trade dispute over the designs to build dredgers.
I know that this will mean a lot of effort for limited outcome but that is how it often is.

Calm down please Tek! Im not trying to get involved ina war.

I don't think England has tricked Austria into the war, as England is not a 'minor power':

Basileus wrote: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.

It looks like you are suggesting that either France destroys England or England destroys the French army in England. So there has to be a good reason for England not attacking that army! What is to stop France sending reinforcements, etc, and the whole thing just gets more and more messy.

To specific questions:

tek_604 wrote:1. James II (the Jacobite) is commanding the army on English soil. The peace proposals put forward by France would put him on the throne. He can't rule England while there is a King recognised by Parliament. Parliament won't recognise James, as he would disband Parliament, and rule directly. The peace proposal also says that on the death of James, Louis of France would become King of England. Something tells me James wouldn't last long.

In the proposals in January's newspaper there is nothing which mentions France inheriting England after James' death. Not completely sure where you got that idea from.

tek_604 wrote:2. William is not King of the UDP. He may be Stadtholder, but the UDP is run by the Estates, not by the King of England.

Surely William (as Stadtholder) would have asked the estates to declare war on France to support his claim?

tek_604 wrote:3. France doesn't see the UDP as a threat, although if victorious in England, he probably will in the future.

all the more reason for UDP to attack and join in on England's side.

tek_604 wrote:4. They can't.

you're seriously telling me that france is so weak it cannot destroy England? Is the french player an idiot? surely all the resources of france would be enough. And am I missing something but didn't france capture Jamaica and defeat the english navy at the battle of Medway?

I'm obviously not as closely involved as you are, but it seems to me like france is overall slightly ahead in england, Austria is overall slightly ahead in france, UDP is scared of france so wont get involved, france doesn't seem to want to finish england off, nobody has any clear idea of how to bring the war to conclusion or if they do, then they dont have the means to carry it out.

Basileus wrote:Austria would accept £1m payment by England to France to cover the dredger issue and perhaps the transfer of some minor English colonies to France from England. I dont think that England should suffer anything more than that over the issue which was really just a trade dispute over the designs to build dredgers.
I know that this will mean a lot of effort for limited outcome but that is how it often is.

You seem to agree with most of the first 7 terms of france's proposal then? That is good news for peace! Which ones dont you agree with and why?

As you invaded france, doesnt Austria owe france something for breaking her treaty? If I was attacked by another country then I would want damages of some kind, as I'm sure you would.

Yes and no really, as I think part of France`s claims to English colonies is that it has taken hold of them and they are spoils of war. Austria could equally claim the same for Franch-Comte and bringing it back into the Empire.
There is a potential end game coming up if the war continues for another 6 months. Sorry, not going to say what it is, but it has already been noted by the UDP in a recent newsletter article.

2 separate points here:

Basileus wrote:Yes and no really, as I think part of France`s claims to English colonies is that it has taken hold of them and they are spoils of war. Austria could equally claim the same for Franch-Comte and bringing it back into the Empire.

You probably have somethign here. I'm following this quite closely and I think I remember reading that Austria took Besancon but couldn't extend its control into the areas around it. The same might apply to the Jacobites in England ... they take towns, but not the countryside. However, while France has some militry and naval success against England, France has not yet attacked Austrian troops in France. You must be very confident of winning against any French assault. If you defeat France in France then you probably have a stronger case. Until that happens I think it will be difficult for you to press your claim.

Basileus wrote:There is a potential end game coming up if the war continues for another 6 months. Sorry, not going to say what it is, but it has already been noted by the UDP in a recent newsletter article.

If you are refering to the 'expiry of the treaty of ghent' which was mentioned in Feb's newsletter, then surely france knows this. What do you think the effect of this will be? Will Spain and UDP join in against France? If so then from Austrias viewpoint agreeing to a 6 month Russian ceasefire is not for you to negotiate peace, but simply buying you time for your other allies to join you. Neat move!

Im inover my head on this one already but it strikes me that the sticking point in enforcing James on England.

France cant back down on that as it will ruin his honour, and Austria fears a jacobite-French alliance. is this the deadlock?

if so it wont be deadlock for long, either france will install the jacobites quick sharp and get a new ally or it appears he will be attacked by spain and udp as well. either way if i was france i would need a quick victory in england.