Game 10

New game 10 turn out. Spain continues with an illegitimate unknown heir from Mexico.

Spain's harvest also fails.

But then so does mine. So maybe there isn't a link

Do the African tribes have the option to slaughter wild animals? If so I suspect a harvest failure isn't too much of a problem, just order an elephant cull & you not only alleviate famine but also lay the basis of a viable ivory trade.

Or of course it maybe time to put all those white missionaries to good use.......

J Flower wrote:Do the African tribes have the option to slaughter wild animals?

Probably.

Already done my next turn and have sorted out some routes to follow to resolve the issue, hopefully. I get to write some more 'in-character' pieces for the newspaper

Scotland too had a harvest failure...may have to go on a hunt for Wild Haggi to feed the people...

Economy seems to have suffered as a result...but I did invent a new waterwheel...

Jason wrote:Economy seems to have suffered as a result

ditto.

Jason wrote:but I did invent a new waterwheel

What is this thing you call a 'weeyal'? More White man magic?

I#m sure Mr Glover will be able to demonstrate...for a suitable price

[quote="Rozwi_Game10"]

Jason wrote:Economy seems to have suffered as a result

ditto.

Ok, so the Scots and Rozwi have had a poor harvest but have they also had a Earthquake like the Spanish?

Now The Spanish Cardinal has used Church Money to smash Canon Law by crowning random Mexican as "This Most Catholic Majesty" and has ticked of Earthquake and Famine what odds on War & Disease before the end of 1701?

Spanish player had the option of giving away large parts of his position to France & Austria, but has decided not to. Which is fair enough, the manner of the crowning of a new king seems not to have upset the Pope who after all bestowed the title on the Spanish crown all those years ago, if it was really so bad surely the Pope would have made some kind of statement already.

Can argue that it is un-historic, but then again so is Shrapnel but many of us research it, this game is after all mostly about alternative history.

Yes there will probably be a war of the Spanish succession anyway in G10, so the historical path isn't being totally strayed from, just instead of getting the territories they believe they have a right to served up on a silver platter countries may have to fight for them, also a historical course reasserting itself.

Spain has set itself a course of actions that some don't or won't agree with but that is all part of the game structure, however each player has to make & live with the decisions they make

There may well have been other options he could have looked into ,But he didn't take them &
now the game has to embrace the change & adapt to it which is after all what the game is about. That said he has certainly enlivened the game looking forward to the coming months,

All I need to do now is kill some Jacobite's & steal all their potatoes to fend off a famine in Holland.

Bonus point two months without loosing a ship- a new record for me personally.

If it helps the Rozwi, there is also a technology breakthrough that is more easily available, if you have invented KNIVES,& BREAD, then sliced bread can easily be developed in most kitchens, without the need of too much money for research, maybe a college or academy is required for a dedicated bread knife, especially useful for the harder crusts, these crusts may cause stone knives to shatter & bronze knives to bend.

Definitely approve of what the Spanish player is doing, myself. If I was playing Spain I'd be doing my utmost to do likewise - just for the heck of it, in my case, as I like alternating from the norm and trying to surprise

The pope in game is an NPC. Getting NPCs to act is always hard.

I think the Spanish player is taking a dangerous course. We'll see how it ends up!

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Rozwi_Game10 wrote:

Jason wrote:Economy seems to have suffered as a result

ditto.

Ok, so the Scots and Rozwi have had a poor harvest but have they also had a Earthquake like the Spanish?

No earthquakes though (in seriousness) I wonder if the reoccurring Jacobite uprisings in England are affecting things for me? I trade a lot with England and Ireland so civil unrest might be disrupting my markets and so my economy?

Seek recourse from France, for loss of earnings. If English or Scottish lawyers can prove France is in any way connected to such Jacobite activity, then look for reparations. After all, anything that impacts on business will affect Catholic and non-Catholic business owners alike, and any monetary loss to Catholic business owners will be felt by the Church, in which they're it's flock, and Rome will therefor feel the loss of 'earnings' in turn.

Nothing upsets people more than someone messing with their money. Lawyers would love to get to grips with the legal niceties in such a case as the above. This being the enlightened age, fight a 'war' through pen and paper as opposed to sword and powder, and add an extra layer to the Jacobite attempt at retaking power. It'd be good if a Stuart monarch did retake a throne, only for lawyers and his parliament to drop a payment demand bill at his feet to cover the material loss incurred during the struggle for power. Pay the fine and lose money, but gain the people's love and respect. Don't pay and keep your limited funds intact, but face the wrath of the mob. Plenty of fun to be had.

There is a special place is France especially reserved for Lawyers who upset the Crown of France..........its the darkest, deepest and most rat filled cell in the Bastille.

Rozwi_Game10 wrote:Seek recourse from France, for loss of earnings. If English or Scottish lawyers can prove France is in any way connected to such Jacobite activity, then look for reparations. After all, anything that impacts on business will affect Catholic and non-Catholic business owners alike, and any monetary loss to Catholic business owners will be felt by the Church, in which they're it's flock, and Rome will therefor feel the loss of 'earnings' in turn.

Nothing upsets people more than someone messing with their money. Lawyers would love to get to grips with the legal niceties in such a case as the above. This being the enlightened age, fight a 'war' through pen and paper as opposed to sword and powder, and add an extra layer to the Jacobite attempt at retaking power. It'd be good if a Stuart monarch did retake a throne, only for lawyers and his parliament to drop a payment demand bill at his feet to cover the material loss incurred during the struggle for power. Pay the fine and lose money, but gain the people's love and respect. Don't pay and keep your limited funds intact, but face the wrath of the mob. Plenty of fun to be had.  

I can understand the sentiment, but France, like many other kingdoms in the period was an absolute monarchy. Whatever the King says is what the law is.

You might be able to make this case in an English court to attempt to seize french assets, but the way the game is set up, there are almost never anybody else's assets in your country.

France is a huge power in the game, and its major risk is that it gets involved in too many squabbles to manage them all. If France can focus on England, there is a potential that they can do a great deal of damage. It is true England can retaliate, but I think proportionally, all other things being equal, France can dish out much more than England.

The question will be, does France have too many squabbles?

I think France is a "Magnet" for wars, it is up there on a pedestal, it is the most powerful position, ok it may not have the largest population, economy, army or navy those titles probably belong to other nations, but France is probably in the top three of all those categories,which in combination makes it the most powerful position, other players may envy/ fear this power base. Which makes it easier for any coalition of opponents to France to build up. Also looking at the history books the period of the Sun Kings reign is know to many of us so the potential threat from France is also engrained from the start. Added to this as players were are once again all aware of the potential that France has once it gets it's act together we all have read the exploits of a certain Napoleon Bonaparte, so that also enters our minds when dealing with France.

So whether they want it or not French players will most probably eventually end up at war, simply if nothing else other peoples actions will force France to act , the major question for many French players is whether they will be pro-active or reactive in their game play.

Having been in a game with an inactive France it really showed how important the position is much of the game concept revolves around France & it's interaction with the rest of the paying public.

As for lawyers, France also set up the Chambers of Reunion, which had various legal people looking into to territorial & titular claims for the king of France to legitimatise his claims for trying to absorb territories.

I wonder if as an absolute ruler there is also the possibility of passing a law to have lawyers shot on sight. Lets face trial by combat has most probably gone out of fashion because trial by lawyer is nastier.

Ref "Magnet" positions if players want to carry forward a grudge from circa 1600 to 1700 the positions which are going to be alliance targets are France, Sweden & the Ottomans.

If people are going to act on the basis of what actually happened after 1700 the alliance targets should be Russia, Prussia, England & France again.

Wonder if players think dealing with Historic foes or the future bane of their position is more inportant?

I think one of the reasons the games tend to unfold differently is players don't have the emotional investment in past disputes that their positions would have actually had.

The history is "there", but you aren't bound by it in any way. You can use it as an excuse if you want, but that's all.

So I think players react to what's happening in the game then, and then carry the grudges they pick up in game forward.

At the moment, I see flash points with Jacobites and the Spanish Succession. Both feature France. How France plays this, and how people respond to that is likely to drive the key conflicts for the next several years.

Of course, others could start things too.

I agree with you on this Deacon, to a certain extent we have all read various history books & looked at the successful & unsuccessful decisions that were made. But as you quite rightly point out player interaction is also the major factor in deciding game direction. If your neighbouring country invades you then history goes out the window & you simply put all your efforts into thwarting them, Historically or not.

A major problem is that defeated players usually simply loose interest , whereas historically dynastic rivalry is endemic, with players dancing in & out of positions this is hard to achieve in game.

There are certain inbuilt game rivalries that players exploit for their various self interests, but these can be turned on their heads as they also were historically, for example when England & France allied against Holland, France & Holland against England later in the century Austria & France against Prussia. These can all occur I just wonder if they were popular, they probably are when your winning but you have an automatic scapegoat when it all goes wrong.

Well, I think a lot of other games have given players a different perspective on success than was period.

At least as I understand it, and I'm hardly the most historically savvy player, great wars were fought, and then settled with the exchange of a city or a little strip of land, and huzzah, great victory!

I think given all the conquest games, victory to most players look like "I conquer western europe like Napoleon did."

Not that this is a bad perspective, but it changes the in-game dynamics. Somebody who wants to take a city off you, or a colony, can be an annoy wretch. Somebody who wants to extinguish you? Might as well drop if they're making headway.

Deacon wrote:
Well, I think a lot of other games have given players a different perspective on success than was period.

At least as I understand it, and I'm hardly the most historically savvy player, great wars were fought, and then settled with the exchange of a city or a little strip of land, and huzzah, great victory!

I think given all the conquest cames, victory to most players look like "I conquer western europe like Napoleon did."

Not that this is a bad perspective, but it changes the in-game dynamics. Somebody who wants to take a city off you, or a colony, can be an annoy wretch. Somebody who wants to extinguish you? Might as well drop if they're making headway.

I think you may have hit the proverbial nail on the head, the winner takes all strategy is a much more modern approach, the taking of a city or province was much more in keeping with the era we are attempting to emulate, maybe such an approach would also give the loosing side in such a conflict a chance to survive as a playable position & help with player retention.

Also not too sure if the Dynastic family trees are used enough to justify actions, that every head of state is maybe married in to a small "Elitist" group of royal families going back over a long period of time probably doesn't get the attention it is due, may also be true for the lack of in game marriage contracts as these are probably a long term investment with no 100% sure chance of success that such things will bring benefits in the long term.

Ref the Question of should our period be approached from a "winner takes all" position or were wars fought to settle fairly small disputes over trade, colonies or along the lines of Louis XIV "my wife has not rec'd her Dowry so I am taking a couple of key border fortresses".

I think this period offers examples of both:

1) The Allied cry of "No peace without Spain" in the WSS, Manchu conquest of Ming China, The plan to divide the Swedish Empire by the Russians, Danes & Saxon-Poles which started the Great Northern War plus Charles Vasa pursuit and removal of Augustus the Strong as King of Poland and the overthrow of King James by William of Orange are all good examples of a "Winner takes all" approach.

II) While many other Wars such as the three Anglo-Dutch wars and many of Louis XIV wars were fought for much smaller objectives. Such as trying to get the Dutch to obey the Navigation Acts & the classic that strip of land is part of my Wifes Dowry or is subject to the French Crown due to this deed from 1381 which my lawyers have just found. Though it has to be admitted that many of Louis XIV opponents were sure that lots of small steps were aimed at a rather large objective of making France the totally dominant in Western Europe.

Outside of Europe and on the borders we see many wars still being fought for reasons of plunder, slaves and to reinforce a rulers internal position through military glory and being seen as a "Ghazi" etc. Many Ottoman campaigns seem to fall into this catagory but probably the classic Example is the repeated invasions of India by Nadar Shah and the Afghan Generals who followed him. These lead to the largest battles of the period but from point of view of stratagy they were no more than huge bandit raid's.

Finally what needs to be kept in mind is that many wars were entered into with huge declared objectives but then resulted in a very limited peace because a) Both sides were going backrupt..........I think its fair to say their is a lot more money in most games than historically & b) Esp in Western Europe Armies could not provide the Military Victories to enforce their Govts ambitions.

Perhaps players dropping out semi reflects the sacking of ministers who have just bankrupted country and failed to achieve Military objectives?

Also wonder if new logistics & sickness rules which makes Military situation much closer to historic reality ie it can take a whole campaign season to reduce a even a couple of cities. But have players (like some Historic Ministers) caught up with this reality? Or are they still drawing up unrealistic campaign objectives which assume their Generals are Alexander the Great, their troops are all the equal to the X Legion and gunpowder grows on trees? Plus the weather will be perfect? And no one is going to intervine.

Think from experience with Russians in G7 Jason can confirm that while "Winner takes all" plans such as in this case a English (backed by Russia) conquest of Scotland & American colonies are perfectly possible and in this case completely in line with how James III of England is being played the military reality can be quite hard. How many dead Russians Jason? Mostly from Storm and sickness rather than hostile actions.

Mind you I can not say much in G7 all I want to do to reclaim one small border province from the French and stop Scotland being annexed (in memory of my Charaters best man) but so far am well and truely bogged down.

Thanks Stuart, great examples, and far more knowledgeable than I.

Maybe part of the problem is that as players our aims are probably not fully out in the open, or maybe we start off with a winner take all attitude & find it hard to down grade to just a couple of towns & a trade deal. Probably a certain amount of "I'm going to show you who is best" is also factored in.

Going back to an earlier point of Deacons sometimes the subject of Religion is also used as a smokescreen for territorial accusation, problem then is how to you explain to the bishop that you are only going to convert a small garden allotment rather than a whole nation

With reference to G7 I certainly learnt a lot of painful lessons in that game, mainly don't sail a Russian Fleet outside harbour & don't let Agema negotiate a peace deal on your behalf.

Also I personally found the position too big for me to play properly the fact that I took it over in the middle of a war didn't help as I couldn't really get a space to breath. That coupled with personal factors which some of you are aware of both in family & work life made time to commit to the game even more difficult to find I wasn't doing allies or enemies a favour staying in the game. I can only wish the next player in the position the best of luck.

Well, sometimes Richard doesn't make it easier either.

In Game 8, Hispania retook Zanzibar. This is a traditional Portuguese holding that was taken by the Omani. I took it back. It was/is a center of the east african slave and spice trade, but it is hardly an enormous prize. The population of the entire island is 37,000. I am quite sure that the costs of retaking it exceed its benefit by a fair margin, but it was ours, after all.

After months of raiding on the Omani coast, demanding acknowledgment, still no peep out of them.

Same thing happened when after burning a pirate fleet that had harassed our shipping in the Sfax harbor in tunis and blockading Tunis' ports for months after demanding a pittance in restitution (the honor of the thing, after all), no word.

Admittedly, both of these were NPCs, but it can be frustrating in game to try to achieve a small objective and you wonder whether you should have just gone to full-scale "burn it all to the ground" war.