Peace is it Possible

Is it possible for players among themselves to come to terms to end in game conflicts, or is it only possible with Agema court intervention?

Is there any game where it has happened & both parties have remained in the game.

Historical peace deals could revolve around the exchange of a single town or fortress, players seem to make demands for entire countries.

It is further complicated by the fact that many in game wars are fought with allies on either side all with differing agendas further complicating matters.

Personal animosities & playing to the destruction of a position seem to be problematic to players creating their own peace settlements.

I would be interested to here views of others as to the way peace ahs been created in game without Agema intervention, or is it more a case of the loosing player simply dropping out & negotiations with an NPC( Agema) position being the norm.

In Scramble Britannia and Germania are about to sign a peace accord and one was already completed in the second year of the game with the CSA. It is possible to do so, but that is in something different the TGOK. Perhaps the speed of he game and that the fact that a disastrous defeat knocks one out of the game for a year or two is the reason to find to the death and then fade off. Not sure how the game could be set up to encourage a more historical setting and act for war.

I have always found it perfectly possible to come to an agreement with one other player.

The problem comes when more than one player is involved on both sides. Seems that very few players are willing to "abandon" allies and they prefer the fig leaf of a Agema Peace Conference even though they no these normally result in a really dodgy deal.

My fastest ever war was one between Rumelia and the Sultan........My T1 in game Sultan invades (10,000 Sultanate troops dead in Ditch at Athens, Janissary Corp loot Adrianople) T2 I surrender and beg of mercy while stressing total loyalty to the Porte T3 Mustapha Pasha got a full pardon and restoration of Offices with Eldest son joining Sultans Cavalry as a honoured hostage and Sultan marries Mustapha's daughter.

Whole "misunderstanding" neatly blamed on Grand Vizier foes in the Jannissary Corp. Pity Richard then picked up on this explanation and turned it into a hard fact in game. Creative explanations are seemingly not good for your health! Should have blamed it on Venetian Agents.

Some positions (Russia & Rumelia spring to mind) need the odd war to obtain their historic objectives but many players feel that if they attack a player run position and inflict a bad defeat on them they will drop out and this will have a negative effect on the game they are in.

Simple solution to this problem.............attack NPC positions

The problem with fighting Richard's NPC's is that its a bit like playing my Chess Computer. If you start off with a small fairly weak position a low setting means you will probably be able to annex a neighbour with a cunning plan and a dareing coup de main. But as your position grows stronger the difficulty setting gets turned up! And towns which were captured by a dashing Captain and his trusty regiment crawling through the drains now seem to have defences designed by Vurban, Governor's equiped with cystal balls and Garrisons which make the Knights of St John on Malta in 1565 look to have feeble morale. So prepare to use about x4 the resources you would expect and take about x5 as long.

On the plus side NPC's may not be willing to listen to your most generous Diplomacy in peace time but they are generally willing to make peace and not start a blood feud if you want to give up the effort and if they have suffered a number of defeats they are willing to consider an offer which leaves them with a reasonable and still playable position for a new player to take over. For example if Sweden losses one of its Baltic Provinces to a Czar with Naval ambitions it will lose recruits & tax income.

But following a Military defeat a peace offer which costs Stockholm one of its Baltic province but allows Swedish Nobles to keep their Baltic Estates, gives Sweden right to recruit, low tarriffs on trade with Russia and a large sum of cash to clear its war debts may well be accepted. Esp since it means Richard can pass a new player a position with cash in its treasury, a intact Army etc and a load of anti Russian NPC's and a map with Livonia marked "Annexed by Russia in 1707" in blood Red.

The same can apply to a NPC Venice and its holdings in Rumelia. A NPC Govt is never going to give them up no matter what you offer but a massive attack which takes the places followed up by offers to return POWs, return some of the captured locations and allow Venice to start to trade again may be accepted.

The danger with this type of campaign apart from some of Richard's NPC (I am sure in G2 the Syrian Janissary Corp did not need to eat, drink and had access to staffs of teleportation and cloaks of invisibility) is that Richard likes to offer new/returning a option to take over a position which is really active in the name so even if you start dealing with a NPC position you could end up dealing with player.

Classic example has to be England in G7. To obtain peace with France the London Govt of lead by John Churchill etc abandoned its allies, shipped King William off to Scotland and arranged a Jacobite restoration in England. But then dropped out after the murder of James II by his own Goverment outraged European & Public Opinion (Honour must have been very close to Zero).

At around the same time the French Govt which had been so important to the Jacobite restoration changed and as part of the Agema peace between France and its many European foes the Dutch obtained a French promise of none intervention in England. How difficult should it be to remove a abandoned NPC ex French Lackey & Papist who is hated by most of his own Parliament, People, Minor English positions like the HWIC and has really low honour and restore Good King William?..............well its gets a lot harder when Richard gives
English position to a very experienced player who wants to play a real red in tooth and claw Jacobite.

Since 9/10 players and a NPC English Govt would probably have shipped James III out of a Window or back to France and had a Protestant restoration this highlights the problem with making peace with players...............some of them do not want to make peace!
But in principal I think to fight a limited war and then end it the same principal's applies as with NPC govt:

1) Set out a clear and limited objective - ideal is one which other player can see is not personal and they can understand. Most Swedish players will understand that Russia wants a Baltic Sea Coast.

2) Accept that you disagree and the War is to decide a particular issue......the Last Argument of Kings.

3) Offer peace terms which give the other side an incentive to end war on terms. For example Russian campaign takes Narva and Tallinn and throws Swedes back to Riga.......If Russians then offer of peace, return of Narva, £5M compensation, permission to recruit 2,000 men per year and return of captured Garrisons in exchange for Sweden cedeing a Baltic Province and some technical help for future Russian campaign V Turks plus offering a free Hand in Baltic. This gives Swedes some options over how they can play game going forward......they can either fight on to try and recover Igena knowing next campaign season could cost the Livonia (a double or quit option). Or they can accept campaign outcome recover Narva & free Swedish Captives and start thinking about getting their losses back by taking over Norway or Danzig.

Generally speaking if you just give up without a fight you honour takes a dive and your armed forces morale is shot. But if you put up a good fight and then do a reasonable deal this will gain you honour/economic health even if you have suffered a technical defeat.

Also if you are willing to allow your diplomats to sort out a peace at a peace conference I think you are generally going to be better off doing it yourself since a conference peace is going to be a mess! Classic example from G7 has to be The Peace of Warsaw which left Russia in control of a major Polish trades ending in Riga and Russian Trade routes and its new Naval Base of St Petersburg ceded back to Sweden. Plus a major Swedish Fortress still on the route between Moscow and its new Port in Riga.

It would be virtually impossible to have drawn up a less satisfactory or messy peace treaty (on doubt Richard tried) than this one.

I wonder if rather than allowing Richard to draw up a treaty players could consider getting another player to draw up a treaty for them since historically a lot of treaties between Baltic Powers and the like were signed under influence of Louis XiV, English, Papal & Dutch diplomat's etc.

I've seen some of this in game 8. With a very large position, I find doing lots of things quite a bit more challenging.

I've also found that in general treating with NPCs is bloody hard, if you can do it at all.

In Game 8, I took back Zanzibar from the Omani who had historically taken it from the Portuguese a few decades back. I set my fleet on their shipping and said I'd stop when they acknowledged my rights to zanzibar.

Months later, it appears they have basically no shipping, and pirates managed to capture some of my shipping off africa, sail it PAST my fleet, and sell it in Oman.

The mind boggles. Maybe my fleet is really shacked up on some African shore, drinking rum and chasing the local girls while sending me missives about how hard they are working at it all.

Some SL 1 indian recruits I had rioted in buenos aires and headed off into the hinterlands. (to be fair, I did start shooting them after they rioted. Pedro's patience with riots isn't the greatest.). Now they've traveled 100s of miles with no food and are causing problem in the back country. I guess they've learned to catch and eat monkeys, or something.

At least I haven't had to threaten to hang any ministers lately for their cockups!

I do think the 'challenge mode' ratchets up for larger positions. I guess it does help to balance the game, but if you want to win a few wars, I suggest you start small and work up! Playing large can be an exercise in frustration at times.

I've just sent off a non-aggression treaty to a npc neighbour, fully expecting it to come to nought (based on past experience).

If I'm proven wrong, brilliant. There's a treaty in place.

If they don't sign, well I've a reason to war against them later on. Refusing to acknowledge my diplomatic mail, etc.

I expect a set of peace talks to come about in the none too distant future in southern Africa. Myself and a (different) npc. So will have to see how that goes - But I'd best, actually, start the war first