Dangers of the History book.

Bavaria should be one of the most interesting positions to play in the game. In 1700 Prince Max was in his prime, a skilled general who fought against the Ottomans he had a plan to restore the honour of the Wittelsbachs and the rich resources of Bavaria to make it happen.

Unfortunately, he tried to play off every side against each other for his own advantage which led initially to him being mistrusted, then hated by everyone. He would fight alternatively for the Hapsburgs, then for France, often changing sides in the middle of wars. Even family alliances didn’t mean anything to him as a Bavarian princess was married to the Dauphin and would have become queen of France had she lived. Max II married a Hapsburg. His wife, understandably, detested him. Rampant ambition mixed with bitter jealousy of the other electoral princes (Prussia, Saxony, Hanover) just made him a political disaster.

For most of the WSS he was in prison (he was a particularly ungrateful prisoner) and Bavaria was partitioned. His dream of a Wittelsbach emperor did come true with his son, who only reigned 3 years. Unfortunately on his death Austrian armies invaded Bavaria and Max III faced an impossible situation. If he wanted independence from Austria he had to submit to Prussia. I actually quite like Max III who was much more cultured than many of his predecessors and Bavarian culture reached a high point under his son, Charles Theodore. His son, Max IV continued the great Bavarian tradition of treachery by serving France, then Austria, then back to France again when Napoleon finally sorted out Bavaria by making it a Kingdom, removing old grievances. To his credit he did seem to have finally decided to support Napoleon until 1813 when he changed sides again, only to be betrayed by his new German allies.

If only he had been nicer to those more powerful than him and recognised that he needed their trust and support, then with solid allies Bavaria could have been the power who unified Germany. Looking at what happened, though, it is very hard to be sympathetic to any country whose leaders were incapable of fidelity.

I think that as a middle-ranking German power Bavaria is much more interesting to play than Prussia or Hanover. Hanover would always be distracted by England and Prussia by Baltic struggles. You could play peacefully if supported by a peaceful France or Austria, or aggressively if supported by an aggressive France or Austria, effectively holding the balance of power. Provided you are consistent, it should be relatively straight forward, but if you start changing sides then you risk being divided by either. An honourable Bavaria could well unite many smaller states behind it and ultimately stand for election as Emperor. I lack the diplomatic skills for such an endeavour, but in the right hands I'm sure Bavaria could do very well.

This really brings you back to the first question on this topic.

LGDR is described by Agema as Counterfactual History, although I think that the further games move away from 1700 the more it becomes an exercise in alternative history. The rules are flexible enough for players to chose their own course, but if you suddenly want to make a radical departure from the historical constraints of a particular country, you will encounter resistance. This could be from your own nobles, other players or the referee.

Often the easiest course is to follow what your nation did historically, but to only do that would be rather boring and defeat the object of counterfactual history. Marxist historical accounts tend to stress the inevitability of events and the omnipotence of certain forces over mere human will: philosophically this is the opposite of counterfactual history. Within LGDR no nation is doomed to inevitable decline, though some are rather tough to play! For me what gives the game lasting appeal is that the more you research the history, the more ideas for possible game lines appear. On top of that players interpret their characters differently and have different playing styles. Others have made the observation that the way France is played in G7 is somewhat different to how it is played in G8. The more lucid and well researched the interpretation of the character, the more historical detail is brought into the game, the more enjoyable it is for all players. A good player should make others rise up to his level and challenge them to respond historically. Over the years there have been many examples of excellent play, but they all seem to share a respect for history and the conventions of the game.

It is, of course, possible to forget history, to play as either a wargame within the world of LGDR, or to proscribe behaviours/philosophies to your character so unhistoric that the idea of counterfactual history breaks down. I’m sure there will be someone who knows the game far better than I do who can point out a time when the Shogun of Japan decided he would play as a Spanish King, or perhaps a Chinese Emperor colonised America or sent an armada to invade Spain? Crazy things do happen. But I think the game works best when the players operate within the historical framework of the positions they take on and act within the philosophies and models of behaviour of the time. Why play Venice if you have no interest in Italy or canals? There will of course be different interpretations of how characters should be played, and we did have a long discussion about how Louis was being played in G7. The Louis of the 1670s/80s had different priorities than he did in 1700. Perhaps 1700 rather than 1680 was chosen as a start date precisely because of this? Such differences of opinion can themselves be seen as examples of counterfactual history. With all the various options open for intelligent players to explore, there is no need to either copy the history book or ignore it.

I also happen to think that it is important to follow the lines each individual game has developed along. If you fail to understand the causes of current wars or the reasons some players don't seem to get on, then you are ignoring the history of that particular game. Nothing kills a game faster than repeated changes of allegiances, players who break treaties or disregard previous agreements. After all, how can you explore counterfactual history if the game itself loses touch with its own history?