G7 - The War of the English Succession & the breaking of the Pirate Brotherhood

Jason2 wrote:Another month and it's been a whole year?

*instantly recalls all Department East ships to harbour, just to be safe*

With only a couple more months to go the current scores on the doors in the 1713 Czar Peter the Great Lloyds List Cup - awarded to the position which sinks or otherwise losses the most Ships:

1st France - 86 Ships (all Galleys or Merchant's so clearly a case of numbers over quality)

2nd Dutch - 35 Ships

3rd England - 33 Ships (Though extra credit should be given for a lost Admiral and 3 of the ships being 100 Gunners)

4th Persia - 30 Ships (making a late run)

5th Spain - 21 Ships

And in joint last place with such famous Naval powers as Bavaria - 0 Ships we have RUSSIA

Stuart Bailey wrote:With only a couple more months to go the current scores on the doors in the 1713 Czar Peter the Great Lloyds List Cup - awarded to the position which sinks or otherwise losses the most Ships:

The Great Lloyds List Cup? That's a new one ... I always thought that Lloyds only covered merchant ships, not warships? For surely no English underwriter would ever insure English warships given they are expected to see action? I accept that this may not apply to Spanish underwriters/ships who tend to avoid fighting the Royal Navy, or Dutch underwriters who try to get out of paying claims because they can't work out which false flag they are flying under. Revising the figures accordingly and the numbers are significantly different:

1st Dutch - 31 Ships, mainly in the Far East (the Dutch figure is deemed to include VOIC shipping)

2nd Persia - 30 Ships, mainly around India/Africa (none of which were taken by England)

3rd= Spain - 20 Ships, a self-inflicted loss due to smuggling into Dutch waters

3rd= France - 20 Ships, some in India, but most in the Caribbean

4th England - 5 Ships, all in the Caribbean

There were no reported Russian losses in the "Merchant shipping losses" section of the newspapers.

Curiously someone is targeting French and English shipping in the Caribbean. Further investigation is required to definitively establish whether these pirates are in fact Dutch flying false flags in the pay of Spain. Otherwise the figures seem remarkably low given 4 out of 5 of these nations is officially at war. Perhaps these figures prove that the long campaign by King James and his allies to break the "brotherhood" has been successful and despite Spanish objections, lawful trade flourishes.

Actually, Lloyds holds records of all shipping losses even risks they would not insure. Basically such information is needed if you are going to correctly judge a risk and the premium to be charged.

Fairly sure that when the Russians were setting the rules and making claims about improvements in Russian safety at sea they were thinking more about the 90 Russian Sail of the Line lost to storms and hostile action than the odd exploration vessel getting stuck in the ice and the crew having to eat each others legs to survive.

Actually, with four of the major trading and naval powers in the game at war with each other losses of merchant ships do seem very light.

As for the brotherhood would like to point out it was the Spanish Navy who located and destroyed Blackbeards base on Cat Island. As far as I can see most of the old brotherhood seem to have either turned into legit traders or are now working as the Czar's colonial administration in the former English colonies in the America's.

Nov 1713 issue of the Gloire du Roi has shown up:

- Most vital and important information (according to some) is that another month has ticked by and the Russian's have not lost a ship!!!
The Russian Admirals in between Vodka and proud words about the glory of Russia did warn the Czar that St Peterburg is not a safe anchorage and they want a new Port but actual losses were 1 English in the stormy West Indies and 5 Persian ships (French Privateers?) of Africa.

In other news:

1) The Kingdoms of Denmark and Sweden have formed the Kalmar Union. No real details of how the Union is going to work but in theory the new Union is probably the most important Protestant Power. But is it strong enough to act as a counter to the growth of Russian power in the Baltic?

2) The other major Protestant power - the UDP - has seen a change of government with Prince John William Friso of Orange-Nassau taking over from Richard Coote 1st Earl of Bellomont. The new Stadtholder has confirmed he is willing to sign the Treaty of Amsterdam 1713 and make peace with Louis XIV and James III provided they agree to a couple of small amendments. Again no details of the Treaty of Amsterdam or its amendments were provided in the paper.

3) Prince John Williams other action was to return 17 Battalions of Spanish & Swiss Mercenaries in UDP service to their respective governments. Since these troops had been hired for the current war and had given their parole to the Franch not to fight in the current war the Prince could probably not see any point in paying them to sit around. They are still sat around "resting" in winter quarters in Amsterdam but with the rather large bills going to the Spanish Envoy who seems to be doing his very best to prove the advantages of Spanish service and keep the retail and service sector in Amsterdam profitable.

Meanwhile while the Diplomats ponder paragraphs and Amsterdam Inn Keepers get rich elsewhere the fighting goes on:

4) At the siege of Oxford the Jacobites did to the French what they did to the Russians at Edinburgh and abandoned them to get on with it. Abandoned by their allies and with the wind blowing and the rain pouring down the French Army of Lt-General d'Alegre continued to grind forward against the command of the Earl of Athlone and by the end of the month it had taken the covered way and crossed the wet ditch but had not yet made a breach in the main defences of Oxford.

5) Meanwhile the Great Siege of Antwerp entered its fourth month. The good news for the Marquis de Villars and his engineers is that a break in the weather allowed them to drain their flooded trenches and make start to make progress again. No doubt worried that the month weather delay would have allowed Dutch to turn his first breach into a killing zone Villars swithched his point of attack to the south and made a second breach in the outer defences.

But before he could order the breach(s) stormed the defenders (Mix of Dutch & Austrian Mercs) or perhaps Dutch Engineers elsewhere took advantage of the huge build up water to divert river water into the fields around Antwerp and by the mid month the French camp, siege lines and siege parks were under water again! Which forced Villars to abandon his attacks for the month and redeploy his camp and siege parks.

To the surprise of no one after four months in siege lines much of it sunk in mud and water French commanders are getting worried about a growing sick list.

While away from the war

6) King Louis XIV visited his ancestors graves and put flowers on them. No the somewhat elderly king is picking a nice spot for himself.

7) The Spanish or perhaps more correctly the Italo-Spanish spent the month doing Masked balls, Opera, meetings of the Estates and managed it with only one social disaster.....after visiting an exhibition on the exploration, flora and fauna of the American West Coast at the Prada the Infante and his sister the Countess Eugunie Martina were expecting a American Hot Chocolate at Ramero's Coffee House. Seems that Ramero only sales Coffee! While a good time was had by all if Ramero wants to keep his by Royal Appointment in the next reign he had better widen his menu!!

Grand Vizier Salim Farooq decided to give an early Christmas gift to the good people of Oradea in the form of thousands of muskets. Local Hunters baffled as to what to do with muskets since they mostly already own vastly superior German hunting rifles.

9) Couple of "Catholic Priests" reported to be drunk and ranting in Buda about Hapsburg misdeeds.......are they from the 23 who also ranted at Charles von Hapsburg in Rome a month or so ago about being nice the the schmatic King James? Can the Pope or someone please send this nutters on Missionary Duty to Lord Fong or perhaps Napal?

10) Ottoman Grand Vizier and Russian envoy to the Porte had their by monthly row. The GV then went into a closed door audience with Viscount Falkland no doubt to get his latest instructions from his London Spy Masters.

11) Russian envoy in Persia is offering his services to end the Anglo(?) - French war with Persia. No doubt Russia getting all friendly with Persia and trying to free Persia from distrations will trigger another Salim Farooq panic attack. The Grand Vizier currently seems to believe that the Czar, The Shah of Persia, The King of Spain and the Holy Roman Emperor are all out to get him..................is being paranoid a healthy survival trait in a Grand Vizier?

For those who prefer a less biased account of recent happenings:

1. At Oxford the Earl of Peterborough consulted with his French allies and advised them that it is late in the campaigning season for heavy artillery to be sent to support the planned assault, so "with regret, English troops are obliged to withdraw to winter quarters", expecting (if not advising) Lieutenant-General d'Alegre to do the same. However, the good general had managed to find some artillery of his own and was not going to let the weather forecast get in the way of the chance to finish off Gerona and his Spanish rebels, so insisted on continuing the attack himself. Col. Alexandre de Albigeois led the attack, pushing back the Spanish, and even after taking a sword wound in his arm, was determined to fight on. It is not yet clear how, or even if, they will be able to take the town before the winter, but after such a display there is no loss of honour if the siege is ended by the weather. Lord Peterborough's caution may have been sensible given King James' opinion that traitorous rogues like Gerona whose presence is an embarrassment to the King of Spain are not worth fighting, but French soldiers think only of the glory of King Louis. Such valour and commitment to our shared cause will no doubt be recognised as the war draws to a close.

2. At Antwerp the French also pressed on despite very adverse weather, floods and all kinds of practical difficulties. With 2 breaches in the walls, Villars may consider he can now withdraw for the winter and take up the siege again in the spring.

3. His Rightful and Most Catholic Majesty King James has also been doing his bit, achieving a diplomatic breakthrough with the Dutch. There could be no peace with UDP whilst the pirate, traitor and ex-HWIC/Spanish employee Richard Coote was in post, so Prince John William Friso has taken up the baton. Prince Friso is respected by King James and known to be an honourable man of Royal blood, so it is no surprise that his first act was to signal his preference for peace along the lines of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Naturally no details will be disclosed until the treaty is finalized, but given their mutual respect, it is highly likely that the war will be over within a couple of months. The return of Swiss and Spanish prisoners in Amsterdam can certainly be considered strong evidence that the new government of UDP intends to be fair to all which in itself is a remarkable turnaround from the previous 10 years.

4. In further good news for King James, the Anglican Archbishop of Edinburgh and head of the protestant church in Scotland has died. As Archbishop of York he had been sympathetic to the Spanish-sponsored puritan outbreak in 1705-08, sowing the seeds of rebellion to assist enemy armies. It is a legitimate question whether his death is linked to the subsequent report that "Catholic Churches in Scotland and Ireland have received small amounts of financial aid from sympathetic members of Spanish Catholic religious orders." Combined with the propaganda "Address to the Sons of Erin" (which reads as though someone is copying the Brotherhood of Apollo from G10), this seems to be an attempt to steal Irish/Scottish recruits. As usual all the evidence is pointing to Spain, but until King James' Intelligence Service has delivered its report next month, it is not clear whether Spain has committed yet another breach of the Treaty of Scotland. It would be somewhat ironic if Spanish determination to rejoin the war actually yields results the very month UDP ends it.

5. The Kalmar Union between Sweden and Denmark has now been agreed. Nobody knows precisely how this will work out, but since King James has previously been on the record as in favour of a strong Sweden, strong Russia and a peaceful Baltic, this development is likely to be welcomed. It is a remarkable turnaround in this important trading area for Spain sent a 7-figure sum to Sweden as an incentive for her to join in the war against King James. Under King (or is it now Emperor) Charles XII, Sweden seems to be looking east to Russia and west to England for support rather than south to Spain. The jury is still out whether this is a triumph of honourable diplomacy by England and Russia or just the usual Spanish diplomatic miscalculation expecting the world to roll over as soon as King Charles of Spain opens his purse. Meanwhile Spain's attempt to increase his honour by spending more money (buying the younger generation of royals some hot chocolate) backfired when Ramero's Coffee House failed to meet their request. The shame of it! Clearly not everybody in Madrid is on message.

6. The Russian Navy has indeed gone a further month without losing a ship, and the Tsar is seeking to celebrate this achievement by building some more. His advisors were quick to remind him that ships need ports. Does this mean we will soon see Russia on the march to annex suitable sites, perhaps not in the north, but the south?

7. Spain's attempt to rescue Austrian territories which had been so badly abused when Emperor Leopold stripped them of recruits and handed them to UDP to fight King James, seems to be struggling in Hungary despite spending millions on building Catholic schools. Some priests, who may well be teaching in those schools, seem to be showing an admirable independence by condemning Hapsburg rule for "taking sons of Hungary away to fight in faraway lands that bring no glory or benefit to Hungary. Hungarian soldiers were left stranded and starving in France, abandoned by the Hapsburgs. Hungarian coin is being used to rebuild Austria whilst Hungary is left to starve and wither away! Lands are being taken from Hungarians and given to lackeys from Vienna. Sons, brothers and fathers are being stolen from the loving embrace of their families and homes to fight to increase Hapsburg power. Enough! Hungary must look to defend and rule itself not make its own choice, not be driven like cattle by the Hapsburg whip! There appear to be plenty in Buda who agree with such sentiments. Public opinion is further outraged by reports of drunken soldiers raping and generally abusing Hungarian women in the city" This last comment may be a slight exaggeration as King James is not aware there are any soldiers who made it back from France in any condition to commit such offences, though it is perfectly plausible that they have taken to the bottle to drown their sorrows with Spanish wine at wearing the uniform of Austria. It is, of course, quite proper for Catholic priests to champion family values in school and society, so perhaps Spain needs to be more careful what is taught in the curriculum.

8. In another worrying development for the Hapsburgs, tens of thousands of flintlock muskets have been handed out to Hungarians by Ottoman merchants. There may be trouble ahead - are the Ottomans about to take advantage of Hapsburg weakness and invade Hungary, taking back control of lands only recently removed from their Empire? Under the Treaty of Scotland, England is prohibited from involvement in such actions, so that Viscount Falkland has been admitted into private audience with the noble and most honourable Grand Vizier should not be considered related, indeed he may indeed be informing the Grand Vizier that King James has enough to do without messing around in Hungary. Given the reception of the Russian ambassador in Constantinople I think we can rule out Russian involvement as well. Perhaps the Ottomans are not convinced that the Russian search for a warm water port will be outside their territory, insisting that they will only consider a trade agreement after Russia agrees not to attack Ottoman lands, including the Crimea, Moldavia and Wallachia.

9. Russian diplomacy may have more success with Persia following Prince Bolovwoolski's offer to mediate a settlement between France and Persia, "and possibly England if war has spread to them as well." This generous offer will certainly go down well in London.

10. The Russian Administration in the 13 American Colonies has also scored a stunning success this month in tracking down the long lost daughter of the Virginia Senator, John Eyre. Miss Eyre has turned up in New York disguised as a man, living "as just good friends" with Alan Standing, one time member of HWIC and curiously the Sons of Liberty, 2 factions with strong links to Spain and Williamite/Orangist rebels in the Americas. Both clearly have more questions to answer, but no doubt out of fear of the long arm of Spain, are being relatively uncooperative. King James' intelligence service is now frantically searching through records for previous mentions of these individuals, whilst agents are being warned not to simply assume everyone wearing trousers is a man. As the address to the Sons of Erin pointed out: "it's an outrage!"

There can be no doubt after this that G7 is still an exciting place to be.

Ref Papa Clement last post..................less biased account of recent happenings????? Are we sure of that???? As you seem to have linked Spain in a generally bad way to just about every happening in the Paper including the death of some elderly Protestant bishop & run away lovers in New York who I did not even know existed!  Also fairly sure that the Baltic powers, the Shah and the UDP can run their own policies without giving any real concern to what Madrid thinks.

As for the claims that while the Hapsburgs have spent £ Millions on schools, roads, canals and the like in Hungary they are also letting Hungary  starve and wither away!  I thought it was reasonable to just report this as Propaganda rather than as a actual fact like the distribution of muskets.

Ditto the claim that the House of Austria is too weak to defend Hungary from the Anatolian Grand Vizier is also Propaganda rather than an unbiased fact right up to the point when he starts to march his hosts up the Danube?

But if this does change and the GV does march Papa Clement is 100% correct in saying that G7 could get very interesting indeed! Currently its looking really quite civilized compared to say G8, G9 or G10 some how the "They don't surve hot chocolate crisis" in G7 Spain would just not cut the mustard as a proper Spanish crisis in other games.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Ref Papa Clement last post..................less biased account of recent happenings????? Are we sure of that???? As you seem to have linked Spain in a generally bad way to just about every happening in the Paper

Reading my post again, you're right! Spain does seem to be behind nearly everything. Glad you pointed that out - I might have missed it. I simply went through the newspaper in order.

HWIC is majority owned by Spain (through the Spanish Portobello Company) so unfortunately you can't escape responsibility for events linked to them. You did build lots of schools/infrastructure in Hungary - the quotation in my turn writeup was direct from the newspaper, I did not embellish it, but suggested it was slightly exaggerated at the end so I have been fair to Spain in that respect. As for the Ottomans, you have been deliberately antagonising them for months now, so if they are starting to cause trouble for you then surely you asked for it?

Stuart Bailey wrote:But if this does change and the GV does march Papa Clement is 100% correct in saying that G7 could get very interesting indeed! Currently its looking really quite civilized compared to say G8, G9 or G10 some how the "They don't serve hot chocolate crisis" in G7 Spain would just not cut the mustard as a proper Spanish crisis in other games.

I will concede that a shortage of hot chocolate is not quite as newsworthy as the troubles that seem to beset G10. I can't really comment on G8 or G9 yet, but there has been some recent speculation that Austria is available in G8 so I might investigate. It would be very hard for me to play a Hapsburg, though if there could be a way for James Stuart to end up running Austria in G8 that might be fun.

Papa Clement wrote:
I will concede that a shortage of hot chocolate is not quite as newsworthy as the troubles that seem to beset G10.  I can't really comment on G8 or G9 yet, but there has been some recent speculation that Austria is available in G8 so I might investigate.  It would be very hard for me to play a Hapsburg, though if there could be a way for James Stuart to end up running Austria in G8 that might be fun.

How about pushing Leopold/Joseph/Charles etc really into the background and playing a Austrian Government dominated by Prince Eugine an Italian who dislikes Louis XIV, Ottomans and Protestant Rebels......fairly sure you could manage that with both hands tied behind your back.

Think the two possible problem's with Austria for you would be the lack of a Navy or any real Naval tradition. You may have to annex Venice just to give yourself your Naval fix.

The other problem with Austria is some really anti NPC's in the Hungarian Diet and amongst the German Princes. Can see you putting forward detailed proposals for the good of the Empire with past laws all lined up and Agema still roles 0-90% and the answer is No.

But if you have got some German Princes and other possible active allies you might well enjoy Austria since its normally at the diplomatic centre of the game.

PS Ref the great Hot Chocolate shortage crisis of G7 - Lloyds of London the famous coffee house actually sold more chocolate than coffee in this period, I assumed a Cafe for the Spanish Royal Society to meet would be the same but it seems that if you call it a coffee house then it sales Coffee. An important fact if Austria is to develop a Cafe Culture in G8.

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Papa Clement wrote:
I will concede that a shortage of hot chocolate is not quite as newsworthy as the troubles that seem to beset G10.  I can't really comment on G8 or G9 yet, but there has been some recent speculation that Austria is available in G8 so I might investigate.  It would be very hard for me to play a Hapsburg, though if there could be a way for James Stuart to end up running Austria in G8 that might be fun.

How about pushing Leopold/Joseph/Charles etc really into the background and playing a Austrian Government dominated by Prince Eugene, an Italian who dislikes Louis XIV, Ottomans and Protestant Rebels......fairly sure you could manage that with both hands tied behind your back.

An Austria run by a reformed Prince Eugene could be a possibility - certainly the anti-Ottoman and anti-protestant rebels bit would appeal. Very difficult for me to dislike Louis XIV, though I suppose it depends how he is played.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Think the two possible problem's with Austria for you would be the lack of a Navy or any real Naval tradition. You may have to annex Venice just to give yourself your Naval fix.

Lack of a navy is a problem. Trieste is a reasonable port, though, so perhaps I could build one. I have a soft spot for Venice so couldn't be nasty to them. Venetian ports are a mixed blessing, not being able to cater for larger ships.

Stuart Bailey wrote:The other problem with Austria is some really anti NPC's in the Hungarian Diet and amongst the German Princes. Can see you putting forward detailed proposals for the good of the Empire with past laws all lined up and Agema still roles 0-90% and the answer is No.

But I could reform the Empire, knocking down the institutions and replacing them with a park? If there is one thing you have learnt about me in G7 it is surely not to underestimate me?

Stuart Bailey wrote:But if you have got some German Princes and other possible active allies you might well enjoy Austria since its normally at the diplomatic centre of the game.

I would enjoy the letter writing, that's for sure. Diplomacy - it depends. I'll have to think it out again.

Stuart Bailey wrote:PS Ref the great Hot Chocolate shortage crisis of G7 - Lloyds of London the famous coffee house actually sold more chocolate than coffee in this period, I assumed a Cafe for the Spanish Royal Society to meet would be the same but it seems that if you call it a coffee house then it sales Coffee. An important fact if Austria is to develop a Cafe Culture in G8.

Yes - must admit I thought it was a bit rough not allowing hot chocolate to be served in Madrid. It is the kind of detail which hits my orders all the time and I guess I'm just used to it. Very strange given coffee comes from South America and Spain owns most of it. Perhaps hot chocolate requires an academy to research it?

It can be quite enjoyable to develop a navy in a nation without a naval tradition. As Hanover in G2, had a lot of fun building up a navy from nothing.

Jason2 wrote:It can be quite enjoyable to develop a navy in a nation without a naval tradition. As Hanover in G2, had a lot of fun building up a navy from nothing.

That's true - at least I wouldn't start with a lot of gFrg/HFrg, sloops or cavalry galleys! As Venice I ended up scrapping nearly all the ships on the startup list and building a more useful mixture, so it would save me that exercise. I do wonder, though, whether Austria would suffer from the Russian naval curse and struggle to stay afloat?

Austria did have some expertise in gun manufacture so if that could be extended to the navy then it wouldn't be equipment that let them down. Also I might be forgetting the Dalmatian coast - prime smuggling territory, so perhaps there is a hidden naval tradition there which the Austrian State never really exploited.

Purely personal observation but always seen the Russian navy issues as a quirk of the position, one of those hidden traits a lot of nations have that reflect a historical limitation; in this case that real Russian lack of a tradition of a sea-going culture. Like you say, Austria could draw on the sea-going tradition of the Dalmatian coast (if I remember aright, didn't the early 18th C Russian fleet draw a lot of its crews from conscripted inland communities that had never seen a ship?). If an Austrian player wanted to play safe, maybe take a year long but have open a couple of naval officer and seaman academies and have future crews trained there for a year, to give them that naval training, before raising ships?

Sitting here, off the top of my head I can't recall an Austrian player actually trying to build up a navy but perhaps that's because Austrian positions simply haven't been played by someone with a naval interest?

Jason2 wrote:It can be quite enjoyable to develop a navy in a nation without a naval tradition.  As Hanover in G2, had a lot of fun building up a navy from nothing.  

Of course it helps if if your character - George Junior - is the eldest son of the King & Queen of England and their Majesties English government is basically willing to give George Junior anything he wanted provided he stayed out of sight in Germany looking after Mum & Dads place on the Continant.

For some strange reason the English Government seemed convinced that if the English voters got a close look at the heir to the throne with his Harem & Janissary bodyguard then the Voters were all going to turn Jacobite or perhaps Republican.

Please Stuart, stop engaging in fake news, you're only going to make me joining in with Papa in criticising you on the forum...esp as the person selling me Janissary recruits had handwriting just like yours...

...and my fleet buildup was done independently of England, all my own work...

Getting a little tired of your snide comments

Jason2 wrote:Purely personal observation but always seen the Russian navy issues as a quirk of the position, one of those hidden traits a lot of nations have that reflect a historical limitation; in this case that real Russian lack of a tradition of a sea-going culture. Like you say, Austria could draw on the sea-going tradition of the Dalmatian coast (if I remember aright, didn't the early 18th C Russian fleet draw a lot of its crews from conscripted inland communities that had never seen a ship?). If an Austrian player wanted to play safe, maybe take a year long but have open a couple of naval officer and seaman academies and have future crews trained there for a year, to give them that naval training, before raising ships?

Sitting here, off the top of my head I can't recall an Austrian player actually trying to build up a navy but perhaps that's because Austrian positions simply haven't been played by someone with a naval interest?

I haven't had much time to look into the history of the Austrian navy (yet), but there is probably something in what you say Jason2. Perhaps Austria's focus has always been to defend the HRE so was in a similar position to France: recruits went into the army and there were few left over for the navy. Spain was the Hapsburg branch with the colonies so Spain had the navy.

But, the Ottomans had a navy and they are an obvious strategic threat so I suppose there is a good reason for Austria to have a navy. When hordes of Ottomans are stuck attacking Hungary, the Austrian navy could hit Constantinople? Not sure about playing it safe, though - I tend to try and make things happen quickly. There must be some ships going spare somewhere in the world, stick a crew on and go sailing around the Med to get some experience, then perhaps drill them over the winter? Shame I don't know anything about G8 - perhaps there are some captured Ottoman ships I could buy off the victor of a war to get me going. Then if they sink I could always blame the Ottomans and start a crusade over their dodgy shipbuilding.

I'm struggling to get my head around it properly, but looking in the newspaper (which just happens to have a map of Germany this month) Austria also has Fiume which is a decent deepwater port capable of building lineships. It could be defended by a series of forts/channels on the nearby islands. I'm fairly sure I did look at all this once when I was Venice, but can't find my notes.

At the moment, though, I just can't see myself as an Austrian. I've spent years playing LGDR and can't remember a time when I've actually been positive about Austria - it's a big mental block. I could always find French, Venetian or of course Jacobites who appealed, but when I try to think of an Austrian my mind just goes blank. Perhaps it is just me?

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Jason2 wrote:It can be quite enjoyable to develop a navy in a nation without a naval tradition. As Hanover in G2, had a lot of fun building up a navy from nothing.

Of course it helps if if your character - George Junior - is the eldest son of the King & Queen of England and their Majesties English government is basically willing to give George Junior anything he wanted provided he stayed out of sight in Germany looking after Mum & Dads place on the Continant.

For some strange reason the English Government seemed convinced that if the English voters got a close look at the heir to the throne with his Harem & Janissary bodyguard then the Voters were all going to turn Jacobite or perhaps Republican.

Harem and Janissary bodyguard? I don't know much about the history of Hanover, but I don't remember that. Never really understood why the majority of sensible Englishmen accepted a Hanoverian as King when not only King James, but many other candidates had a better claim. I thought Hanover at the time was more interested in gaining Bremen off Sweden.

Jason2 wrote:Please Stuart, stop engaging in fake news, you're only going to make me joining in with Papa in criticising you on the forum...esp as the person selling me Janissary recruits had handwriting just like yours...

...and my fleet buildup was done independently of England, all my own work...

Getting a little tired of your snide comments

I'm sure the fleet was all your own work Jason2 - much more fun that way. Given the Sweden/Hanover connection I can see a historical reason why Hanover would want to build a navy. Can't remember whether it was part of the Hanseatic League, but if so then there could have been an old Hanoverian naval tradition?

I should perhaps caution everyone not to break forum rules, one of which is that nobody ever agrees with me. The forum servers would automatically shut down and refuse to reboot which would be a great shame as non players would not be able to read what King James did next and how Spain managed to get hold of so many wrong ends of the same stick, which is after all what keeps this thread going.

Jason2 wrote:Please Stuart, stop engaging in fake news, you're only going to make me joining in with Papa in criticising you on the forum...esp as the person selling me Janissary recruits had handwriting just like yours...

...and my fleet buildup was done independently of England, all my own work...

Getting a little tired of your snide comments

Sorry .............I actually really enjoyed the Prince of Hanover Character.........who I assumed was based more on the Art Loving Prince Regent rather than say George II.

Historically many nations had ot choose between being either Land based or Naval. For example Prussia has a long coast line but very little navy. Because various rulers concentrated on the Army.

Englands strength lies in it's navy, Army is good quality but compared to other powers with similar populations also quite small.

some Nations like France can do both, but again depending on the focus of the ruler one branch will flourish whilst the other takes a bit of a back seat.

Russia is starting form a long way back form both Land & Sea, with only one port -Archangel - which is frozen over for 6 months of the year, so there is little maritime experience to draw on.
Similarly with the Army it starts with the Streltzy. who are as much a bane as a benefit.

On a gaming front, I will make a wild stab in the dark that most players are land based commanders, with little naval war gaming having been done.

This may well influence how naval matters are dealt with. More a way of moving armies around than an offensive arm in it sown right.

J Flower wrote:Historically many nations had to choose between being either Land based or Naval. For example Prussia has a long coast line but very little navy. Because various rulers concentrated on the Army. England's strength lies in it's navy, Army is good quality but compared to other powers with similar populations also quite small. Some Nations like France can do both, but again depending on the focus of the ruler one branch will flourish whilst the other takes a bit of a back seat.

Russia is starting form a long way back form both Land & Sea, with only one port -Archangel - which is frozen over for 6 months of the year, so there is little maritime experience to draw on. Similarly with the Army it starts with the Streltzy. who are as much a bane as a benefit.

Russia's main barrier to naval expansion has always been lack of ports: ice bound Baltic ports, and (if able to develop southern ports) getting ships out of the Black Sea, past the Ottomans. If Russia can overcome these, she then faces the same challenge as France: 2 separate coastlines need 2 separate fleets to defend them. The English fleet and up to a point the Spanish fleet did not have this problem. This is probably why in the long run France was never going to be able to maintain as powerful a fleet as England. The best French ports are in the Med, whereas once wind and tides are taken into account she lacks large ports on the Channel. France certainly had the ability to create a quality fleet, but I think geography obliged her to concentrate more on the army.

As to the Russian maritime experience, you might like to read the Chinese Navy thread which suggests that some of the cossacks were akin to river pirates, so perhaps there is that pool to draw on?

J Flower wrote:On a gaming front, I will make a wild stab in the dark that most players are land based commanders, with little naval war gaming having been done. This may well influence how naval matters are dealt with. More a way of moving armies around than an offensive arm in it sown right.

Probably correct. As you know I'm not much of a wargamer, but part of the attraction of this period is the change in how navies were used. My understanding is that after matchlocks were replaced with flintlocks, land armaments evolved slowly so although there are incremental improvements, armies were basically the same in kit and tactics. Players might try to anticipate Frederick the Great or Napoleon, but this seems to be discouraged. With ships, though, it is completely different: the SoL was relatively new and navies had to try and understand how to use them - shipbuilding and tactical development was a major feature of the period. It was not just a case of bigger is better (again, see the Chinese Navy thread), and different countries approached the problem differently. So there is a lot more flexibility. A navy also demands so much more support with investment in yards, supplies, etc - to get all these factors working together is hard, and even when this is achieved, the wind can make the outcome of battles unpredictable. So it is perhaps not surprising that most nations concentrate on armies.

I hadn't thought of the naval wargaming point before, but you are probably right. It is so hard to model all the factors which impact on naval warfare whereas armies tend to lend themselves to a particular structure. You can model a single ship and 'play' the captain of that ship, concentrating on certain factors, but that breaks down when you try to model a squadron or fleet. An admiral can give an order to a fleet, but it may not be seen by some ships due to smoke or fog; they may not be able to get into line due to the particular sailing qualities of a vessel; so control is devolved almost immediately. I know there are similar 'fog of war' type factors which impact armies as well, but once armies have sighted each other they tend to wait until the conditions are right to have a battle and so have greater control over them than navies. Fleets can shadow each other waiting for an advantage, but could just as easily sail away in the dark or when the wind changes one side would simply be prevented from pressing the battle.

For me the attraction of navies is not so much the 'wargaming' side, but the way that it integrates into the economic and development of a country to support the fleet, then the use of that fleet to achieve strategic/trade objectives which armies can't do. And of course if these objectives don't apply then they can always be used to explore or for scientific expeditions. I like to think that the reason England persevered with naval development was not just because the fleet acted as a wooden wall, protecting England from invasion - it could and did do that, but in LGDR this aspect is actually quite hard to do within the confines of the turn based system (a French fleet could be across the channel in a single turn before the alarm was raised, then by turn 2 the fleet would be brought into commission and turn 3 it would try to intercept - if it took a French fleet 3 months to cross the Channel then they would have been particularly inept and probably didn't deserve to succeed). It was the navy which allowed a small island to project its power worldwide, build and protect a colonial and trading Empire, expand the boundaries of science, and at times ensure the population was able to import enough grain to survive. Much more than simply troop transports.

Well, G7 is upon us and fair play to England and France, on bringing an end to the war with the Dutch and their prizes gained as a result.

Another successful month for the Russian Navy!

Plus two(2) Cavalry Galley launched! This could be the start of something big!

No ships lost in 1713, no wonder there were lots of fireworks at all the Russian embassies

Jason2 wrote:Well, G7 is upon us and fair play to England and France, on bringing an end to the war with the Dutch and their prizes gained as a result.

Thanks Jason2 ... feel free to write to me if you are still in the game.  It has been a rather long conflict, starting in 1703 if not earlier with so many different nations joining in (some more than once).  Since it is now Dec-1713, does this make it the longest period a country has been at war in any game?

Although I had hoped to keep the terms private for a month or so, they were published in the newspaper and so I will reproduce them here.  Rumour has it that Stuart was so shocked when he opened his turn and saw how different these peace terms are to the Treaty of Scotland he signed, we may have to wait until he regains consciousness before he provides his usual turn writeup.  Let us hope it appears soon, for G7 will need a new theme going forward, perhaps "G7 and the Breaking of the Hapsburg Brotherhood"?

I must admit to feeling rather lost when I opened the turn and found that we finally had peace.  There are, of course, those who can't wait to start fighting again, but will we see an Ottoman vs Hapsburg/Persia conflict, will Spain break the Treaty of Scotland and attack England over trade concerns, or will France now turn all her might against Persia?  Plenty of potential flashpoints, so for those who think G7 is winding down, nothing could be further from the truth.  There is plenty of life in this game yet.

Treaty of Amsterdam (Amended) 1713

1. Prince John William Friso is recognised as the ruler of UDP. He apologises to King James and his allies for the dishonourable conduct of UDP’s forces under previous rulers during the war, for breaking ceasefires, for flying false flags, for their treatment of prisoners/non-combatants and for their attempts to implicate 3rd parties in the war.
2. UDP will immediately and unconditionally release all hostages and prisoners of war, give £2 passage money each to make their way home where they will report for medical attention.
3. UDP accepts King James as King of England, Ireland and Scotland according to the Papal Bull Britannicus Clement, renouncing any future claim on his titles and lands.
4. UDP will not offer support to any group or individual seeking to undermine England or France. This requires any spies to be withdrawn and the closing down of all operations of HWIC and its subsidiaries in UDP’s territory. UDP promises not to support pirates or issue Letters of Marque.
5. UDP will transfer half her grain reserves to England (London) as compensation for grain seizures.
6. UDP will transfer any captured ships (including L/EiM) to England; England keeps any prizes taken.
7. UDP will cede Curacao and Guiana to France.
8. UDP will cede Chinsura, Malacca and Macassar (the Spice Islands) to England.  England confirms UDP’s title to Bencoolen, ceding any claims on that colony.
9. UDP is prohibited from trading in spices for 3 years. England is prohibited from trading in opium, leaving UDP free to trade in this profitable but ethically dubious product should she choose to.
10. UDP acknowledges that she has received large sums, directly or indirectly from Spain and allowed herself to be used by Spain to fight a proxy war. England believes the cumulative amount to be £8M, so UDP will pay £4M as compensation to King James.
11. Given Spanish objections to the wording of clause 2 of the Treaty of Scotland, we must be very clear what will happen to recruits and army/navy units on UDP’s asset list, raised from non-Dutch recruits. They must be disbanded and the recruits distributed by nationality as follows:

• Englishmen, Irishmen, Scots and Americans to England.
  
• Frenchmen to France.
  
• Any other nationality should return to their home country (i.e. Spaniards to Spain, Austrians to Austria, Swiss to Swiss Cantons) on the understanding that they never again fight against England or France, or fight on the same side as UDP/Spanish/Austrian forces unless in defence of their home country.
  

12. Dutch units which are unaffected by clause 11 will withdraw to Dutch territory with regimental colours.
13. Compliance with all clauses is required within 6 months of signing by all parties.
14. If UDP breaks any clause of this treaty or attacks England or France within 3 years of signing, she automatically cedes the island of Texel to England and all her remaining Indian colonies to France. If England or France breaks any clause of this treaty or attacks any other signatory of this treaty within 3 years of signing, all territories taken off the UDP under the terms of this treaty will automatically be returned to the United Provinces.
15. France and England recognise the sovereign integrity of the United Provinces itself, and the rule of these places by the United Provinces, and will withdraw any and all forces from Dutch territory and agree not to attack them or their occupants.



No doubt the debate will begin over whether these terms are fair, but taking into account that UDP declared war on England originally and had taken heavy losses from English and French forces, my naval blockade had reduced her to bankruptcy, she had lost control of most of her colonies in America and the Far East, and several towns in UDP itself were under French occupation, even the most determined Dutch player would have struggled to find the means to fight on without totally destroying his country.  At least this treaty gives UDP the time to recover and as a turnaround for a new player it is easy compared to what I took on as England in May 1708.

I would like to thank all those who have helped me achieve this victory (they know who they are), and those who made this such a challenge (they also know who they are) - a game does require a certain dynamic, a difference of opinion/viewpoint and players with the courage to test their skills to defend their viewpoint.  Some will do this on the battlefield, others through diplomacy, trade, culture, religion, etc.  That is what makes it fun.  I must have been playing this game for over 20 years now in various positions and I can't remember a game quite like G7 - when it was launched with its unique position set-up, we were promised the most in-depth game of LGDR there had ever been, and I think it has lived up to that aim.

And just in case any of you are wondering, I have no intention of dropping England in the near future

Whatever your thoughts on player personality or playing style, for me, I think Papa Clement as England in G7 is the most resilient, battling on in the face of adversity, success stories I have ever seen in LGDR - any version.

This wonderful game can dish out frustration and set backs in abundance. It is a game that is very easy, physically if not emotionally, to throw the towel in on. There must have been so many turns when Papa Clement must have wondered what the point of going on for one more turn was.

I do not know how long the sense of relief and success will last for England but for the moment warm in the glow of success Papa - it is so deserved.

(the above is not a reflection or comment on other players in G7, merely recognition of Papa Clement!)

Completely agree with Count.

And will drop you a line Papa, just bear with me if it takes a couple of turns.

I doubt there is any danger of G7 winding down, if by that it means the game ending. However, I hope no one minds me saying I hope we can get a couple of years peace, so maybe a new direction in the game. I think enough nations have taken a hammering these last few years and am sure they could do with some time to rebuild.

count-de-monet wrote:Whatever your thoughts on player personality or playing style, for me, I think Papa Clement as England in G7 is the most resilient, battling on in the face of adversity, success stories I have ever seen in LGDR - any version.

This wonderful game can dish out frustration and set backs in abundance. It is a game that is very easy, physically if not emotionally, to throw the towel in on. There must have been so many turns when Papa Clement must have wondered what the point of going on for one more turn was.

I do not know how long the sense of relief and success will last for England but for the moment warm in the glow of success Papa - it is so deserved.

(the above is not a reflection or comment on other players in G7, merely recognition of Papa Clement!)

Thanks Count-de-Monet. There were times when it did seem an impossible challenge, but what seemed impossible for others rapidly became normal for me so I found that difficulties were relative. I did after all, join when some of the best players in the game had convinced themselves (and just about everyone else) that England was finished. So I wasn't going to get that upset if after a few turns of trying, it proved beyond me. However, once I had beaten back the HWIC/UDP invasion of Yorkshire and at least gained some understanding of what was happening, I bought some time to assess what I needed to do next and whether it really was worth the effort of sticking with it. I decided it was.

One of the fascinating things about playing King James is that there is so much research out there about Jacobite risings so it is ideal for those who like to combine historical realism with metahistory. And the more I researched, the more I wanted to try certain things out. So despite all the military disasters and subsequent invasions, there was always something there which I could experiment with. I'm not suggesting that the worse things became, the more I was determined to hang on, but it did become a case of opening the game turn to find a list of required emergency orders to submit before I could actually order what I had wanted to do. Very often only the emergency orders were carried out (and the next month a new set of emergency orders were required to correct the mistakes in the previous month's, etc). So up to an extent my style of play was determined by always having to crisis manage my orders. I became adept at running multiple game lines so that in any given month at least one thing would continue to move forward positively even if all the others failed.

Of course I could have made it easier for myself if I had simply allowed King James to convert to the Church of England and made it a religious war of survival for the Church of England, but that would have been completely against how the historic James Stuart understood his Catholic faith. Like his father before him, he was convinced that he had the divine right to rule England, and that right was given to him by God - not a protestant God, but the God who made himself known to and through the Catholic Church. His grandfather (Charles I) had been executed (or murdered as the Stuarts correctly claimed) on a wave of extreme protestant-inspired rebellion; his father had refused to compromise in his Catholic faith and found he was deserted by protestant traitors - so he knew the risks he was taking on by standing by his beliefs. But he had also seen his uncle (Charles II) restored, an uncle who although he was obliged to outwardly conform to the Church of England, died a Catholic. Should the historic James Stuart have lived a hypocrite like his uncle, pretending to give up his faith to increase loyalty to the crown, or like his father and grandfather, stood by his beliefs and sought to convince his subjects, ultimately leading them back to the true faith? Everything I have read about him suggests he would have chosen the harder path. And when you have a game character who historically would have chosen that path, it should (as a player) encourage a certain resilience.


Perhaps as advice to players attempting to do the impossible:

- write down what it is you want to achieve and develop a plan, preferably multiple plans, to achieve it. However impossible the objective may be and however unrealistic the plan may first appear there are usually ways to make it happen. Writing orders in advance to cover many months is one way to keep plans moving forward, though it is important to be selective which orders are submitted each month.

- appreciate that most of the time, most of what you are trying to do will go wrong. So you won't make the honour table, you will take economic hits, units will rebel, characters will be much more easily led astray by foreign powers, etc, etc. Just because things go wrong you don't have to change your objective/plan. The quickest way to ruin any position is to chop and change what you do, for then you are simply reacting. One reason why England was in such a mess was because it had a string of players who tried it for a few months, then dropped; the next player picked it up and tried something completely different; then by the time the game had reached 1705/06 England had repeatedly swapped sides in wars, betrayed everybody including most of his own ministers; out of desperation the player then killed his own character and split the country in a civil war. Even the old newspapers don't fully do justice to the chaos. Instead of raising/lowering taxes gradually, it was either punitive rates or no taxes at all, so economically it was just mad. When you have that kind of continual change it destroys a position very quickly. The remedy is to stick to the plan so everyone knows where they are, whether they like it or not. Only then can you rebuild your reputation with other players and your own ministers. There were long periods where if in any given turn only 70% of my orders went wrong, I would count that as a good turn (after all 30% of my orders would have gone OK). It is just what you have to put up with - there is no point in getting upset about it. Just find another way of doing what it was you set out to do.

- you will also probably find that well meaning players will suggest compromises or appeasement to try to help. Sometimes that might be the best or most practical option, but test it against what your objective is. It is always tempting to compromise in the short term, but if you keep compromising then very often the long term objective becomes unreachable. I always had the long term objective in mind and would only compromise if it did not deflect me from that objective.

- ultimately remember that you make the decisions: it is your position which you are paying to play. If you don't like any of the options, then it is up to you as the player to come up with another one. More often than not other players will respond positively if you explain your reasons and both parties benefit. It doesn't always happen, but often players become fixated on what really isn't that important because it is what has worked in a different game or they haven't thought about alternatives. There is never only one way to play a position, however successful a previous player may have been.

- don't neglect diplomacy. It can be invaluable to discuss ideas/objectives with friendly players: they may be able to suggest alternative ideas for you, and even if they can't it really does help morale when things are tough to have good allies and plenty of letters to write. Friendly players are not necessarily allies, they could be neutral or even enemies - I have found that telling an enemy what you are going to do is a particularly useful device. Some of the time they just dismiss what you write or explain why you can't do it. There are few better ways to learn how they look at things and respond to challenges. I tend to work on the assumption that my enemies know as much about my strengths/defences etc as I do, but that knowledge is of only minimal use to them if they can't work out how to use it to my disadvantage. Diplomacy with inactive positions is also important: it is not often reported in the newspapers, but positive relations with inactive (or rarely played) positions can improve returns for trade and enemies may find it harder to turn nations they assumed were neutral if you have put the effort in to building up a positive relationship with them.


As has been mentioned, not everyone plays the game in the same way. I do have a rather unique playing style which is not for everyone. It has the disadvantage that it is usually obvious when I join a game as I am instantly recognised. But hopefully I approach each game after researching the character/nation I am playing. Pope Clement in G10 is in some respects much more flexible in matters of religion than King James in G7, but then he has the authority of the Papacy to be more flexible and does not need to concern himself as closely with armies or the survival of his country. The historic Pope Clement was a canon lawyer and diplomat so will naturally favour those solutions, whereas the historic King James saw lawyers as troublemakers who (in Parliament) made it impossible for his grandfather to rule. Both are determined and resilient in their own way, but for King James that resilience is linked to his own survival whereas for Pope Clement the resilience comes from his adherence to Catholic teaching and (sometimes inflexible) church procedure. Pope Clement would like to be flexible, but has to find the reason to be so. It depends on your definition of a lawyer: is a lawyer there to tell you what you cannot do, or to find a way for you to do it? For King James it is the former whereas for Pope Clement it is the latter.

Of course none of the above guarantees success, but it might help players stick it out when things get a bit rough.

Jason2 wrote:Completely agree with Count.

And will drop you a line Papa, just bear with me if it takes a couple of turns.

I doubt there is any danger of G7 winding down, if by that it means the game ending. However, I hope no one minds me saying I hope we can get a couple of years peace, so maybe a new direction in the game. I think enough nations have taken a hammering these last few years and am sure they could do with some time to rebuild.

Thanks Jason2 - look forward to your letter. The Far East is looking more and more interesting at the moment. I certainly have a lot of work to do sorting out PoW and other bits to comply with the peace terms.

I probably mentioned in one of my letters that being a technological luddite I still print off my game turn and newspaper so I can scribble on them. My G7 files had reached such epic sizes that I had to go through the cabinet earlier this week and dump the old paperwork (just under a foot in height). I still have the electronic copy, so at least I can keep up the research. England's asset list is currently just over 50 pages long. Note to self: long wars cause the number of towns to rise exponentially and it does help to be organised enough to be able to follow your own asset list!