Game 10

Papa Clement wrote:
2 questions for the experts on cattle bones ...

1. I wonder if the difference in size could also be related to the size of farms/smallholdings.  If you have a small farm or villagers kept a single cow then I suspect its main function would be to provide dairy for the villagers rather than as part of a beef herd (where size is more important).   Were separate beef/dairy herds/breeds a result of later changes through selective breeding or at least in part a natural result of larger farms?

2. Thinking from the farmer's viewpoint, the key determinant on growth is quality of grass and its availability through the winter.  Surely even before selective breeding, farmers would cull the weaker/smaller cows from their herd when fodder was scarce.  Did this not apply especially in Scotland where grain from northern England was exported to help feed Scottish cattle?

Perhaps Rozwi herds, if unmanaged, would be more similar to Indian (Hindu) herds where milk yields fell because they would not eat cows?  Could simply separating large herds into dairy and beef, not result in improvements for both, especially since winter feed shouldn't be a problem in Rozwi?

Not heard the idea that Christianity brought an aversion of taking blood from animals before.  Certainly not the case at the time of the Jewish Temple, but I suppose Victorian protestant stories can be selective to please their audience.  I suppose it could have been an issue for missionaries seeking to discredit tribal practices?

Growth in Beef Cattle size in the Glori period and afterwards is down to a mixture of reasons including i) Selective breeding for size ii) Improved supply of animal food over winter.......in earlier periods even animals which were not slaughtered in autumn could lose as much as a third of their weight over winter, with developments like the Norfolk system and growing root crops to feed animals over winter this weight loss was substantially reduced iii) Larger enclosed fields sewed with meadow grass (which produced winter hay) resulted in more time eating for cattle and less time and energy spent looking for food.

Think the Rozwi cattle do not have problem summer/winter but a problem with Wet/Dry seaons. In the Dry seaon grazing will be in short supply and not good quality resulting in dead cattle and loss of weight.

Basically farming in Southern Africa is all about Water supply which would tend towards two options:

a) Keep the spirits happy so the rains come early and stay a long time

b) Get the Dutch to provide spades and windmills and find a really good water diviner.

Maybe if this was Scrabble Rowzi would be offered a

S pecial
P ointed
A dvanced
D igging
E xperimental ; Device by the Nipponese Government.

Windmills they can probably get if they ask the Dutch nicely & give them some of that strange yellow shiny metal stuff that is really quite useless for spear making.

Nice to see that A Mr Thomas Glover has arrived in Africa, I wonder if he is a distant relation of Mr Thomas Glover of Japanese fame, maybe he will continue the family tradition of hunting for the elusive wild Haggis & the Ultimate deep fried food recipe. Wonder what the Africans will make of his skirt, sorry, sorry I mean his Kilt of course.

I cannot claim much in the way of cattle lore, but I do have some insight on the influence of bride prices on cattle in Southern Africa. It’s almost 15 years ago, but I can still remember a lovely evening in a bar with four female colleagues from Botswana, discussing dowries.
All of us were recently married, and we were sharing experiences on wedding culture. In Botswana, the bulk of the dowry is still paid in cattle, and numbers certainly are more important than size of the cattle. It was explained to me that their figures impacted their price (more shapely equaled more cattle), and that prices varied from three to ten head of cattle (back in 2003). Three of the girls were Tswana tribes, one was a minor tribe (cannot for the life of me remember the name). Cattle had been and still was then fundamental source of wealth, life and social status. & it came down to numbers. Bigger herd = Bigger man. It was thoroughly intriguing to me (as I had paid cash and gold, under Malay tradition/Sharia law), and they explained their tradition went back over thousands of years. Playing it back into Gloire, cattle was and is the linchpin of economies and male status in large parts of Southern Africa.
I am not sure if my insight will help grow economies, but it could make for some fantastic role playing for Rowzi and others.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Growth in Beef Cattle size in the Glori period and afterwards is down to a mixture of reasons including i) Selective breeding for size ii) Improved supply of animal food over winter.......in earlier periods even animals which were not slaughtered in autumn could lose as much as a third of their weight over winter, with developments like the Norfolk system and growing root crops to feed animals over winter this weight loss was substantially reduced  iii) Larger enclosed fields sewed with meadow grass (which produced winter hay) resulted in more time eating for cattle and less time and energy spent looking for food.

Does make me wonder, how many of us do go into for that sort of selective breeding in-game, other than for horses? It's one of those things I keep thinking "I must open a stud farm for cattle breeding" but never get round to it in most games.

J Flower wrote:Nice to see that A Mr Thomas Glover has arrived in Africa, I wonder if he is a distant relation of Mr Thomas Glover of Japanese fame, maybe he will continue the family tradition of hunting for the elusive wild Haggis & the Ultimate deep fried food recipe. Wonder what the Africans will make of his skirt, sorry, sorry I mean his Kilt of course.

I believe G10's Glover is the great-great-grandfather of Scramble's Glover. I suspect he will share some traits with his great-great-grandson...maybe not the desire to deep-fry everything but I am sure he will end up being known as the "Scottish Rozwi"

Kerensky wrote:I cannot claim much in the way of cattle lore, but I do have some insight on the influence of bride prices on cattle in Southern Africa. It’s almost 15 years ago, but I can still remember a lovely evening in a bar with four female colleagues from Botswana, discussing dowries.
All of us were recently married, and we were sharing experiences on wedding culture. In Botswana, the bulk of the dowry is still paid in cattle, and numbers certainly are more important than size of the cattle. It was explained to me that their figures impacted their price (more shapely equaled more cattle), and that prices varied from three to ten head of cattle (back in 2003). Three of the girls were Tswana tribes, one was a minor tribe (cannot for the life of me remember the name). Cattle had been and still was then fundamental source of wealth, life and social status. & it came down to numbers. Bigger herd = Bigger man. It was thoroughly intriguing to me (as I had paid cash and gold, under Malay tradition/Sharia law), and they explained  their tradition went back over thousands of years. Playing it back into Gloire, cattle was and is the linchpin of economies and male status in large parts of Southern Africa.
I am not sure if my insight will help grow economies, but it could make for some fantastic role playing for Rowzi and others.

That's interesting...makes me wonder if cattle could be somehow worth developing as a trade to Southern Africa.

In Game you can do a simple form of selective breeding programme via the Stud farm/ Animal breeding research, so you can TRY & breed animals with higher milk yields, or beef cattle, similar for sheep with higher wool yields, basically think of how ot improve a breed tha tmay help your farming communities it takes at least a year of breeding then 1-2 years to introduce the new breed into the country. A quicker way to do it maybe to introduce all ready know breeds into an area you would still have a while ot wait until it is widely avaliable , but miss out on the initial breeding programme.

& yes Homing parrots are a breeding research, still having problems with the six legged chicken & Egglayingwoolmilkpork pig.

Been having an Think about the powers of the English & Scotisch monarcy.

As some of you may know as playerof the UDP I also have the honour of being King of England & Scotland, both positions have their own players. So I cannot simply shout & scream stamp my feet & expect Parliments to do my will & whim. It is not an Absolutist monarchy like France or Russia.

It is an odd situation as the treaty of Settlement places restrictions on the monarcy in England.
Just wondering if any other players have had a similar experience I don't have a problem with the setup, it is just a whole new experience for myself & I beleive the other two players as well, certainly enhances the need for diplomacy & compromise on all fronts. Have basically been put in a semi team position by Agema wether by accident or design I don't know. Certainly a differnt way to play.

Think the southern african concept of Cattle = Cash/Status/Brides rather limits the ability to develop a cattle trade in this trade zone.

Prior to modern shipping and refrigeration trade in animals tended to either involve "Drovers" who very slowly moved livestock to markets like Smithfield in London or the big markets in Constantinople along land based drove routes were animals could feed as they moved and keep their weight up.  Or if the animals were raised in colonies it tended to be hides and wool which got exported and the meat got eat locally.

Southern Africa in 1700 currently lacks big cities to act as markets and its social view of cattle is rather against their slaughter for hides.
But perhaps it could look at goats or sheep raised for wool as the basis of a livestock trade.

Its odd how wedding traditions seem to have had such a big influence on trade.  A lot of European trade with China & the Ottoman's grew on the basis of both of these Empires having a population explosion resulting in a greater demand for silver and gold to provide a Dowry.  The problem was that this gold/silver tended to then be stuck in the form of dowry jewellery which did not circulate and starved the economy of liquidity.

Fortunately in the Glori Period Spain saved the day for Manchu Brides by exporting huge amounts of Silver from South America which filled the gap.  Unfortunately, by the Scabble period those naughty Brits and others had started to fund their imports of Tea etc from China with Opium and the flow of silver went into reverse.  Since the Mongol/Manchu troopers still needed to be payed in Silver to pay for their weddings etc this resulted in loss of liquidity and financial crisis.

In G7 when not trying to keep the Ladies of China supplied with silver and the ladies of Europe and America in their silk's (with nice Flanders lace trim) and supplied with tea (with alternative of Coffee or hot Chocolate).  The Govt of Spain basically spends its time trying to cultivate a image as a nice kindly bunch of Country Gentlemen and Ladies who want to improve their Estates etc this has resulted in the breeding of the:

- The Greater Toledo Pig
- The King Carlos Sheep (improved meat yield)
- The Toledo Merino sheep (improved wool yield)
- The Barcelona Beef cow
- The Charleroi Dairy cow
- The Llanos Beef cow...........If people ever wonder why the Spanish border in the America's seems to be creeping north.......its the cows honest!  The cows are looking for grazing and the Rancharo's have to follow them.

And yes I am aware that cuddly friendly "Farmer" Charles of Spain may be in the wrong game.  Clearly everyone would have been a lot happier if he was in G10

J Flower wrote:Been having an Think about the powers of the English & Scotisch monarcy.

As some of you may know as playerof the UDP I also have the honour of being King of England & Scotland, both positions have their own players. So I cannot simply shout & scream stamp my feet & expect Parliments to do my will & whim. It is not an Absolutist monarchy like France or  Russia.

It is an odd situation as the treaty of Settlement places restrictions on the monarcy in England.
Just wondering if any other players have had a similar experience I don't have  a problem with the setup, it is just a whole new experience for myself & I beleive the other two players as well, certainly enhances the need for diplomacy & compromise on all fronts. Have basically been put in a semi team position by Agema wether by accident or design I don't know. Certainly a differnt way to play.

I do feel both England and myself are lucky that William is played by someone who not only understands the historical limits of the monarchy in Scotland and England but also doesn't try and boss us around. Can you imagine if we had someone playing William who was "I'm King so do as I say"? Not only would history be used on him, he would personally get short rift from me-before anyone tries "but he's the king, he has power", let me explain, I'm the one paying to play Scotland, so I'm the one who gets to decide how I play my position As Jason says, we're a semi-team position and to a degree I feel that's because we've chosen to play like that.

It's a bit different (I think?) to Ottoman positions where players do have limits on what they can do and what they need to refer to the Sultan for. In the Scottish setup there is nothing that requires royal approval before I do it and there is no royal power over my position. For me, it makes G10 so much fun to play, I do really enjoy the in-game interaction between the UDP, England and Scotland as we find ways to work together while still being independent positions I could easily see a situation, for example, where the UDP might declare war on someone and Jason, as William, would turn to England and Scotland and ask us both to do the same, and one of us doing so and the other declining as the war isn't in their interest. I also suspect that given the historical concerns over too much royal power among the ruling elites in both England and Scotland, if such a situation occurred and then the King player tried to force the issue by trying to wield royal power, the dissenting player would find their domestic position being boosted as they defied the attempts of the foreign king to overrule the wishes of parliament.
Luckily I am certain such a position would never occur in G10, if for no other reason that Jason knows honey works better than vinegar .

It's interesting to compare it to China, the "team" position I have most experience of (even if I am usually the only team member active). The NPC/Agema-played Emperor does have quite a bit of power. For example I need his approval to change taxes and there are occasions when "The Emperor" counteracts some of my actions. These have included preventing me from offering Chinese recruits to another nation; telling me to stop referring to foreign rulers in a too friendly manner; telling me to stop saying I am his most faithful servant; gave instructions to invade certain other nations (for reasons I never worked out). It's all part of being in such a team position but very different to G10. There did also used to be a rule for the Chinese team in that you couldn't ever attack any other Chinese position (so no naughtily overthrowing the Emperor), at least there was in the long forgotten days of G2-not sure if that rule is still there, I think it is implied and I do play as if it is still there (despite others regularly telling me seize the throne ) I wouldn't say this Imperial oversight really affects my game play but on occasion I do stop and think "if I do this, will 'the Emperor' object?"

Stuart Bailey wrote:Think the southern african concept of Cattle = Cash/Status/Brides rather limits the ability to develop a cattle trade in this trade zone.

Sorry Stuart, I didn't explain my musing properly, it was a quick thought. I was more thinking of developing cattle as a way of trading with African tribes. They don't want coin, not all would want weapons but maybe it would be worth having (if you have a South African outpost), a small "cattle industry" (or stud farm?) there to then use those cattle to "buy" whatever you need/want from the tribes? I suspect you would need to use local cattle so getting hold of some with which to start things off might take a bit of work but wouldn't be impossible I'm sure.

J Flower wrote:Been having an Think about the powers of the English & Scotisch monarcy.

As some of you may know as playerof the UDP I also have the honour of being King of England & Scotland, both positions have their own players. So I cannot simply shout & scream stamp my feet & expect Parliments to do my will & whim. It is not an Absolutist monarchy like France or  Russia.

It is an odd situation as the treaty of Settlement places restrictions on the monarcy in England.
Just wondering if any other players have had a similar experience I don't have  a problem with the setup, it is just a whole new experience for myself & I beleive the other two players as well, certainly enhances the need for diplomacy & compromise on all fronts. Have basically been put in a semi team position by Agema wether by accident or design I don't know. Certainly a differnt way to play.

G2 Ottoman Empire was at its best when it had a player Sultan (Anatolia) who wanted to role play but not re-organize the Empire to his own advantage or tell everyone how to do things, plus a player running Rumelia (me as Grand Vizier) and another player as the Bey of Egypt.

The Sultan basically allowed Rumelia and Egypt internal attonomy, listened to his advisors but then came out with these wildly worded orders like "Bring me the head of XXXX" and organized the forces of Anatolia as the central reserve of the Empire ie emphasis on Naval, Transports and Light Cavalry so support could be rushed to a Bey in trouble.

The Sultan's generous nature, awards of fancy titles awarded and all round making from the centre greatly helped the frontier Beys who I like to think responded with real loyalty.  Which did wonders for the Sultans honour score and the effect of Ottoman Military campaigns.

Problem was after the Sultanate player dropped out (still say he was posioned by the Janissary Corp) Rumelia then spent the rest of the game mourning its beloved Sultan and being stabbed in the back by questionable birth NPC's and even a couple of Sultans who seemed to have been briefed that I was the foe!

On your first turn sending someone a letter ordering them to execute their own Nephew and saying you are going to re-organize the Empire so Thrace and Bulgaria are now part of Anatolia is really not the way to head up a semi Team position!

Terrible pity since if another player had picked up and run with policies of the Sultan I think we would have had a chance of breaking the Shia and Russian threats and perhaps even having a re-united Roman Empire ruled from Constantinople & St Peters turned into a Mosque.

PS Have just read later post from Jason and can confirm that Ottoman positions can do what they want........but if you oppress your Beys or they revolt it tends to have a negative effect on honour and economic health while if you co-operate it has a positive effect.

Stuart Bailey wrote:

J Flower wrote:Been having an Think about the powers of the English & Scotisch monarcy.

As some of you may know as playerof the UDP I also have the honour of being King of England & Scotland, both positions have their own players. So I cannot simply shout & scream stamp my feet & expect Parliments to do my will & whim. It is not an Absolutist monarchy like France or  Russia.

It is an odd situation as the treaty of Settlement places restrictions on the monarcy in England.
Just wondering if any other players have had a similar experience I don't have  a problem with the setup, it is just a whole new experience for myself & I beleive the other two players as well, certainly enhances the need for diplomacy & compromise on all fronts. Have basically been put in a semi team position by Agema wether by accident or design I don't know. Certainly a differnt way to play.

G2 Ottoman Empire was at its best when it had a player Sultan (Anatolia) who wanted to role play but not re-organize the Empire to his own advantage or tell everyone how to do things, plus a player running Rumelia (me as Grand Vizier) and another player as the Bey of Egypt.

The Sultan basically allowed Rumelia and Egypt internal attonomy, listened to his advisors but then came out with these wildly worded orders like "Bring me the head of XXXX" and organized the forces of Anatolia as the central reserve of the Empire ie emphasis on Naval, Transports and Light Cavalry so support could be rushed to a Bey in trouble.

The Sultan's generous nature, awards of fancy titles awarded and all round making from the centre greatly helped the frontier Beys who I like to think responded with real loyalty.  Which did wonders for the Sultans honour score and the effect of Ottoman Military campaigns.

Problem was after the Sultanate player dropped out (still say he was posioned by the Janissary Corp) Rumelia then spent the rest of the game mourning its beloved Sultan and being stabbed in the back by questionable birth NPC's and even a couple of Sultans who seemed to have been briefed that I was the foe!

On your first turn sending someone a letter ordering them to execute their own Nephew and saying you are going to re-organize the Empire so Thrace and Bulgaria are now part of Anatolia is really not the way to head up a semi Team position!

Terrible pity since if another player had picked up and run with policies of the Sultan I think we would have had a chance of breaking the Shia and Russian threats and perhaps even having a re-united Roman Empire ruled from Constantinople & St Peters turned into a Mosque.

PS Have just read later post from Jason and can confirm that Ottoman positions can do what they want........but if you oppress your Beys or they revolt it tends to have a negative effect on honour and economic health while if you co-operate it has a positive effect.

I was going on experience from G7 when as Moldavia I had to get permission to change taxation levels

Jason wrote:In the Scottish setup there is nothing that requires royal approval before I do it and there is no royal power over my position.  For me, it makes G10 so much fun to play, I do really enjoy the in-game interaction between the UDP, England and Scotland as we find ways to work together while still being independent positions  I could easily see a situation, for example, where the UDP might declare war on someone and Jason, as William, would turn to England and Scotland and ask us both to do the same, and one of us doing so and the other declining as the war isn't in their interest.  I also suspect that given the historical concerns over too much royal power among the ruling elites in both England and Scotland, if such a situation occurred and then the King player tried to force the issue by trying to wield royal power, the dissenting player would find their domestic position being boosted as they defied the attempts of the foreign king to overrule the wishes of parliament.  

It's interesting to compare it to China, the  "team" position I have most experience of (even if I am usually the only team member active).  The NPC/Agema-played Emperor does have quite a bit of power.  For example I need his approval to change taxes and there are occasions when "The Emperor" counteracts some of my actions.  These have included preventing me from offering Chinese recruits to another nation; telling me to stop referring to foreign rulers in a too friendly manner; telling me to stop saying I am his most faithful servant; gave instructions to invade certain other nations (for reasons I never worked out).  It's all part of being in such a team position but very different to G10.  There did also used to be a rule for the Chinese team in that you couldn't ever attack any other Chinese position (so no naughtily overthrowing the Emperor), at least there was in the long forgotten days of G2-not sure if that rule is still there, I think it is implied and I do play as if it is still there (despite others regularly telling me seize the throne   )  I wouldn't say this Imperial oversight really affects my game play but on occasion I do stop and think "if I do this, will 'the Emperor' object?"

Thank you for all the cattle posts, very interesting.

This comparison between 'team' positions in what I will call the Protestant faction (England/Scotland/UDP) and Chinese positions - same player playing different positions in different games, but inactive or NPC authorities responding in different ways.

I am fortunate that in Italy there are several active players so in a sense I am obliged to adopt more of a team approach with them - not something I am particularly familiar with!

Whilst I completely agree that as the player paying for the position, Jason is entitled to play any way he decides, there are inevitable consequences in Scotland as much as he admitted there were in China.   Surely you do stop and think "if I do this, will King William object, or will this cause problems for me later down the line?"   So I don't think there is that big a difference.

The trade off is surely between what is theoretically possible and what is necessary.  I suggest that the whole point of a team position is that team members support each other, not just in terms of holding parties and saying nice things about each other, but coming to their aid when asked.   If, for example, UDP was attacked, it is surely inconceivable that (as Jason outlined) the Scottish Parliament would not help?  And if that was the case then surely Scottish nobles would split between those who wanted to help their King and those, like Jason, who are committed to abandoning him?  There may be constitutional allowances to be made in Scotland, and it may be that William is simply an absent King in name only with no effective power, but is it wise for Jason to distance himself?  Surely if he does not back William when he is in trouble, then isn't he inviting the same treatment when Scotland is in trouble?

I repeat, I am not saying Jason cannot play in a certain way - that is his choice - but if you are in a team then surely you should recognise your obligations to that team, not just expect your teammates to recognise their obligations to you?  If a protestant nation attacked a Catholic nation, then as Pope I would certainly support the Catholic nation - Catholics stick together and frankly I would not be much of a Pope if I didn't help my flock.

Is this not the situation in Poland?  Prince Stanislaus alleges that King Augustus failed to meet his obligations as the elected King, so another was elected.  If William has so little standing in Scotland that for all practical purposes he is ignored, then does Scotland need a King?  Is not Kingship fundamentally incompatible with Calvinism anyway?  Is Scotland not really a republic in all but name, clinging to the idea of a foreign King because they don't have the courage to change it, or can't agree on which native Scot would replace him?   There is no natural friendship between Scotland/England/UDP - Scotland wants independence from UK but not Europe; England wants independence from Europe, but not Scotland (except in my part of the world where the demand is for us to be given a vote in any Scottish independence referendum so we can vote to dump Scotland).  If memory serves, the Stuarts were Scottish Kings, but for most of the 1600s they struggled with their English subjects, and England/UDP fought several wars.  So whilst it is great that we have the coincidence of 3 players who have formed a mutual congratulation society and are happy with that arrangement, trying to isolate themselves in a bubble from the rest of the world, I suspect that eventually that bubble will burst.  It may well burst sooner if France attacks UDP and England/Scotland shrug their shoulders and declare that it isn't their problem!

These are all hypothetical questions not designed to embarrass the players or criticise the way they have chosen to play.  I merely point out that in real life, informal loose associations tend to muddle through in the good times, but break up in the bad, yet it is when things get tricky that you most need your friends to help out.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, I tend to play historically and feel bound by the character.  Pope Clement was a canon lawyer, elected precisely to deal with the Spanish Succession.  So he would look for legal solutions to problems (boring, but life often is).  His other main interest was books, so at some point I will probably expand the Vatican library.  My nobles/cardinals have a reasonable expectation that I will adopt a lawyer's approach - that is why they elected me.  Lawyers do not respond to insults, they just add a little to the bill.   If, by contrast I had decided from day 1 that I would model Pope Clement on Pope Julius (the warrior pope), and start hiring huge armies and invading my neighbours, then I would expect the curia/nobles to object, my honour to collapse and frankly I would only have myself to blame for this.  So I think we are, as players, bound to follow some semblance of the history of our character.   Is that not also why we choose to play a certain position: it would be pointless choosing to play an Ottoman Sultan only to decide to convert to Christianity and find the Empire broke up as a result.  It would be equally pointless to choose to play a Catholic nation/character, but then set yourself on a collision course with the church and play as though that nation was protestant.  Of course it can be done, but it does seem to be somewhat of a strange decision to do so.  I don't think I could ever play an Ottoman nation in the way it needs to be played any more than I could play Calvinist UDP.  I would find playing a Chinese position interesting, but I'm not sure I could ever think like they do or do true justice to the position.  And if we don't at least try to do that then are we not reducing our positions to their economic/military potential and disregarding their historical/cultural basis?

.

That is where the diplomacy & compromise bit comes in. So Far in Game it seems to have worked, after the recent famine(s) all three positions owrked otgether to help one another overcome the shortfall. Other nations know an attack on one is an attack on all three

I don't get the impression Scotland is deserting or failing ot support the King William position, quite the opposite in fact, Along with England both those players have been extremly helpful cooprative & supportive toward King William. regular letters help build bonds of mutual respect, friendship & willingness ot help one another

We are playing a GAME, repeat GAME, yes it has historiclal background but to all intents & purposes it is GAME we should all play to enjoy & play in a way that is enjoyable ot ourselves & others. I am wary of demanding others do as I command in game as this may encourage the famous two fingered salute & eventual departure from the game which would weaken the whole structure of the game we all enjoy playing. It is a danger of the GAME ot be blinded by what happened historically & to try & play the historical narrative too closely, simply because all the other players have read the histories as well.

People have a right to agree with the way others play, or disagree that is afterall their freely given right, I for one intend to continue playing the way I do, as I feel comfortable playing alongside my fellow players

The union of Maritime powers is currently doing alright, yes it may all go pear shaped such is life, until it all goes wrong we are going to enjoy the show. Now if someone will declare war in Italy see about organising some Pop corn.

I agree about it being a game. It is valuable to have a sense of the historical context, but...

-Not all players are historians. I think it is sort of unfair to players who don't want to feel like they have to know a ton about history of their particular position to be able to just play a game.

-This isn't a historical re-creation exactly. Our objective is to have fun, and to take an alternate course through history. Will our choices result in a different/better world for our nation? Some of the positions people play historically were pretty sucky to be honest. As a game, those positions have to have the potential to be more than they were or the game just fails. Who wants to play a broken position that must stay broken?

My view is that if you want to go crazy with your position, be my guest. The honour system is designed to keep you generally on-course, but if you want to just go off the rails, you can. Even in game 7 though, where I think King James is more than a bit crazy, it still is playing out in a reasonable historical context. I mean an Englishman did murder his father in cold blood. I can well imagine him burning down parliament after that!

J Flower wrote:Other nations know an attack on one is an attack on all three.

Unless I misunderstood, Jason's original point was that he would not necessarily oblige Scotland to come to UDP's aid, but would play in his own way and would not follow any orders you gave.

Whilst respecting his right to play like that, I merely suggested that there would likely be consequences if he chose that path, consequences Jason seemed to acknowledge from his own experience playing a Chinese position.  My comments were not a criticism of him, you or your team, as I hope I made clear not just once, but twice in the post.  I am sure we would all agree that we want to enjoy the game and try, as I do, to help others enjoy the game as well.

There are different ways of playing historically and still remaining true to the reasonable expectations of your nobles.  But it would seem to be hard to maintain an effective team if each member is his own captain and randomly selects his response through self-interest, alternatively supporting or undermining his team leader.   In 1700 society did not work like that and throughout history I don't know of any army or government that does either.  The Catholic church is hierarchical and undemocratic, but then there is only 1 church, whereas there are 30,000 protestant sects, most of which disagree with each other. The compromise is surely in accepting that leadership and having confidence that achieving your shared objectives is worth the sacrifice.  If JFlower and his protestant faction can pull this off in the way they are comfortable with then good luck to them.  I'm sure he will pass on his tips for herding cats to such less skilled players like me, who would find it much more difficult to keep a flock together without the aid of a sheepdog.

Anyone else having one of those feeling that they wished they hadn't posted anything at all?

I was trying to get across that the situation with England, Scotland and the UDP in G10 is different to a normal team position. For those who are not aware, generally in Glory games there are no in-game mechanics that mean England and Scotland, let alone the UDP, are a team position. The fact that in G10 we have decided to is one the players have made together and I was imply putting across the idea that means there could, in theory, be a flexibility in that relationship that might not be present in the more formal team positions. Now "in theory" does not mean in any way that something will happen, simply it is a chance to express ideas and concept.

I am starting to suspect some may be trying to use the forum to spread doubt and concern among players as to my intentions, which to me would put them in breach of Richard's recent announcement I feel.

After Work experience with Yeti Haggis herders keeping the Maritime Union position on track is easy.

I think there is actually a bond between the players we currently have in the Scots, English & UDP position, if on eis in trouble the others are willing ot help, the "King" figure/ character is the unifying element to the position, rather than treaties. Technically you could argue that we have an in game alliance. But with strings attached as laws in the English & Scots Parliaments specify that they can only go to war with Parlimentary approval. In a similar way the Staadtsgenerals is not a unified body but a collection of Provinces controlled by the Staadtgeneral with the Staadtholder at its head.

Basically constant letters , having a common in game goal & enjoying yourself is the best way ofrward, be prepared ot see the point of view of others even if it is compltely againt your own views. Then you stand at least a small chance of success. It isn't so much a case of herding more a case of showing the way.

There is also a great deal o fluck involved I think in the combination of players that has come about in G10 simply by chance as I have played along side Both players in other games & we always seem to have been on friendly terms.

Deacon wrote:
I agree about it being a game. It is valuable to have a sense of the historical context, but...

-Not all players are historians. I think it is sort of unfair to players who don't want to feel like they have to know a ton about history of their particular position to be able to just play a game.

-This isn't a historical re-creation exactly. Our objective is to have fun, and to take an alternate course through history. Will our choices result in a different/better world for our nation? Some of the positions people play historically were pretty sucky to be honest. As a game, those positions have to have the potential to be more than they were or the game just fails. Who wants to play a broken position that must stay broken?

My view is that if you want to go crazy with your position, be my guest. The honour system is designed to keep you generally on-course, but if you want to just go off the rails, you can. Even in game 7 though, where I think King James is more than a bit crazy, it still is playing out in a reasonable historical context. I mean an Englishman did murder his father in cold blood. I can well imagine him burning down parliament after that!

Fair points - the game is meta history, but it is not unreasonable to expect any player who joins a game set in a certain historical period to have at least a basic feel for that period, and the rulebooks do provide a lot of guidance on, for example, which research is achievable in period and which isn't.  We don't have to be slaves to history to play in a manner which respects the historical attitudes and conventions of the period, one of which is the expectation that if your King decides on a course of action then you would need a very good reason for not obeying him and if you did go down that path then there would likely be consequences in the way that other players/characters dealt with you in future.  I don't think there have been many instances of players deciding to crucify criminals or throw them to the lions - that being out of period for LGDR, but quite within period for the new Rome game.  The consequences I referred to were not a personal threat, but alluded to the honour system and the way that characters (active or inactive) were likely to respond to your actions/gameplay.  I don't think Jason's interpretation of the Lord President of Scotland is of a crazy madman - he has set out how he plays with historical justification which he is free to do and will no doubt make a success of it.  I just struggle to reconcile that approach with his stated antipathy towards his King, a King who no doubt he would expect to come to his aid if Scotland was attacked.

Jason - thank you for your clarification.  With 1928 posts it is likely you do regret some of them.  I am sure there is no doubt as to your intentions - you have made them very clear to everyone.  Richard's recent announcement was directed at private messaging, not public posts, but if you believe anything I have commented upon or observed puts you at a disadvantage then you can complain as can others.   If 3 players have chosen, with his agreement, to play in a certain way then I am glad you have made this known.  I am sure you will have a lot of fun doing so.

Deacon wrote:
I agree about it being a game. It is valuable to have a sense of the historical context, but...

-Not all players are historians. I think it is sort of unfair to players who don't want to feel like they have to know a ton about history of their particular position to be able to just play a game.

-This isn't a historical re-creation exactly. Our objective is to have fun, and to take an alternate course through history. Will our choices result in a different/better world for our nation? Some of the positions people play historically were pretty sucky to be honest. As a game, those positions have to have the potential to be more than they were or the game just fails. Who wants to play a broken position that must stay broken?

My view is that if you want to go crazy with your position, be my guest. The honour system is designed to keep you generally on-course, but if you want to just go off the rails, you can. Even in game 7 though, where I think King James is more than a bit crazy, it still is playing out in a reasonable historical context. I mean an Englishman did murder his father in cold blood. I can well imagine him burning down parliament after that!

Completely agree with you Deacon, and got to say I continue to be amazed by your recent actions and successes. Hats off to you, it's quite amazing what you have managed to achieve in the last few turns. Maybe you need to be offering a few masterclasses

Personally. I think its fun to play a position which did not do that well historically like the Swedes, Ottomans, Spanish Hapsburgs, Poles etc and see if you can do better than history.  Though I am the first to admitt that because it is a game Richard has given some people more of a sporting chance than they may have had in real life.

If you have played in a couple of games also think its interesting to play opposite sides.  So if you have played the Emperor perhaps you could give the French, Ottomans or Hungarian rebels a go and see how things look from the other side of the hill.

Think the tricky bit is how close should you stick to historic examples.......here I am perfectly happy to run riot with minor/lesser known positions but for the sake of how the game feels I think major better known positions should stick closer to the historic options.

Thus in G10 I do not have a clue if the historic Forbin had a neice or not let alone one who was the mistress of the Count of Anjou.  But Bourbons were famous for having the odd influential mistress or two so this seemed to fit the period.  But when the historic option is do you crown a Hapsburg or a Bourbon I strongly dislike miracle babies and the like because that does not seem to fit the period or the Dynastic based politics of the period.

However, I did not like it when a Protest English Government in G7 decided to restore James II to get it out of a small problem with the French since my feeling was that abandoning your religion for a tactical advantage was just all wrong for the period.  In the event from a game point of view the betrayal of King William and the restoration of the Stuarts by a Cabal of plotters in London has worked out really well.  Not so well for the British or for the plotters who got rather more than they were expecting when they let the Jacobite line back.

Think the knowledge that Richard sometimes "lifts" idea's is one reason why the Anglo-Dutch-Scots "Gang of three" in G10 are united in opposition to Jacobites and the would be James III in particular.

J Flower wrote:After Work experience with Yeti Haggis herders keeping the Maritime Union position on track is easy.

I think there is actually a bond between the players we currently have in the Scots, English & UDP position, if on eis in trouble the others are willing ot help, the "King" figure/ character is the unifying element to the position, rather than treaties. Technically you could argue that we have an in game alliance. But with strings attached as laws in the English & Scots Parliaments specify that they can only go to war with Parlimentary approval. In a similar way the Staadtsgenerals is not a unified body but a collection of Provinces controlled by the Staadtgeneral with the Staadtholder at its head.

Basically constant letters , having a common in game goal & enjoying yourself is the best way ofrward, be prepared ot see the point of view of others even if it is compltely againt your own views. Then you stand at least a small chance of success. It isn't so much a case of herding more a case of showing the way.

There is also a great deal o fluck involved I think in the combination of players that has come about in G10 simply by chance as I have played along side Both players in other games & we always seem to have been on friendly terms.

An excellent summary  And perhaps "alliance" is a better description than "team".  An alliance of three equal partners and it's working

Mind you, given the MIGHT that is the Royal Scots Navy, maybe instead of "Maritime Union", the name "Maritime Union +1" might be more appropriate

Maybe Stadtholder/King William should offer to run workshops for other rulers "how to work with your stakeholders"?

Stuart Bailey wrote:Personally. I think its fun to play a position which did not do that well historically like the Swedes, Ottomans, Spanish Hapsburgs, Poles etc and see if you can do better than history.  Though I am the first to admitt that because it is a game Richard has given some people more of a sporting chance than they may have had in real life.

Completely agree with you, in fact it's actually why I avoid major positions and go for places like Scotland or China. The fun I get out of making Scotland financially stable, socially content and militarily as good as it can be...or a China that is prosperous and outward looking...is greater than I would get out fo making, say, France or England successful