The Court of Agema

OK Richard, I believe you won't cause my honour to crash , so to start the ball rolling ...

I agree with your first point (up to a point). Historically negotiations started as soon as war was declared and were particularly intense outside the short campaigning season. The problem in G7 is that players are unwilling to negotiate or write to each other which itself is very unhistoric. I can understand TheRealKingLouis's frustration over this. If Austria declared war merely to influence peace negotiations between France and England then failing to negotiate makes no sense at all. Players may or may not want peace, but they owe it to other players to be clear why they are fighting Appointing a single player to negotiate might work, but then that player is likely to make enemies within the game if the parties still won't compromise. Gut feel is that it could even slow down negotiations unless those players are prepared to accept whatever compromises the nominated player reaches.

Your second point appears valid, though I think it can be argued France did very well out of WSS. Marlborough's final victories were won at such great cost in terms of casualties (Malplaquet) that he couldn't exploit those victories. After this despite superior numbers, France fought back (Denain, Barcelona) and the allies realised they were not able to make progress in defeating France. Significantly Britain and UDP made peace at Utrecht (1713) leaving Austria to fight on until 1714 against France and 1720 against Spain. Perhaps the idea that there should be one combined peace is itself unhistoric?

Your third point seems very weak (sorry, but you did ask!) Surely every time something goes against a player in a game the GM can be accused of not being impartial. However, what cannot be questioned is that as GM you have the authority to make that decision. All players are bound by that. If you rule against a player then you are perfectly capable of explaining why and helping that player understand where his misconceptions arose from so that players have the opportunity to avoid the same mistakes in future. In my opinion both France and Austria can be accused of making mistakes based on their understanding of their respective roles. If these misunderstandings were recognised then the players might make progress themselves and reach a compromise.

On a broader point you clearly recognise your duty towards all players. However, in G7 now we face a very real danger of this conflict escalating to affect many neutral countries who do not have the might to fight back. They need protection too whether active or potentially active (inactive). In the real WSS the European battlegrounds were Flanders, parts of Germany, Spain and Italy. France, Austria and England deliberately fought over foreign territory. Louis even deliberately underpaid his troops and ordered his generals to make their pay up by levying contributions from lands they marched through. Failure to pay up meant whole towns were ravaged. These contributions caused immense damage to the smaller nations. Within the game players could well expect to be rewarded through increased honour for such historic play, but the effect on these innocent smaller nations would be dreadful. In the end the whole game would suffer if players were discouraged from joining the game and taking these often vital small nations because of belligerent larger nations.

Your fourth point may make you feel uneasy, but having read all the comments on this topic there does seem to be the need for some kind of mechanism to resolve game disputes. If players don't feel they can compromise because they are acting historically (encouraged by the game) or through honour (as applied as a game concept), then there should be some counterbalancing mechanism (another game concept) to allow them to resolve the situation. This isn't being unhistoric, but recognising that the game rules themselves limit some options available to players. Otherwise every war would be fought using Nelsonian/Napoleonic tactics and players wouldn't be satisfied until they had discovered the tank.

I think players are getting frustrated because there are so many different alliances within the game and if players are to honour those alliances they would really like to know what it is they are fighting about. They see the main protagonists unwilling to write to each other or make any steps towards peace. And this is holding up their own plans and affecting their own enjoyment of the game. Such are the views of many who write to me within the game. G7 was introduced as the most advanced game of LGDR ever and attracted a large number of very experienced and capable players, all playing for different objectives. What I find ironic is that despite all this player experience the game is stuck and players don't seem able to solve their differences.

Before anyone praises my evenhandedness or suggests it I am not prepared to be a mediator in G7.

But it is time for some horse sense