Discourse on treaty rules

Since I had made some treaties with NPC states, and was disturbed that these might be completely shredded if a new player picked the position up, I asked Richard for clarification on the rules about treaties and new players. Since what he gave me seems useful to everyone, and I think everyone ought to know how the rules work, I'm going to share what was in my turn here:

Discourse on the Treaty Rules

Should a nation not comply with its treaty obligations, that nation's honour score would have a
steady downward pressure turn after turn until the matter is resolved. This inevitably means that the
nation in question will collapse in rebellion and other internal pressures eventually if the matter is
ignored. So, for example, if the Honour score was as high as 30, even so it is reasonable to assume
that in the space of three years this level will have been wiped out and disaster awaits if nothing is
done to solve the problem. That is a strong reason to comply with treaty obligations, or if you cannot
to make a comparable offer to solve the problem.

If in the meantime, to take another example, a small nation was invaded and defeated completely by
a more powerful state, in direct contravention of a treaty, then the smaller national government will
be forced into exile, but in the meantime the Honour collapse will begin, and eventually the small
state will rebel against its new master, whose armies won't be responding to orders. In other words,
the short term gain could effectively lead to a civil war and the collapse of the bigger state to the
advantage of the smaller, exiled, government of the smaller state. That is hopefully an extreme example,
but should show how the new system will work in practice and make it simply not worthwhile
deliberately breaking treaties as those who do so will end up risking losing everything, without
recourse to unrealistic use of a 'court agema' (I have in the past frequently winced when that wording
has been used by players!).

When a new player takes on a position in the game he is not technically bound by treaties made by
previous incumbents, and while by itself he will not be subject to the steady downward pressure
described above, an existing player can work this to his advantage if he deems the new player as
being unwilling to carry on with an existing treaty. This could be used as a casus belli (a legitimate
reason) for war, or for a diplomatic propaganda effort which can damage the new player’s honour.
The difference is there won’t be anything automatic about damage to a player’s honour month-in,
month-out where he has been held as having broken a treaty; with a new player it takes more visible
effort to damage his honour in such cases, but it is very much still a case of what is deemed morally
right in the eyes of your own aristocracy and/or contemporaries.

An example of a previous treaty which isn’t binding on players but which can be used to damage
someone’s honour would be the Treaty of Westphalia which was arranged decades before the start
date of the game! However it would not be reasonable for a consistent drain on a player’s honour to
take place for a perceived breach of it, and such logic also applies to player-produced treaties in
relation to a new player who didn’t sign it but where the treaty applies to his nation.

So, I take it that while you aren't technically bound by a treaty by a former player of the position, that as richard says " it is very much still a case of what is deemed morally
right in the eyes of your own aristocracy and/or contemporaries." So, even if you didn't personally sign the treaty, if the treaty was/is just and fair that you can suffer for breaching it, just not to the extent of one you wrote and signed yourself.

>The clarification certainly seems to require new players to respect the diplomatic balance and treaties of a game they join. That is, to me, very welcome and should help players decide on what they intend to do when they take over.<<

I think this was my key takeaway. That if you've acted reasonably and honourably, that a new player can't just arrive and throw that all out the window without consequence.

I think if they could, game 7 would be a farce. And if you act in good faith in making treaties with people, that even if they change positions you can still cause consequences to those who break existing treaties.

I think the out is mostly for treaties that really probably should have never been signed in the first place. But if it was a reasonable treaty, then you can get slammed for breaking it even if you are a new player.

Page 35 of the core rule book "A treaty naturally lapses after 2-5 years (decided randomly) after which date the treaty is not enforceable, unless a date is specified in the treaty itself. Thus after three years a signatory to the document may risk breaking it and not suffer any penalties.......but on the other hand.....! Plus the rule that all treaties are null and void when a government changes has always been clear enough to me.

Have attacked on 5 years plus one month and also on a change of Govt (when new Governments maiden speach was distinctly anti me) but never had the nerve to go earlier being fairly sure if agema was using a 4 sided dice to fix if a treaty was valid for 2,3,4 or 5 years my dice would be stuck on 4.

If you have treaties which never end or even fixed period treaties which are binding on new player:

a) The game is going to get very stactic and boreing with new players in particular stuck with the decisions of previous governments which they dont agree with dont want to support. The position would not really become yours for years. Realistic perhaps but a good gaming experience?

b) I also feel this rule hinders players going for a diplomatic stitch up where you protect borders by signing a 5 year non aggression pact with A a 3 year one with B and attack C. With intention to attack B after 3 years and A after 5.

Its a real blow to the master plan when A has a change of Govt and your border is only guarded by one man and his dog! Cue frantic diplomacy in Capital of A which makes new player feel ........this is a interesting game.

However, it has to be said that when taking on a new position it is sometimes good diplomacy and a friendly guesture to offer to re-sign some of the old treaties and I do know several players who view new governments who do not re-sign as deeply suspect if not down right unfriendly.......even as a cause for war.

Of course a new government can declare war on who ever it likes and for what ever reason since no treaty stops it. But many players like to produce a "just cause" first. Personally, not something I have ever been that bothered by plunder and the fact that he is French/Turkish/Austrian/Russian etc has always been good enough for me. But violation of some treaty signed by Father/Brother/Prime Minister and an insult to the National Honour works well.

In G7 for example the change of French Government means that the French Treaties with England to end the Anglo-French War, The French Mutual defence pact with Russia and the French Treaty with Spain, Flanders, UDP? are all null and void and the new French Government is free to ignore the Swedish attack on Russia, re-start the war with England or dig out French Claims to Flanders and the Throne of Spain.

Of course if Russia or the Jacobites starts pleading for help in public calling on old friendships and all that the new French Government may feel some pressure on its honour to act. Likewise if Spain/Flanders keep dowry payments taking over Flanders may look like French Bullying while if they just ignore it as a defunct treaty the new French Government can probably sale it to its Nobles as "just cause" for war.

Here we may however be entering the tricky world of practicality V principal. The new French Government probably has good, just and valid reasons (by its own lights) to declare war on Englang (again), Sweden, Spain, Flanders and probably Bavaria as well. But since its already fighting the UDP & Austria how many of these "just causes" will it actually want to use? Bit of a tricky one for the new government of France and a lot more interesting than if it was stuck with boreing old treaties.

RJC can make as much fuss and show as he likes .......but that treaty under the rules is not valid. Ditto the Treaty of Ghent only in this case I suspect the Spanish chucked it in the bin with rather more pleasure. Now we just have to see who's nerve breaks first? Will the Lilly Banners, The Cross of St George or the Red & Gold of Spain strike first?

Stuart Bailey wrote:Page 35 of the core rule book "A treaty naturally lapses after 2-5 years (decided randomly) after which date the treaty is not enforceable, unless a date is specified in the treaty itself. Thus after three years a signatory to the document may risk breaking it and not suffer any penalties.......but on the other hand.....! Plus the rule that all treaties are null and void when a government changes has always been clear enough to me.

You must have a very old copy of the rules. I got mine a couple of years ago and this isn't in it.

Stuart Bailey wrote:
If you have treaties which never end or even fixed period treaties which are binding on new player:

a) The game is going to get very stactic and boreing with new players in particular stuck with the decisions of previous governments which they dont agree with dont want to support. The position would not really become yours for years. Realistic perhaps but a good gaming experience?

Look at the flip side. If any change of government totally negates a treaty, then you have anarchy in the game. There's no point in making any agreements since they can be shredded in a moment. You can't consider game 7 without considering the treaties that have been signed. To throw them out entirely without consequence makes game history meaningless. I think the rules as Richard laid them out to me seem reasonable and middle of the road. No, a new player isn't fully bound, but they're expected to act 'honourably' as defined by Richard in context, and can't just throw everything up in the air and start over. Any game reached the point it is for a reason. If you ignore those reasons, then this isn't a historical simulation at all. It's just a war game with some flash.

Stuart Bailey wrote:
b) I also feel this rule hinders players going for a diplomatic stitch up where you protect borders by signing a 5 year non aggression pact with A a 3 year one with B and attack C. With intention to attack B after 3 years and A after 5.

Its a real blow to the master plan when A has a change of Govt and your border is only guarded by one man and his dog! Cue frantic diplomacy in Capital of A which makes new player feel ........this is a interesting game.

However, it has to be said that when taking on a new position it is sometimes good diplomacy and a friendly guesture to offer to re-sign some of the old treaties and I do know several players who view new governments who do not re-sign as deeply suspect if not down right unfriendly.......even as a cause for war.

Which is the point Richard made in his comments, that failure to live up to your previous treaty obligations have real consequences in game even if you repudiate them.

Stuart Bailey wrote:
In G7 for example the change of French Government means that the French Treaties with England to end the Anglo-French War, The French Mutual defence pact with Russia and the French Treaty with Spain, Flanders, UDP? are all null and void and the new French Government is free to ignore the Swedish attack on Russia, re-start the war with England or dig out French Claims to Flanders and the Throne of Spain.

Which is why you need to be able to be able to call a player out for not following existing treaties. I think if you can't, the game can rapidly become a farce with nation's changing sides and positions without any real reason.

For the same reason, following this logic a new player could claim that since they're a new player they're not bound by the treaty of westphalia, etc, etc. If the game is to have integrity, you can't just jettison game history.

Stuart Bailey wrote:
RJC can make as much fuss and show as he likes .......but that treaty under the rules is not valid. Ditto the Treaty of Ghent only in this case I suspect the Spanish chucked it in the bin with rather more pleasure. Now we just have to see who's nerve breaks first? Will the Lilly Banners, The Cross of St George or the Red & Gold of Spain strike first?

Richard said that the honour damage isn't automatic, but that you could certainly suffer for failing to live up to previous treaty obligations even if you didn't sign the treaty provided. I'd also point out that the Spanish player hasn't changed. He doesn't get a free pass just because France's player changed. If he wants to renegotiate the treaty, now would be a good time, I'd imagine. If not, France can at least attack him for failing to honour the obligations he committed to.

There is an issue here, for players taking over a vacant role, whose responsibility is it to supply the new player with copies of relevant treaties, so they know the risk of breaching it?

Is it Richard's? That could be an admin nightmare for him!

Is it other existing players? Could be the least complicated...but could a dishonest player falsify a treaty or chose not to pass them along as it was no longer to their advantage?

Is it the new player? Do they have to contact everyone and ask? A bit complicated as you can't always be sure when new in a game of the political geography.

Perhaps when a treaty is agreed the participants could (if they all agree) publish it in the herald? As was the case with RKL's treaties re. King James and France.

Personally I try to avoid treaties and go on trust. If a player wants to invade you he'll generally find a way if he's clever or sneaky enough (as I've found out too many times over the years).

I just feel that when the game evloves into arguments in the Herald over who did or didn't do what it becomes more of a game of budding lawyers rather than fun.

There has been some mention in the thread of the Treaty of Westphalia.

I wonder how long is the treaty considered valid. It appears to be at the very foundation of the European part of the Game.

However If France / Sweden attack and occupy parts of the HRE are they breaking the treaty they are gaurenteeing?

How many invasions/wars within The the area of the treaty are required so that is no longer relevant. In some games there are constant wars between members of the HRE, at which point does history move on so that the treaty is no longer in force.

I would imagine in most Games the treaty has been broken or ignored so many times that it can no longer be considered relevant.

I think the old method of doing treaties in triplicate was a good one, although I can also imagine it was a logistic nightmare filing and keeping them upto date.

There was of course also at one time the choice of going to court Agema, to settle your disputes, although this option has now been removed.

Another option is to attempt to find a Neutral party to act as mediator for the dispute. I have seen this work a couple of times in Game.

When it is all worked out the mediator published his proposal, it then became legally binding on all parties, one of the treaties that was negotiated in this way was also able to survive a number of governmental changes and was still enforcable.

I think once players start to get too personal then Richard is quite within his rights to start knocking down Honour scores, as a way of warning people that they are behaving out of period.

I believe that my dispute with Saxony was because he stated he intended to take Saxony out of the Empire.