The Court of Agema

Hello, the real Louis of France.

I understand your anger at treaties being broken. But treaties are always very fragile.You can have treaties with other nations were you send in huge forces to help them,or you can send in a handful on units to help your ally.Or you can send in nothing and dream up reasons to cancel the treaty.So, treaties are often a waste of time.

England breaking a treaty with France is wrong, but French forces in England is far more serious.Broken words on one hand, taking land on the other. There is no way there can ever bepeace whilst you are on English soil.

Other nations will feel to threatned to let you control large parts of England and France.You would become too powerful in the game.

There is only one solution to peace.That is for all nations to withdraw their forces to where they were before the dispute began. This is the only way a settlement can be reached. So the ball is in your court.

Yup, agree with that

Jamesbond007 - France is not seeking to conquer England. That is another myth which has been created. In no set of French peace proposals has France made such claims.

France is backing the independent King James Stuart for the crown of England to gain a government which will negotiate properly with France. When William is defeated King James will rule an independent England without any interference from France! There will be a settlement with France which will amount to very modest gains, but importantly the principle will be upheld that if someone breaks a treaty with France then they can expect France to take action.

The same principle applies with Austria. There was no valid pre-existing treaty in place between England and Austria as England had yet another new player between Austria signing her peace treaty with France and breaking that treaty. Austria was kept fully informed that France intended to take action against England before this treaty was signed. And as soon as French forces took that action, Austria broke her own treaty with France and invaded. France contends that Austria intended to attack her from the beginning and wanted the English army (and more importantly navy) to help her do it.

If England breaking a treaty with France is wrong, Austria breaking a treaty with France is also wrong. France has not attacked anyone in this game who did not break a treaty with her. Austria has attacked Prussia and Saxony. It is not France who is too powerful in this game, but Austria.

The ball is not in my court as you put it. It is down to the Williamites to negotiate with France and King James, which is what they are refusing to do.

Several thoughts:

1) As Richard points out, historical negotiations could drag on for years, so the idea of instant arbitration is ahistorical. However, I still think an Agema driven peace conference could work under the traditional "everybody makes their case, and establishes their bright lines." If Agema can't build a treaty out of those, then negotiations fail with perhaps some note about sticking points. Players could then send in fresh cases and new bright lines, and go another round. Agema wouldn't force a peace or treaty, just attempt to see if out of all the cases/stipulations, a proposal could be put together.

If a proposal can be put together, it gets published, and players can sign on to it or not as they wish, only being bound if they do and others do.

This changes Agema from a court, to a mediator. They facilitate reaching a proposed treaty, but they don't impose anything on any player. You have to agree to the treaty before it binds you.

Given the time involved, it seems reasonable that each player would pay to send an ambassador somewhere. And that 3 months would pass before the first possible treaty, or a report on the 'sticking points' Players then have the opportunity to change their positions (or Not!) and another 3 months pass again.

2) The above doesn't seem likely to work here, since players aren't agreeing on the fundamentals, so the ambassadors would (rightly) just go round and round. I can see why Richard would not want to step into that and impose a treaty. Players need to get close enough that the details can be mediated. If they're too far apart, it just stays war.

3) While most of us play this game because we enjoy the historical simulation, it is still a game and that causes behavior to diverge from what you'd probably do if you actually ruled a country. The purpose of a game is to have fun. If talking to someone isn't fun, then you'll stop talking to them when in real life you'd probably swallow your frustration and keep working. You may not choose to settle because you're having fun in the conflict with nothing other than your pride at play.

4) Game 7 clearly is a heated place. Remember that negotiation and position stating should be in-game, not here. I think it's fine to quote from the paper which is mostly available on the wiki, but this isn't a place for negotiation or making your case.

Deacon wrote: The purpose of a game is to have fun.

Well said.

Ok, lets play it your way.With French help an independant King james Stuart is on the throne of England. The current player leaves, Then a few turns later a new player takes England. You could be back at square one then,this new player may side with Austria. So you could have to fight England again. The key here is. What do you call only wanting "modest gains from England". Your modest gains, may be everyone else's huge gains.

Even if Austria took full control of Prussia and saxony, they will still not gain the recruits and money you get each year.France would still be well ahead. So you are still the most powerful force in the game.Naturally players will not want you getting stronger with your "modest gains".

Alot of experianced players in the games do not make treatys because they are, not worth the weight of the paper they are written on.But i can understand your anger and frustration at betrayal by other players.

No player can agree to peace that makes France stronger and England weaker. Which is what your actions will entail. So the ball is still in your court.

Please let's not turn this forum into an in-game negotiation of what various parties want. That's what the paper and in-game letters are for.

correct Deacon. This is meant to be a friendly disscussion of the subject (Court of Agema).

I have said before I have brokered peace betwen 2 warring powers and so has others in Game 3 England most noticeably.

There has to be a certain ammount of trust (some thing that happened in game 2 between Spain and the UDP)

We both agreed to pull our troops out by a certain date failure would mean disgrace and a possible shift in allies for failing to do so.

At the end of the day trust is vital, however if some one goes back on their word then their honour score will plummnet and not by 1 but by 2 or maybe 3 as does happen!

So sit down agree a date to withdraw and stick to it, your honour scores are that low in game 7 I imagine that within a few months you would be off the leaderboard for going back on your word!

my tuppence worth.....

I suppose the Forum works a bit like the side corridors of a Court (not the legal type) in the eighteenth century in that there is a bit of gossip and positioning of different ambassadors putting out their position but in this format there is nothing binding as it isnt in the main arena of political activity, ie the game.

I have said what I think would be reasonable and seek, and that I would be willing to be bound by negotiations by Spain and Russia or some other disinterested third party, or Court Agema (even though that isnt going to happen). But the other party wants negotiation as long as it is the settlement he wants. So fella's, I think I am going to stop talking on this subject.
Got to say, damn fine game though.

I think the problem with that view is that it makes the communications real time and not through the process of the game, both cutting out other players and changing the pace of the game.

I think the safe way to do it is to specifically refer to the paper.

If you say, "As King Louis said in November 1704, blah blah blah" then you're adding nothing new. Everybody in the game got the paper and so has that information. If it hasn't been said in the paper, then by all means, say it in the paper, then you can reference the paper here.

I'd also say non-interested parties making minor comments is probably on safe ground. IE, if I were an active player in game 7 with a stake in the war, I don't think I'd debate Louis on whether the Pope should excommunicate Leopold or not.

If you start talking about negotiating positions independent of a specific in-game reference, it can be a form of real time negotiation/positioning, which I think Richard posted recently we need to watch out.

Certainly as an observer, it seems to me like we just had something approaching an aborted negotiation in this thread.

Does the ancient elite macedonian Richard have a view?