Home
Portal
Search
Latest images
Register
Log in
Jason, the exclusion Zone should either be this forum or G7. I think Stuart is a "carrier" - he shows all the symptoms..... but stays below the horizon by producing quasi-sensible Idea that infect the rest.... 
+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
Regor- Duke
- Number of posts : 350
Location : Fleet
Reputation : 6
Registration date : 2010-02-15
Basileus- Prince
- Number of posts : 458
Age : 63
Location : Wales/Cornwall
Reputation : 13
Registration date : 2011-07-01
Ok, to try to bring the conversation back a little bit. The question I am going to ask isnt (hopefully) going to break the rules of the forum because its not two players negotiating - but what do people think would be reasonable terms for peace in the Austrian/Dutch v France war?
Now I know I have a real interest in the matter as Austria but I genuinely would be interested in peoples views. Needless to say, this is just a discussion in the forum and has no impact on the game. And lets be nice about this one
Now I know I have a real interest in the matter as Austria but I genuinely would be interested in peoples views. Needless to say, this is just a discussion in the forum and has no impact on the game. And lets be nice about this one
Regor- Duke
- Number of posts : 350
Location : Fleet
Reputation : 6
Registration date : 2010-02-15
Hi Basileus - good question and as I am merely an observer may I suggest the following based on what I think are the current situations.
1. France has had a tough time. (It matters not who's fault that is...) She is struggling if not on her knees. France will return to power at some point.
2. And Austria needs her to as a bulwark against other nations - a sort of bogeyman to keep alliances in play.
3. England is in an even more chaotic state than France.
4. Spain's star rises.
5. The Ottomans are a threat to Austria.
6. China?????
7. The Great Northern War is going to rumble on for a while.
Therefore I think it is in Austria's interests to be magnanimous and return all French possessions to France. However you may want to seek some financial reparations for your costs involved.
There needs to be a treaty, say for 10yrs, looking to prevent a re-occurrance of hostilities as France's long term stability and growth is in everyones interest.
With security v france you can look to the Ottoman threat.....
I'd start there but am not sighted on your or France's finiacials, honour or recruits......
as they say in France aux choix
1. France has had a tough time. (It matters not who's fault that is...) She is struggling if not on her knees. France will return to power at some point.
2. And Austria needs her to as a bulwark against other nations - a sort of bogeyman to keep alliances in play.
3. England is in an even more chaotic state than France.
4. Spain's star rises.
5. The Ottomans are a threat to Austria.
6. China?????
7. The Great Northern War is going to rumble on for a while.
Therefore I think it is in Austria's interests to be magnanimous and return all French possessions to France. However you may want to seek some financial reparations for your costs involved.
There needs to be a treaty, say for 10yrs, looking to prevent a re-occurrance of hostilities as France's long term stability and growth is in everyones interest.
With security v france you can look to the Ottoman threat.....
I'd start there but am not sighted on your or France's finiacials, honour or recruits......
as they say in France aux choix
Guest- Guest
Talking generically about peace...it is always a possibility. It depends how badly you want it and how much you are willing to give up to get it.
In a situation such as G7, perhaps a long term view is required, similar to Regor's suggestions-do you want an embittered ex-enemy or would you rather try and lay down the basis for a new and better relationship by going easy on your demands.
In a situation such as G7, perhaps a long term view is required, similar to Regor's suggestions-do you want an embittered ex-enemy or would you rather try and lay down the basis for a new and better relationship by going easy on your demands.
Stuart Bailey- Emperor of Europe
- Number of posts : 2571
Age : 61
Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
Reputation : 58
Registration date : 2012-01-29
Basileus wrote:Ok, to try to bring the conversation back a little bit. The question I am going to ask isnt (hopefully) going to break the rules of the forum because its not two players negotiating - but what do people think would be reasonable terms for peace in the Austrian/Dutch v France war?
Now I know I have a real interest in the matter as Austria but I genuinely would be interested in peoples views. Needless to say, this is just a discussion in the forum and has no impact on the game. And lets be nice about this one
What a nasty question to post on the forum........are you trying to cause the ghost of RKL to achieve warp speed spinning in its grave?
However as I see it a new French player......any volunteers? (Or even a NPC Govt if Richard wants to hand a new player a Fresh start)has two options.
Option one - The RKL option is to scream "no peace with vile Austrian back stabbing treaty breakers"
and fight to smash the invaders, drive the French border to the Rhine, and extract a huge amount of cash from the Hapsburgs. Plus for good measure it can dust off French claims to the Throne of Spain.
Option two - The Dauphin option - would be to decide that while option one would be preferred France has now achieved its major foreign policy objective with the Stuart Restoration in England and it should look for peace for to both shore up this victory (Which breaks the Anglo-Dutch-Hapsburg ring around France) and for economic reasons. I have no knowledge of the French Economic position but the prospect of having to blast pryromanic Hungarian Ferrets out of Lyon etc does not look good for the old EH.
Apart from keeping their ally on the British Thrones which now seems to be a no since the Whig Grandee's have jumped ship what to the Hapsburgs & the Dutch want and how would I view it if I was playing a peace loving cuddly Bourbon (Is there such a thing?):
- Ancona back to the Papacy or someone other than the French Ok so its a great position to cut Hapsburg lines of communication. But its a standing challenge/threat if I want to be a loveable "non threatening" Bourbon I would give it to the Pope
- Roussilon - I dont care if due to historic fluke its been part of Spain since the days of the Visigothic Kingdoms its on the French side of the mountains and not going back. The Hapsburgs can not demand France gives up offensive positions then ask for one of their own. The Basques etc are just going to have to get used to being split......think of the career prospects it opens up in smuggling.
- Franche Comte - This is the real Heartlands of Bungundy and the middle Kingdom in dispute for hundreds of years any settlement is only ever going to be temporary and both sides of the fault line know this. Currently the Dutch and Imperialists are having attacks of the vapours about the French being on the Rhine and able to strike up the river, down it into Bavaria & the Hapsburg Heartlands or across it at the Imperial Diet in Frankfurt etc. To give up even a inch husts, it hurts us my precious! But with fingers crossed behind the back I would offer the County of Belfort ie the strip of land between Baden and Lorraine leading to the Rhine. The whole lot only if Louis XIV is a Austrian POW or France is about to go bankrupt!
- The borders of the Spanish Netherlands & the Dutch Barrier Fortresses. I am sure the Dutch would like their barrier to be Mons, Lille, Cambrai etc but in Glori a Fortress is a sodding Fortress give or take. They can leave their Barrier exactly were it is and accept the word of a nice cuddly Bourbon that this is no longer the 1680's and France no longer wishes to annex them and turn them all into Catholics. Would also point out Spain and Flanders is no longer a broken reed which needs to be proped.
- Dutch demands for Free Trade - since I am not giving them anything else think I would concede this one. Hell after the kicking the French Merchant Marine has recieved we probably need the extra shipping.
- Hispaniola - since we have Jamacia (a much nicer Island) does France really need a bunch of stroppy Spanish colonial types and a stroppy Spanish Government sulking about its lost island?
If anyone is thinking about biteing the bullet and taking on G7 France I expect you will totally disagree with most of the above and clearly how you play things is going to depend on what state your position is in, how much you like fighting wars etc, etc but it may give you the odd thought.
Stuart Bailey- Emperor of Europe
- Number of posts : 2571
Age : 61
Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
Reputation : 58
Registration date : 2012-01-29
Regor wrote:Jason, the exclusion Zone should either be this forum or G7. I think Stuart is a "carrier" - he shows all the symptoms..... but stays below the horizon by producing quasi-sensible Idea that infect the rest....
I am hurt.......truely hurt! Clearly the madness started in S for E (a really mad game) and has spread by sausages and ferret bites to G7 and the forum. Which leaves me exposed but I would have you know I am a sane as the next man
Guest- Guest
Now I'm worried... 
Perhaps a better question is, what are the Austrians will to offer for peace? Have they suffered enough slaughter for a lost cause to just have peace and nothing more?
Perhaps a better question is, what are the Austrians will to offer for peace? Have they suffered enough slaughter for a lost cause to just have peace and nothing more?
The Revenant- Prince
- Number of posts : 489
Location : West Yorkshire
Reputation : 0
Registration date : 2008-08-03
Basileus wrote:Ok, to try to bring the conversation back a little bit. The question I am going to ask isnt (hopefully) going to break the rules of the forum because its not two players negotiating - but what do people think would be reasonable terms for peace in the Austrian/Dutch v France war?
Now I know I have a real interest in the matter as Austria but I genuinely would be interested in peoples views. Needless to say, this is just a discussion in the forum and has no impact on the game. And lets be nice about this one
As someone with no axe to grind, but who has been involved (imagine that!) I'd say that since the declared "cause" of the war(s) between Austria and France were not territorial (initially a support of England, and then a response to France's declaration of war) that peace would involve a return to pre-war borders, with Austria paying compensation for war-damages in France, and France compensating Austria for her costs in waging the war ("caused" by France's actions). Not sure where the Dutch get involved. I would have thought a separate treaty for them (or maybe not, with Spain honouring its ancient obligations to help France in in taking the fight to them).
Plus the usual guarantees of future peace and concord, of course...
On a couple of other points that have come up - not sure where "the Ottoman threat" comes from. Ottoman Empire currently (and for a long while) somnolent. And I believe that the French cause has indeed been taken up by a new player (so need to speculate about what richard might do with the cause).
The Hessian- Lord
- Number of posts : 85
Reputation : 0
Registration date : 2010-09-28
Personally I feel Austria and France can easily settle on a return to previous borders with no reparations as they have both suffered. That aside I personally think Spains claim to Rousillion and Franche Comte are non starters. Re England, france withdraw all forces, no assistance tojacobite or williamite forces. Straight out no hanging about, no covert skullduggery! Home to cafe au lait and jolly toute suite.
re colonies, return to previous owners all that have been captured taken etc.
France sign away right to interfere in HRE due to terms of Treaty of Westphalia and cancel all treaties with Saxony & Brandenburg-prussia.
Lastly with UDP they to can return to previous situation before war started. No compensation.
That way there would be the least feeling of enmity between all parties except perhaps for ghost of RKLoF and possibly Spain but that will subside rapidly I am sure.
As for sanity the exclusion zone would not work but the cold of Russia and the saturation of vodka per person would not allow it to pass by that great nation!
re colonies, return to previous owners all that have been captured taken etc.
France sign away right to interfere in HRE due to terms of Treaty of Westphalia and cancel all treaties with Saxony & Brandenburg-prussia.
Lastly with UDP they to can return to previous situation before war started. No compensation.
That way there would be the least feeling of enmity between all parties except perhaps for ghost of RKLoF and possibly Spain but that will subside rapidly I am sure.
As for sanity the exclusion zone would not work but the cold of Russia and the saturation of vodka per person would not allow it to pass by that great nation!
Stuart Bailey- Emperor of Europe
- Number of posts : 2571
Age : 61
Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
Reputation : 58
Registration date : 2012-01-29
[quote="jimbotten"]
As someone with no axe to grind, but who has been involved (imagine that!) I'd say that since the declared "cause" of the war(s) between Austria and France were not territorial (initially a support of England, and then a response to France's declaration of war) that peace would involve a return to pre-war borders, with Austria paying compensation for war-damages in France, and France compensating Austria for her costs in waging the war ("caused" by France's actions). Not sure where the Dutch get involved. I would have thought a separate treaty for them (or maybe not, with Spain honouring its ancient obligations to help France in in taking the fight to them).
If we do have a new French player perhaps we should draw on the experiece of Jason and declare an embargo/exclusion zone round comments on French Foreign Policy and give him a chance to fight (or end) his own war in his own way........Back to comments on Hanovian Camel Burgers and the evils of the Opiate Corporation compared to those fine spiffing chaps in the HEIC
Basileus wrote:Ok, to try to bring the conversation back a little bit. The question I am going to ask isnt (hopefully) going to break the rules of the forum because its not two players negotiating - but what do people think would be reasonable terms for peace in the Austrian/Dutch v France war?
Now I know I have a real interest in the matter as Austria but I genuinely would be interested in peoples views. Needless to say, this is just a discussion in the forum and has no impact on the game. And lets be nice about this one
As someone with no axe to grind, but who has been involved (imagine that!) I'd say that since the declared "cause" of the war(s) between Austria and France were not territorial (initially a support of England, and then a response to France's declaration of war) that peace would involve a return to pre-war borders, with Austria paying compensation for war-damages in France, and France compensating Austria for her costs in waging the war ("caused" by France's actions). Not sure where the Dutch get involved. I would have thought a separate treaty for them (or maybe not, with Spain honouring its ancient obligations to help France in in taking the fight to them).
If we do have a new French player perhaps we should draw on the experiece of Jason and declare an embargo/exclusion zone round comments on French Foreign Policy and give him a chance to fight (or end) his own war in his own way........Back to comments on Hanovian Camel Burgers and the evils of the Opiate Corporation compared to those fine spiffing chaps in the HEIC
Last edited by Stuart Bailey on Sat Oct 20, 2012 3:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
J Flower- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1239
Age : 53
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 17
Registration date : 2012-02-16
What ever you decide is right for a peace settlement. You should also bear in mind the fickle truths of LGDR politics. Those positions that are now your best friends & allies, are only a player change away from becoming your arch-enemy. The same is true of current foes. If one position is so weakened that it almost disappers from the game it can mean that you loose a potential ally in the future.
The balancing act is a hard one to explain or implement. However it is one worth considering if a lasting stability is to be maintained. It will not stop conflicts but it may prevent one Nation from emerging to overshadow all the others.
The balancing act is a hard one to explain or implement. However it is one worth considering if a lasting stability is to be maintained. It will not stop conflicts but it may prevent one Nation from emerging to overshadow all the others.
count-de-monet- Duke
- Number of posts : 379
Age : 57
Location : Reading, Berkshire
Reputation : 18
Registration date : 2008-04-20
"What ever you decide is right for a peace settlement. You should also bear in mind the fickle truths of LGDR politics. Those positions that are now your best friends & allies, are only a player change away from becoming your arch-enemy. The same is true of current foes. If one position is so weakened that it almost disappers from the game it can mean that you loose a potential ally in the future"
Such a good point and one we probably all need remind of from time to time. I have been on the receiving end of both sides of change.
Such a good point and one we probably all need remind of from time to time. I have been on the receiving end of both sides of change.
Deacon- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1859
Age : 60
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 44
Registration date : 2010-04-13
I think part of the challenge of LGDR is that some of historical constraints don't hold as well in game.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, wars typically involved very small exchanges of territory compared to what most in game think is reasonable. I guess it boils down to the question, do you want a neighbor who is just looking for an excuse to win back what he lost, or one who can live with the minor sting?
But since in-game you have players, who change over time, the importance of that as a factor changes depending upon your calculus of the players involved. My guess is that if you attempt to cripple France, she will, in time, endeavor to cripple you back, alliances with the Russians or the Ottomans being both possible choices.
The Pope has now issued a Papal Bull on the issue of who is the rightful king of england which should settle the matter for most catholics. Mind, plenty have chosen to argue with the pope on various things in history, so certainly you could here as well, but I'd expect a further honour hit for a catholic monarch if you continued to push the williamite cause. My guess is that it isn't that important to you, and I think it looks like the Jacobite cause is doing better. So you have to decide how far you want to ride that horse...
Given this, if you want to try to keep territory, the question is on what basis and how much? Why did you you attack in the first place, and what was it you were trying to achieve?
As I understand it, both you, and now Spain, breached treaties to start the war, so a patient france could just keep pounding the table on the treaties and keep fighting, and if the rules are to be believed eventually both of you would go broke on the honour table until you made the matter right. I'm not sure, honestly, that the treaty rules can be believed, but you'd know better what you're risking there, and a gamble on how far France would push the matter.
My understanding is that your initial objection was concern about putting a French puppet on the English throne. So why not try to deal with the issue that drove your concern?
I can't really suggest what seems reasonable, but I think your stated cassus belli is gone, making it somewhat awkward to continue. States have done more with less historically though, so you don't have to let that stop you!
Just be prepared for the long game if you want much, since it gives France no incentive to keep the deal for more than enough time to recover which means you're going to have to spend a lot of time patrolling a border...
Assuming whoever steps into the breach as France is willing to slog it out...
Stuart Bailey- Emperor of Europe
- Number of posts : 2571
Age : 61
Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
Reputation : 58
Registration date : 2012-01-29
I sometimes wonder if players think are overly influenced by the outcome of the War of the Spanish Succession which saw Louis XIV make major concessions to the Hapsburgs and other rivals to secure the Throne of Spain and the Indies for his Grandson.
However, most of Louis XIV treaties were not like this rather over a 50 year period he slowly but surely expanded France. Highlights including :
1659 Treaty of the Pyrenees - Gains Roussilon from Spain and Artois from Flanders
1663 Treaty of Aix-La-Chapelle - Gains Oudenarde, Tournai and Lille from Flanders
1678 Treaty of Nijmegen and another seperate treaty with Spain - Gains Franche-Comte plus Cambrai, Aire, Ypes etc from Flanders
The part exception to this expansion was the 1696 Treaty of Rijswijk to end the 9 years War were Spain acknowleged the loss of the Western Part of Hispaniola (occupied by French Cousairs/settlers for some time) but Louis gave back Ypes and various other places capyured in this War and earlier. Some say this was Louis being nice in the hope that the Spanish who were looking round for a new King at this stage would select a Bourbon others inc the RKL consider it evidence of a more defensive slant to French policy.
Since start of G7 some (mostly Hapsburgs, Dutch and Bavarians) argue that Frence has continued it expansion - Jamacia, Newfoundland, Ancona, Jacobite restoration in England plus the Rest of Hispaniola and must be stopped and if possible rolled back a bit.
While French Govts argue that they were very reasonable over accepting the decision of the Spanish Nobles not to Crown the Duc of Anjou. Plus they were equally reasonable over England (only doing the will of the Pope dont you know) when the Emperor in a mad panic over the possiblity that he might loss his "heretic ally" stabbed them in the back!
For the info of the new French Govt the UDP can not have broken a treaty with France because it never signed one. Spain has sat in a corner waiting for the non aggression clause to expire......understand that happened at same time as changes of French Govts made former treaties void. But the Emperor did break a non aggression treaty with the then French Govt when he declared war (Boo, hiss, nasty man)partly to honour his alliance with the then English Govt but it now seems mostly to get some of his land back.
On basis that this conflict has only been going on 3 years while the WSS laster 12 years and the 9 Years Wa.....well 9 this particular Hapsburg V Boubon conflict should have loads more time to go.
History says that Leopold never reclaimed even scraps of the once great Burgundian Claims of Charles V. Will be interesting to see if this "loser" can do better. Hell we need a long war to allow England time to recover its top dog position now sadly dented.
However, most of Louis XIV treaties were not like this rather over a 50 year period he slowly but surely expanded France. Highlights including :
1659 Treaty of the Pyrenees - Gains Roussilon from Spain and Artois from Flanders
1663 Treaty of Aix-La-Chapelle - Gains Oudenarde, Tournai and Lille from Flanders
1678 Treaty of Nijmegen and another seperate treaty with Spain - Gains Franche-Comte plus Cambrai, Aire, Ypes etc from Flanders
The part exception to this expansion was the 1696 Treaty of Rijswijk to end the 9 years War were Spain acknowleged the loss of the Western Part of Hispaniola (occupied by French Cousairs/settlers for some time) but Louis gave back Ypes and various other places capyured in this War and earlier. Some say this was Louis being nice in the hope that the Spanish who were looking round for a new King at this stage would select a Bourbon others inc the RKL consider it evidence of a more defensive slant to French policy.
Since start of G7 some (mostly Hapsburgs, Dutch and Bavarians) argue that Frence has continued it expansion - Jamacia, Newfoundland, Ancona, Jacobite restoration in England plus the Rest of Hispaniola and must be stopped and if possible rolled back a bit.
While French Govts argue that they were very reasonable over accepting the decision of the Spanish Nobles not to Crown the Duc of Anjou. Plus they were equally reasonable over England (only doing the will of the Pope dont you know) when the Emperor in a mad panic over the possiblity that he might loss his "heretic ally" stabbed them in the back!
For the info of the new French Govt the UDP can not have broken a treaty with France because it never signed one. Spain has sat in a corner waiting for the non aggression clause to expire......understand that happened at same time as changes of French Govts made former treaties void. But the Emperor did break a non aggression treaty with the then French Govt when he declared war (Boo, hiss, nasty man)partly to honour his alliance with the then English Govt but it now seems mostly to get some of his land back.
On basis that this conflict has only been going on 3 years while the WSS laster 12 years and the 9 Years Wa.....well 9 this particular Hapsburg V Boubon conflict should have loads more time to go.
History says that Leopold never reclaimed even scraps of the once great Burgundian Claims of Charles V. Will be interesting to see if this "loser" can do better. Hell we need a long war to allow England time to recover its top dog position now sadly dented.
Deacon- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1859
Age : 60
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 44
Registration date : 2010-04-13
>>For the info of the new French Govt the UDP can not have broken a treaty with France because it never signed one. Spain has sat in a corner waiting for the non aggression clause to expire......understand that happened at same time as changes of French Govts made former treaties void. But the Emperor did break a non aggression treaty with the then French Govt when he declared war (Boo, hiss, nasty man)partly to honour his alliance with the then English Govt but it now seems mostly to get some of his land back.<<
See my other posts with Richard's notes to me on treaties. The change of a government does NOT make a treaty void by definition. Certainly not one the existing Spanish player signed.
See my other posts with Richard's notes to me on treaties. The change of a government does NOT make a treaty void by definition. Certainly not one the existing Spanish player signed.
J Flower- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1239
Age : 53
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 17
Registration date : 2012-02-16
There may be a need for a rule clarification on treaties, I know the arrival of a new player was usually announced in the newsletter along with the "all treaties with said country are now null & void" is this still the case, I know there has been discussion elsewhere with regards a treaty catalogue avaliable to new players.
It may well be that some players beleive they have treaties still in force, while others think the opposite is true. Maybe sending exsisting treaties for renewal is an idea, at least that way you know where you stand.
It may well be that some players beleive they have treaties still in force, while others think the opposite is true. Maybe sending exsisting treaties for renewal is an idea, at least that way you know where you stand.
Deacon- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1859
Age : 60
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 44
Registration date : 2010-04-13
See my post elsewhere in the forum. Richard's words to me implied that is not necessarily the case, and I frankly think it makes a complete farce of the game if it is.
So I switch players and the treaty of westphalia no longer holds? WHy is a player made treaty in period less enforceable than an older one?
It is certainly a matter for debate, but I think there is a fair case to be made that the new player is the one who gets to decide if the treaty holds. The player who signed the treaty doeesn't get to get out of it just because the counterparty changed.
I hope Richard clarifies the rules soon.
I personally will be making zero treaties in game because I have no confidence in how they are enforced by honour rules. I find it unfortunate that lack of confidence in game mechanisms lead me to out-of-character decisions.
J Flower- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1239
Age : 53
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 17
Registration date : 2012-02-16
I know there have been varios debates on Treaties & enforcement elsewere, Like you I occassionaly get annoyed that the ToW, seems cast in stone, no matter what happens it is always there, other treaties seem to start fading as soon as the ink is dry.
Maybe it is proving that the treaty exsists , possiably one copy for each player & One to Richard.
Maybe it is proving that the treaty exsists , possiably one copy for each player & One to Richard.
Guest- Guest
I think Jason has hit the nail; it's there existing somewhere a copy of any treaty that new players can then have.
Logically any treaty should have a third copy for Agema, to keep on file and include in any new player's start-up as required. I had thought that was a requirement but I might be imagining things
Logically any treaty should have a third copy for Agema, to keep on file and include in any new player's start-up as required. I had thought that was a requirement but I might be imagining things
Stuart Bailey- Emperor of Europe
- Number of posts : 2571
Age : 61
Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
Reputation : 58
Registration date : 2012-01-29
Deacon wrote:
See my post elsewhere in the forum. Richard's words to me implied that is not necessarily the case, and I frankly think it makes a complete farce of the game if it is.
So I switch players and the treaty of westphalia no longer holds? WHy is a player made treaty in period less enforceable than an older one?
It is certainly a matter for debate, but I think there is a fair case to be made that the new player is the one who gets to decide if the treaty holds. The player who signed the treaty doeesn't get to get out of it just because the counterparty changed.
I hope Richard clarifies the rules soon.
I personally will be making zero treaties in game because I have no confidence in how they are enforced by honour rules. I find it unfortunate that lack of confidence in game mechanisms lead me to out-of-character decisions.
Thinking about the issue of when do treaties end we seem to have a split between :
A) Those like Deacon who hold that "your word is your bond" and changes or Govt/Player make no difference
&
B) Those who hold to the position which used to be clearly shown in the rules/paper but may now exist only in the dusty memory of some players (or a unwritten rule)that a contract exists between two parties and when one of them changes the contract is void.
Not sure what what can be done about existing treaties but with new ones perhaps a clause can be put in saying "In the event of a change of Government either of the signatories may declare this treaty null and void on three months notice"
Deacon- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1859
Age : 60
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 44
Registration date : 2010-04-13
Well, I think the point in question in this thread was about Spain.
I can see a case for a "old and dusty treaty no one remembers" lapsing. But you can hardly say that the settlement treaty between Spain and France, signed by the current Spanish player, is such a treaty. If their attacks upon France after signing that treaty don't matter because the French player drops, then the same can be said for the treaty that agreed that Karl is the king of Spain! Do we really want the chaos of that kind of thing every time a player changes? Oh, look, a New Austria, time to re-fight the war of Spanish Succession for the 12th time!
Hence why I think Richard's response to me was more nuanced than just yes or no.
Similarly, if all the treaties resolving succession in England and Peace between England and France are void because players are changed, then you have a situation that's just a farce. The treaties have to have some meaning or you end up with nonsense.
I think what it boils down to to me is that if you sign a treaty with a player, you don't get out of it free just because a player drops. Ditto if you're a new player, you don't get out of existing treaties just because you'd rather do something else.
Game history matters. If it doesn't, then we're not doing counter-factual history, we're doing monty python and the flying circus in the 18th century!
That isn't to say that every treaty ever signed is in force for all time, but the big ones and the recent ones must matter or you end up with a mess.
I can see a case for a "old and dusty treaty no one remembers" lapsing. But you can hardly say that the settlement treaty between Spain and France, signed by the current Spanish player, is such a treaty. If their attacks upon France after signing that treaty don't matter because the French player drops, then the same can be said for the treaty that agreed that Karl is the king of Spain! Do we really want the chaos of that kind of thing every time a player changes? Oh, look, a New Austria, time to re-fight the war of Spanish Succession for the 12th time!
Hence why I think Richard's response to me was more nuanced than just yes or no.
Similarly, if all the treaties resolving succession in England and Peace between England and France are void because players are changed, then you have a situation that's just a farce. The treaties have to have some meaning or you end up with nonsense.
I think what it boils down to to me is that if you sign a treaty with a player, you don't get out of it free just because a player drops. Ditto if you're a new player, you don't get out of existing treaties just because you'd rather do something else.
Game history matters. If it doesn't, then we're not doing counter-factual history, we're doing monty python and the flying circus in the 18th century!
That isn't to say that every treaty ever signed is in force for all time, but the big ones and the recent ones must matter or you end up with a mess.
count-de-monet- Duke
- Number of posts : 379
Age : 57
Location : Reading, Berkshire
Reputation : 18
Registration date : 2008-04-20
again, my comments on this thread are to praise other posters points rather than add anything. I think Deacon makes some really good points. I must admit, for simplicity I was in the camp of a new player voids treaties. Mainly because I think its really tough on a new player to find themselves in a complete mess that isnt of their own making. Having said that, and agreeing totally with Deacon the long-standing players need some protection too for their work and actions.
The game could develop into farce as suggested. Just look at how many English players we have had !
So perhaps we should recognise key treaties as being valid regardless of player changes but equally give new players a genuine chance to at least re-negotiate some of those treaties. If that negotiation then fails the player has the option of military intervention to make their point.
The game could develop into farce as suggested. Just look at how many English players we have had !
So perhaps we should recognise key treaties as being valid regardless of player changes but equally give new players a genuine chance to at least re-negotiate some of those treaties. If that negotiation then fails the player has the option of military intervention to make their point.
Stuart Bailey- Emperor of Europe
- Number of posts : 2571
Age : 61
Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
Reputation : 58
Registration date : 2012-01-29
Deacon wrote:Well, I think the point in question in this thread was about Spain.
I can see a case for a "old and dusty treaty no one remembers" lapsing. But you can hardly say that the settlement treaty between Spain and France, signed by the current Spanish player, is such a treaty. If their attacks upon France after signing that treaty don't matter because the French player drops, then the same can be said for the treaty that agreed that Karl is the king of Spain! Do we really want the chaos of that kind of thing every time a player changes? Oh, look, a New Austria, time to re-fight the war of Spanish Succession for the 12th time!
Hence why I think Richard's response to me was more nuanced than just yes or no.
Similarly, if all the treaties resolving succession in England and Peace between England and France are void because players are changed, then you have a situation that's just a farce. The treaties have to have some meaning or you end up with nonsense.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I think we have two seperate issues here:
1) Does the Spainish attack on the French Fleet in Dublin break the Treaty of Ghent in G7
&
2) Are treaties null and void when one of the contracting parties drop out.
From what I recall of the Published Treaty (and there was a couple of versions) The first issue is simple - The non aggression clause was limited in geographic terms to French & Spanish territory so at any time France and Spain were free to fight at Sea or in third party territory like Dublin without breaking the treaty. This is a fairly common wording used by players who a) Dont trust each other........RKL was not stupid and under no circumstances was he going to agree to a wording which allowed the Spanish Hapsburgs the Green Light to annex Portugal and its Empire and b) Do not wish to fight directly but can see themselves ending up on opposite sides in future conflicts.
Thus under the terms of the treaty if France had invaded Austria Spain could send troops to help Austria but was not allowed to invade France and France could slaughter these troops in Austria or sink them at Sea (This is one reason why the Habsburgs got so upset about Ancona....& Frog Navy lying in wait for Hapsburg troop ships) but could not attack them in Spanish Harbours as they were getting ready to go to Austria.
The non aggression clause also had a 5 year time year limit which has now almost certainly expired (?) so France and Spain are perfectly free to knock the hell out of each other once again.
The issue of is the rest of the treaty still valid now several of the contracting parties have changed is more problomatic but basically seems to come down too:
A) Is it fair to bind a new French player with a agreement to drop the Bourbon claim to Spain and treat Flanders & L-C as a no go zone when he did not agree to this? He may want to invade the UDP by land, push France to its "natural border" on the Rhine or even dust off the old French claim to Spain. Ok King Carlos may not be happy but he is big enough to fight his own battles.
B) If the Agreement ref Spain is not binding on the new French Govt is it fair to expect King Carlos to keep making the dowry payments?
If you take a view that keeping "Game History" going is of Key importance you will probably agree with Deacon's view that the new French Govt (unless it declares a Republic) is bound by the agreement to keep its paws off Flanders and Spain should keep paying the Dowry.
I have a degree of feeling for this viewpoint but I suspect most people will want to re-negotiate when a Govt changes and like to keep personal control over what they agree and with whom. I dont think many people taking over the Papacy for instance would be that keen on having to honour a mutual defence pact with the Ottomans (only understandable in the context of the prior Pope being a maniac, G2 and the then Spanish Govts Italian policy and the GV being cute, cuddly and everyone......honest Gov).
In the case of G7 and France and Spain any treaty drawn up my the RKL & Mary of Ghent and gone over with a fine tooth coombe by Cardinal Portocarrero is not going to be in the class of "Who was the idiot who agreed to this" and I think one future option could very well be a Treaty of Ghent Mk 2 with another 5 year non aggression pact added to replace the expired one. But equally the Govt of Spain and the new French Govt may well decide they share Deacon's other view that treaties are a waste of paper and its now a Bourbon V Hapsburg fight to the finish.
J Flower- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1239
Age : 53
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 17
Registration date : 2012-02-16
Maybe a solution when new players join, is for the established players to make them & Agema aware of old treaties with the ex-player, the new player has then the option to renegotiate/sign a renewal of the treaty, or to reject it, such a rejection could then have an impact on Honour or Economic matters. It would give old players at least some form of warning to prepare themselves, plus it would not force new players to automatically sign new treaties. It would also give a good footing to allow initial contact between old & new players. It may help keep a stability in the game, rather than lurching from one treaty to the next.It would also prevent positions that you have long looked upon as friends & allies suddenly turning on you when a new player invades on his First turn. Afterall most treaties are formulated by the civil service, even when the head of state changes a degree of stability remains as the mechanism of government continues. That stability can be refected in the treaties themselves.
Deacon- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1859
Age : 60
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 44
Registration date : 2010-04-13
Richard did suggest to me on one of the turns I asked about it that he ought to clarify the treaty rules. I hope he does so.