Game 10

I just wanted to add that I agree with Deacon's post a lot but see merit in the others too. Ultimately this is a game and a game we pay for, so within reason the positions have to give us a degree of enjoyment.

I consider myself a keen amateur historian and I love the research this game encourages in me personally. In this version I am playing a non-European position for the first time and while I might not get it perfect I try my hardest to be as accurate as possible.

What does astound me, and sometimes make me feel "inadequate" (for want of a better word) is some of the knowledge you all have. It is genuinely impressive and scary at the same time.

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

... as I suggested in post 449.

J Flower wrote:Basically constant letters , having a common in game goal & enjoying yourself is the best way forward, be prepared to see the point of view of others even if it is completely against 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 of luck 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.

Looks like I am doing something right then, lots of letters to encourage common in game goals, being prepared to see the viewpoint of others.  
I'm obviously a natural team player.  The things you learn about yourself on this forum.  

Now all I have to do is to find a way for my naturally tolerant and fair personality to elicit positive replies to my in-game letters from certain nations/players who seem to struggle with diplomacy.  
I suppose there is always the chance that my letters were stolen by the same miscreant who intercepted Jason's letters a month back?  See, what a lot we have in common, Jason  I'm sure you will be able to write regularly to Rome, as Stadtholder William does, with your concerns and encouragement.   I promise I will reply.

count-de-monet wrote:I just wanted to add that I agree with Deacon's post a lot but see merit in the others too.  Ultimately this is a game and a game we pay for, so within reason the positions have to give us a degree of enjoyment.

I consider myself a keen amateur historian and I love the research this game encourages in me personally.  In this version I am playing a non-European position for the first time and while I might not get it perfect I try my hardest to be as accurate as possible.

What does astound me, and sometimes make me feel "inadequate" (for want of a better word) is some of the knowledge you all have.  It is genuinely impressive and scary at the same time.

Must admit I'm the same in regards research In some ways, for myself I'm not sure which has proved harder, finding reliable sources on early 18th Century Scotland or China I was lucky that I can call on favours at work to sometimes get hold of sources but even when in Scotland, it sometimes seemed easier to get hold of reliable sources on China than Scotland (a lot of Scottish history does seem to be written from an English perspective, even when written by Scots).

On the subject of research does anyone know what it means if a characters comes under an Imperial Ban?

As if having Trouin called a depraved and fornicating lapdog by a de-frocked Priest/Agent who can even work out if he is acting as a Protestant Rebel or a Catholic Rebel was not bad enough.

My company Chairman who is also a Nephew of Louis XIV and married to one of Louis XIV daughters, brother of the Duchess of Lorraine, son of a Priness of the Palantine and a full Prince of the Blood Royal may be about to pick up a Imperial Ban? So I was wondering what this means?

Thinking of having envoy in the Diet draw up a list and anyone who votes against the ban gets a white spot and anyone who votes for gets a black spot.

As the English portion of the "trinity" I must state the understanding of our position is that of a team approach. We all prosper by working with each other and I trust that we can continue to do so. While this might not follow along historical lines to the letter it does follow along the lines of three individual gentlemen who pay to play in a game that represents a particular historical age. Indeed, it would seem that our efforts have some met with success and long may they do so.

I should note with some certainty that we are not far removed from 1649 and the warning that holds for monarchs in England. You know... Protestants will protest.

We are, by many definitions, a fairly kookie set of cats. In a world of instant gratification, we have all gravitated towards a game that plays out a turn a month, with a short term in-game horizon set in real time years. Some of us are laying plans that may cover a large part of our remaining lifespans. We write stories & tales worthy of a far wider publication. We create a world in our collective minds, that in reality lives only in paper and spreadsheets. Personally, I think that we all choose to do this makes a pretty special bunch.
But we are, despite this, across a very broad spectrum of kookie cat. Some of us are dedicating a tremendous amount of time to research, across a board spectra, some of us are sharing knowledge from a lifetime of work & some of us are daydreaming of being on the deck of a wooden frigate, while we make up wild and whacky stories about our characters. Some may be doing all three. Some have a well developed plan, laid out over a decade in advance, while others make it up as they go along, based on books they have read recently, how they feel and what may look fairly amusing in next months paper.
The beautiful thing is that there is room for all of us in this wonderful game. & the reality is we will probably piss each other off occasionally. I know I get pissed of occasionally and I have occasionally pissed people off. But, I try not to make habit of it, and after a few days, both fade. Because ultimately, we need each other, as I don’t see a long queue of kookie cats to replace us.
Ladies & Gentlemen, we are the last of the dinosaurs, and what a fine company we make!

What another great post - this time #462 from Kerensky. Kind of perfectly sums up my view of the game too.

I can probably be corrected but from memory I don't think I have yet initiated an attack on another active player in all my time playing. I have used my military forces against a player who has attacked me but I get my wargame "fix" from targeted non-player positions.

Any players who recognise me for in game positions will know I really struggle with the concept of attacking an active player as there is a risk it forces that player out of the game which weakens the game world.

It is often pointed out to me by players that wargaming IS an important element of the game though and I have no issue with players who do treat it more as a wargame.

On the matter of team positions, I try to generate this through diplomacy but it has created some odd alliances. I would really love to be a genuine historic "alliance" like the Ottoman Empire/China/ England, Scotland & UDP

Stuart Bailey wrote:On the subject of research does anyone know what it means if a characters comes under an Imperial Ban?

As if having Trouin called a depraved and fornicating lapdog by a de-frocked Priest/Agent who can even work out if he is acting as a Protestant Rebel or a Catholic Rebel was not bad enough.  

My company Chairman who is also a Nephew of Louis XIV and married to one of Louis XIV daughters, brother of the Duchess of Lorraine, son of a Priness of the Palantine and a full Prince of the Blood Royal may be about to pick up a Imperial Ban?  So I was wondering what this means?

Thinking of having envoy in the Diet draw up a list and anyone who votes against the ban gets a white spot and anyone who votes for gets a black spot.

My understanding, historically rather than in game terms, is it meant you were an outlaw. You technically lost all rights and possessions and were legally considered dead. It also meant if someone killed you then your murderer could not be punished for doing so-as you were an outlaw, they had committed no crime in murdering you.

It was reversible but not sure of the process for doing so.

count-de-monet wrote:What another great post - this time #462 from Kerensky.  Kind of perfectly sums up my view of the game too.

I can probably be corrected but from memory I don't think I have yet initiated an attack on another active player in all my time playing.  I have used my military forces against a player who has attacked me but I get my wargame "fix" from targeted non-player positions.

Any players who recognise me for in game positions will know I really struggle with the concept of attacking an active player as there is a risk it forces that player out of the game which weakens the game world.  

It is often pointed out to me by players that wargaming IS an important element of the game though and I have no issue with players who do treat it more as a wargame.

On the matter of team positions, I try to generate this through diplomacy but it has created some odd alliances.  I would really love to be a genuine historic "alliance" like the Ottoman Empire/China/ England, Scotland & UDP

Must admit I am also reluctant to attack another player, for the reasons you state...plus I am loath to lose any of my army after spending time and money raising them, drilling them, naming the regiment etc

Team positions are quite fun. They aren't for everyone of course but they do give you a different sort of engagement with other players and, as long as enough players in the team active, you can perhaps divide responsibilities up (one could focus on the army, another the navy, maybe one player might develop trade as a whole for the team etc)

Jason wrote:

Stuart Bailey wrote:On the subject of research does anyone know what it means if a characters comes under an Imperial Ban?

As if having Trouin called a depraved and fornicating lapdog by a de-frocked Priest/Agent who can even work out if he is acting as a Protestant Rebel or a Catholic Rebel was not bad enough.  

My company Chairman who is also a Nephew of Louis XIV and married to one of Louis XIV daughters, brother of the Duchess of Lorraine, son of a Priness of the Palantine and a full Prince of the Blood Royal may be about to pick up a Imperial Ban?  So I was wondering what this means?

Thinking of having envoy in the Diet draw up a list and anyone who votes against the ban gets a white spot and anyone who votes for gets a black spot.

My understanding, historically rather than in game terms, is it meant you were an outlaw.  You technically lost all rights and possessions and were legally considered dead.  It also meant if someone killed you then your murderer could not be punished for doing so-as you were an outlaw, they had committed no crime in murdering you.

It was reversible but not sure of the process for doing so.

My own understanding concurs with Jason. I am not sure what it will mean in game terms, although I am fairly certain you will lose your subscription to 'Imperial Princes Monthly' for the duration of any Imperial Ban. Only additional point I am aware of is that an excommunication results in an automatic Imperial Ban (again, historical, not game terms).

Jason wrote:

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.

I think this could be a way to play it. As my ambassadors trudge towards their final African destinations, I am wondering if a small cattle based trade could allow us to become more involved in roleplaying with our African players. Underwriting a big wedding maybe?

The Revenant wrote:Ah, so not castrating ALL adult male cattle...  (that does make sense).

You are not alone Jim. Outside of my input on Tswana bride prices, my insight on farming methods consists of looking at animals in fields, while passing in a train/ car. I have found all of the cattle lore shared thoroughly interesting, and I have taken notes for my various in game positions.

count-de-monet wrote:What another great post - this time #462 from Kerensky.  Kind of perfectly sums up my view of the game too.

I can probably be corrected but from memory I don't think I have yet initiated an attack on another active player in all my time playing.  I have used my military forces against a player who has attacked me but I get my wargame "fix" from targeted non-player positions.

Any players who recognise me for in game positions will know I really struggle with the concept of attacking an active player as there is a risk it forces that player out of the game which weakens the game world.  

It is often pointed out to me by players that wargaming IS an important element of the game though and I have no issue with players who do treat it more as a wargame.

On the matter of team positions, I try to generate this through diplomacy but it has created some odd alliances.  I would really love to be a genuine historic "alliance" like the Ottoman Empire/China/ England, Scotland & UDP

Thanks Old Boy. I confess, I have been wondering about a team position myself. I suspect a velvet glove goes much farther than an iron fist, based on what I have read from the teamsters in this chain (& what I have experienced in real life 'work coalitions').

Kerensky wrote:

Jason wrote:

Stuart Bailey wrote:On the subject of research does anyone know what it means if a characters comes under an Imperial Ban?

As if having Trouin called a depraved and fornicating lapdog by a de-frocked Priest/Agent who can even work out if he is acting as a Protestant Rebel or a Catholic Rebel was not bad enough.  

My company Chairman who is also a Nephew of Louis XIV and married to one of Louis XIV daughters, brother of the Duchess of Lorraine, son of a Priness of the Palantine and a full Prince of the Blood Royal may be about to pick up a Imperial Ban?  So I was wondering what this means?

Thinking of having envoy in the Diet draw up a list and anyone who votes against the ban gets a white spot and anyone who votes for gets a black spot.

My understanding, historically rather than in game terms, is it meant you were an outlaw.  You technically lost all rights and possessions and were legally considered dead.  It also meant if someone killed you then your murderer could not be punished for doing so-as you were an outlaw, they had committed no crime in murdering you.

It was reversible but not sure of the process for doing so.

My own understanding concurs with Jason. I am not sure what it will mean in game terms, although I am fairly certain you will lose your subscription to 'Imperial Princes Monthly' for the duration of any Imperial Ban. Only additional point I am aware of is that an excommunication results in an automatic Imperial Ban (again, historical, not game terms).

I couldn't remember how it fitted in with excommunication I do seem to have an annoying habit of remembering about 75% of odd historical knowledge but one bit always seems to fall out of my brain

Kerensky wrote:

Jason wrote:

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.

I think this could be a way to play it. As my ambassadors trudge towards their final African destinations, I am wondering if a small cattle based trade could allow us to become more involved in roleplaying with our African players. Underwriting a big wedding maybe?  

That's a good idea I wonder if there are any regular (for example) Rozwi festivals that an European ambassador could do the same with?

Going off at a slight tangent, one of the (many) strengths of G10 I feel is that we do have a good proportion of players who are playing non-European positions and playing them in a very historical way. First time I ever played a Chinese position (in the days of G2) I initially tried to "modernise" by looking to get European technology (not just in terms of firearms but ships, etc) but I very quickly realised that wasn't actually much fun.

Kerensky wrote:

count-de-monet wrote:What another great post - this time #462 from Kerensky.  Kind of perfectly sums up my view of the game too.

I can probably be corrected but from memory I don't think I have yet initiated an attack on another active player in all my time playing.  I have used my military forces against a player who has attacked me but I get my wargame "fix" from targeted non-player positions.

Any players who recognise me for in game positions will know I really struggle with the concept of attacking an active player as there is a risk it forces that player out of the game which weakens the game world.  

It is often pointed out to me by players that wargaming IS an important element of the game though and I have no issue with players who do treat it more as a wargame.

On the matter of team positions, I try to generate this through diplomacy but it has created some odd alliances.  I would really love to be a genuine historic "alliance" like the Ottoman Empire/China/ England, Scotland & UDP

Thanks Old Boy. I confess, I have been wondering about a team position myself. I suspect a velvet glove goes much farther than an iron fist, based on what I have read from the teamsters in this chain (& what I have experienced in real life 'work coalitions').

You're definitely right It's even more so in the Chinese positions where you all are "equals" (provincial governors).

In the name of balance, I should say there can be a down side to team positions (in general rather than in specific cases), it is quite lonely when most, if not all other positions, are vacant. Unfortunately this is quite common with the Chinese teams. In some ways it may not seem an issue, you simply play 'as normal' and develop your position, but I tend to feel "guilty" (not the right word I know) as my position is moving forward, getting new technologies, developing its trade and infrastructure while the rest of the team position is stagnated.

Jason wrote:I wonder if there are any regular (for example) Rozwi festivals

Can't remember any festivals apart from the First Fruits off the top of my head.

Wikipedia =

""The First Fruits festivals of the Nguni peoples in Southern Africa are a type of sacrificial ceremony of giving the first fruits in a harvest to God, or the gods who are believed to be responsible for the abundance of food. It was performed by the high priests of the kingdom and the king was always in attendance. Traditionally it marked a time of prosperity, in the good harvests experienced after the seasonal agricultural period.

It also brought the nation together, unifying it at a time of merry making and quashing fears of famine. The tradition is still practiced mainly in the kingdoms of KwaZulu-Natal and Swaziland. These ceremonies are headed by the kings of the tribes, namely King Mswati the third in Swaziland, celebrated as Incwala, and King Goodwill Zwelithini of the Zulu nation, celebrated as Umkhosi Wokweshwama.""

Trouble with Whites and cattle in Southern Africa (historically) was it led to conflict over grazing grounds and encroachment onto settlement boundaries. The Whites believing they had the right to simply be boss and force the Blacks off and away. Not sure how I would view cattle investments if they started to impact Rozwi territory (not that there is any anywhere near).

Jason wrote:

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  

Thank you.

My comment about fixing 'sucky/broken' positions wasn't a purely theoretical one...

Stuart Bailey wrote:On the subject of research does anyone know what it means if a characters comes under an Imperial Ban?

As if having Trouin called a depraved and fornicating lapdog by a de-frocked Priest/Agent who can even work out if he is acting as a Protestant Rebel or a Catholic Rebel was not bad enough.

My company Chairman who is also a Nephew of Louis XIV and married to one of Louis XIV daughters, brother of the Duchess of Lorraine, son of a Princess of the Palantine and a full Prince of the Blood Royal may be about to pick up a Imperial Ban? So I was wondering what this means?

Thinking of having envoy in the Diet draw up a list and anyone who votes against the ban gets a white spot and anyone who votes for gets a black spot.

Further to other answers my understanding is that an Imperial Ban is simply one of the means the Emperor has to enforce discipline on the Holy Roman Empire. It should remove certain rights and protections from individuals or states. Depending on the purpose or sanction required it can be imposed by the Emperor himself or by the Diet or other Imperial institutions, with or without a vote. I suspect that the more serious the sanction, the more likely it is that the Emperor would find it politically more desirable to involve the Diet.

Depending on which source you read it covers a multitude of crimes including breaking the Imperial peace (if for example one state within the Empire attacked another), or a refusal to acknowledge the authority of the Emperor. That category covers many possibilities ... could be as minor as marrying without his permission if a state was required to seek it, or contracting alliances unfavourable to the Empire, or slightly more serious such as allowing military access to a state which could allow an enemy to move an army in to threaten the Empire. These could all potentially be classed as honest mistakes which many Emperors would overlook or grant retrospective permission to if there was no real threat or pattern of intended disobedience. If a state was deliberately trying to play the system by committing continued different minor infractions then I'm sure an Emperor would be careful to find a way of clipping his wings to discourage repetition. The more blatant affronts to Imperial authority, such as marching troops into another state without prior authorisation, or refusing to hand over an Imperial Fief to its overlord, are likely to be seen as crimes not just against the Emperor personally, but the Empire, which under Imperial Law the Emperor has the duty to uphold.

A Ban may follow an excommunication, but the Emperor is not entitled to excommunicate anyone. That is reserved to either the local bishop, the Pope or a Papal Legate with those specific powers. It should also be noted that excommunication refers to a person - a country cannot be excommunicated. Countries may be placed under a Papal interdict, but that is a bit like using a blunderbuss rather than a rifle - there can be unintended consequences as the innocent are treated the same as the guilty. It is appropriate if the responsible authority cannot be identified or in certain other special cases. Interdicts are unpopular for everyone and can be hard to enforce. In some respects an Imperial Ban can work like an interdict, removing Imperial rights and protections from a rebellious state until it submits to legal authority, but the authority in question would be a secular authority (the Emperor) rather than a religious authority. If both the Ban and excommunication affect the same person then lifting the Ban would not lift the excommunication and vice versa. Although a local bishop could excommunicate someone, that excommunication would normally only be lifted by a higher ranking bishop, usually the Pope. My understanding is that only the Emperor could lift an Imperial Ban.

I do get slightly confused by French characters - lots of them called Louis or Philippe - it is hard to comment further on what one of your characters may or may not have done to earn an Imperial Ban. If you know what it is then the best way to avoid the penalty would probably be to admit your error, reverse whatever your crime is (if that is still possible), then ask if the Emperor will forgive you. An Emperor would look rather silly if he did not treat you leniently if you adopted that approach, whereas if you strut about making threats and either ignoring his authority or worse challenging it again, you are more than likely to be judged in contempt and face the maximum penalty and/or more charges on top. The same advice would follow for anyone likely to be excommunicated - a Pope cannot just excommunicate on a whim or through personal dislike of a character. He must follow the evidence and take into account the circumstances of the offence; the speed of excommunication is therefore likely to be determined by how quickly evidence can be gathered and the attitude of the one under investigation. Once the excommunicant has fulfilled the conditions laid down for the excommunication to be lifted, the Pope MUST lift it. So however bad it may look, there are usually things you can do to help yourself.

I hope this clarifies?

Thanks to Papa Clement for the update on excommunication and imperial bans.........good grief the legal hazards of playing a privateer! At the rate its going the Privateering Branch is going to have to set up its own Academy of law! (In real life once made a slight error and as part of by Insurance exams took a Marine Insurance course......only problem was it was 75% Maritime Law and really, really tough).

Actually seem to have made a slight error and its not my character which is the subject of the Imperial Ban but The Duchy of Flander-Brabant, the Country of Upper Guelderland and the Country of Luxembourg which can due to come under the Imperial Ban for the crime of being invaded by the French.

Must say seems a bit harsh to me.........lots of Imperial States have been invaded by the French and no one banned them.

Main punishment seems to be that Upper Guelderland and Luxembourg are to stripped of their votes in the Imperial Diet........poor Flanders-Brabant like Savoy and Milan never had a vote to start with which I always find a bit odd if these these places are indeed parts of the HRE (???) since Stade which is basically a large fishing village on the end of a sand spit has a vote.

Think I can live with an imperial ban/removal of voting rights.......at least this time no one wants to hang my character in the Edinburgh Grass Market after being force feed a last meal of fried haggis.

You can make up a festival or two, and other times of celebration, maybe honoring special groups or persons as well.

It's one act one can do without a parliament as well the King of England could order a day to honor soldiers and another for sailors and it would be fine if well chosen. Parliament might be consulted as well and playing up the day honoring fighting men of the realm would be kind of nice and looked bad upon if the King's law was to be challenged.

I'm so sneaky good thing I'm a smaller nation in the game.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Thanks to Papa Clement for the update on excommunication and imperial bans.........good grief the legal hazards of playing a privateer!  At the rate its going the Privateering Branch is going to have to set up its own Academy of law! (In real life once made a slight error and as part of by Insurance exams took a Marine Insurance course......only problem was it was 75% Maritime Law and really, really tough).

Actually seem to have made a slight error and its not my character which is the subject of the Imperial Ban but The Duchy of Flander-Brabant, the Country of Upper Guelderland and the Country of Luxembourg which can due to come under the Imperial Ban for the crime of being invaded by the French.

Must say seems a bit harsh to me.........lots of Imperial States have been invaded by the French and no one banned them.

Main punishment seems to be that Upper Guelderland and Luxembourg are to stripped of their votes in the Imperial Diet........poor Flanders-Brabant like Savoy and Milan never had a vote to start with which I always find a bit odd if these these places are indeed parts of the HRE (???) since Stade which is basically a large fishing village on the end of a sand spit has a vote.

Think I can live with an imperial ban/removal of voting rights.......at least this time no one wants to hang my character in the Edinburgh Grass Market after being force feed a last meal of fried haggis.

Well Stuart, at the moment that renowned legal institution, the University of Glasgow, has some spare capacity, I am sure (for a suitable fee) it could offer some spaces to your people and I promise you, there is only a very very very small chance any of your students would be hung in the Grassmarket...

I am doing this from memory but I think if a city or country got the Imperial Ban, they could be attacked by another member of the HRE without repercussions.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Actually seem to have made a slight error and its not my character which is the subject of the Imperial Ban but The Duchy of Flanders-Brabant, the Country of Upper Guelderland and the Country of Luxembourg which can due to come under the Imperial Ban for the crime of being invaded by the French.

Must say seems a bit harsh to me.........lots of Imperial States have been invaded by the French and no one banned them.

Main punishment seems to be that Upper Guelderland and Luxembourg are to stripped of their votes in the Imperial Diet........poor Flanders-Brabant like Savoy and Milan never had a vote to start with which I always find a bit odd if these these places are indeed parts of the HRE (???) since Stade which is basically a large fishing village on the end of a sand spit has a vote.

Think I can live with an imperial ban/removal of voting rights.......at least this time no one wants to hang my character in the Edinburgh Grass Market after being force feed a last meal of fried haggis.

Glad I could help - there seems to be a lot of confusion in the newspaper, not least:

1. (as Stuart notes) what the counties referred to have actually done wrong unless they were complicit in being invaded, i.e. invited French armies in, recognised a French ruler or allied themselves to France therefore threatening Imperial stability in some way.  Even if any of these applied it is still perhaps a little unfair to sanction the country which has been invaded/occupied for it is hardly in a position to revolt under the weight of French troops.  Justice was not always fair as my point over the use of interdicts made clear, so there are precedents which the Emperor could follow if he felt it necessary.  But I would not expect it to be popular or well supported - it would probably be unnecessary to engage Papal lawyers for the defence when a trainee from the University of Glasgow should be more than capable of winning this one!  The terms 'Flanders', 'French Flanders' and 'Spanish Netherlands' do seem to be being used interchangeably by different players which adds to the confusion.  In my judgement I preferred the term "Spanish Netherlands" for those parts of Flanders which were Spanish in 1700; "French Flanders" referring to the counties of Flanders annexed by King Louis in pre-1700 conflicts.

2. The listing of eligible voters which includes Upper Guelderland and Luxembourg.  Presumably they will not be voting to ban themselves.  Are they occupied by France?   I suspect that unless the Emperor is very clear about precisely what/who a motion refers to and why it is being brought, the exercise may be stopped by a technicality.   (The same kind of technicality which caused a simple tax change to get derailed in the Papal Diet last month - I really should have seen that one coming!)  

3. The issue of Savoy at least is clear and even Papal lawyers could not mount a defence against that motion.

4. France's statement concerning the draft will.  There are many problems with this, but am I the only one who is puzzled by the reference to Sicily (a Papal fief which was not able to be assigned under any will), "French Flanders" (which by definition has already been accepted as French, annexed in pre-1700 conflicts), and Savoy (which seems to have baffled Savoy's ambassador and rightly so because unless a professor at the University of Glasgow knows otherwise, Savoy is also not part of Spain).  Papal lawyers have figured out a way that Savoy could become French, but have to acknowledge that it is going to be very awkward to argue it successfully.  One potential impediment would be the existence of any formal alliance between France and Savoy, for it is not usual for an allies to seek to annex each other.


Being relatively new to G10, I have to wonder whether with all this occupation of territories by foreign armies whether anyone has actually declared war?  Or could declare war?  Unless I have misunderstood the situation:

1. France has occupied part of Sicily in the name of a Bourbon claimant to the throne of Spain, a claim which following France's acceptance of the Papal Ruling has been renounced.  Since the ruling confirms that Sicily is the territory of the Papal States and I have asked for France to leave, if France does not leave has France declared war on the Papal States?  I have no record of that.  So when that fine body of men (the Papal Army) arrives, does the French occupation force leave or will my soldiers (all ten of them, well 9 plus an officer) rush headlong with their halberds at 14,000 heavily armed Frenchmen who not being at war will surrender?  Alternatively if a Spanish army of greater strength takes it upon itself to challenge this French occupation, will the French surrender to them?  For surely if they have been given orders to occupy foreign lands without a declaration of war, their officers would not take it upon themselves to start a war?

2. Savoy has occupied Sardinia in the name of a Bourbon claimant (according to France), but to put pressure on Spain to settle a 118 year old dowry (according to Savoy).  Savoy rejects the judgement and that Sardinia is a Papal Fief, but has not declared war on Spain.  The same question applies ... what does Savoy do when either a Spanish or Papal force arrives?  Without a declaration of war, what precisely is the expected response?  Surely the army of Savoy has no orders to resist the appearance of either so should surrender?

3. Savoy has occupied Milan over the 118 year old dowry, not in the name of a Bourbon claimant.  So if a Spanish army marches into Milan, the Savoyard troops should surrender without a fight?  Perhaps this is why French troops have moved into Milan, presumably under orders to seize Milan in the name of a Bourbon claimant, which no longer exists now France has accepted the Papal ruling?!

The problem with marching into a country and holding it hostage whilst demanding some form of ransom is that in each of the cases mentioned above it hasn't worked.  France/Savoy may benefit during their period of occupation from any taxes/recruits they may plunder, but that plunder cannot legally belong to them and must be returned at some point in the future.  They would also be liable for any damage done during their occupation.  I suspect that France has taken well over £1M-worth of plunder over the last few years, and Savoy has taken even more.  When will they pay it back?  For even if they were to net it off against amounts due to them (which has been fixed by the judgement for France, but in the case of Savoy has yet to be established), there is still a considerable amount to be paid back to the legal owner.

And if they don't, are they not only guilty of extortion, but of theft and any number of other related charges?

As I said earlier, I may be totally wrong and have missed something.  France or Savoy may have declared war on other nations before I joined, but I am sure that according to my records neither have declared war on the Papal States. And if no formal alliance exists between them and French/Savoyard forces are in the same territories for different reasons, it may cause no end of diplomatic problems if they tried to help each other.

Am I wrong?


Perhaps you will all now understand why I asked for short, simple, submissions for my judgement rather than confusing and often conflicting reports in newspapers.
.

I think his most Christian Majesty who is getting on a bit and suffering from hay fever due to all of those bloody Dutch Tulips was badly reported last month:

- What he actually said was that he accepted the Papal ruling over the Kingdom of Naples which was the only ruling requested and was willing to settle the inheritence dispute on the basis of Carlos II draft will but with the Kingdom of Sicily and the Duchy of Milan in leau of Naples. With the most Noble and Honourable Duke of Savoy acting as King Philip Viceroy in annexed Milan.

- Do declarations of war has been made (note historically King Louis forces blockaded Luxemburg for six months and ripped the Palantine to bits in disputes over rights and his Dowry and bombarded Genoa due to feeling insulted without actually starting a proper war).

- BUT the Royal House of Bourbon has made some very clear declarations of annexation due to inherited right which in theory means:

i) If the Bourbon territory of Sicily is invaded Bourbon forces will drink a glass of Sicilian Red Wine, doff their hats in salute, twirl their whiskers and blow the invaders out of the water before gunning down any survivers down on the beach.

ii) Bourbon territory of Milan invaded.... as per above but replace Bourbon and our brave allies from Savoy & Sicilian Red with Chianti.

iii) Bourbon territory of Flanders...........hold it thats me and being invaded spoils my tax returns. Try anything looks like its heading my way and its going to be breathing smoke for a month before it even gets to the Rhine.

Of course I may be totally and utterly wrong and the armies of Louis XIV, Philip of Flanders, Milan and Sicily & the Duke of Savoy may just surrender to the Hapsburgs when they waive a bit of Paper at them with a Papal Seal (mind out its really had to see a small seal in all the Gunsmoke)..........Guess the question for the Emperor is "Are you feeling lucky punk" or whatever that is in German. Assume Jason can provide a translation.

Have no doubt that the fact that they are fighting under a Papal Standard and against naughty men who are under the Imperial Ban will give the Imperial Troops a advantage and make their morale really good. But to claim that morale advantage you still need to fight the campaign and a morale advantage is only one of many advantages/disadvantages (like not being able to swim and on a sinking transport) so its probably too early for Louis XIV and his commanders to give up just yet.

Yes we have been crushed in the political exchanges but that is only the starters.......hope we do better with the main course and the pudding. Just hope it does not involve Fried Haggis and spotted Dick:affraid:

As a note, as far as I'm aware, nobody has validated anything about the purported draft will. It showed up in the paper from unknown sources and my in-game request at the peace conference to the Spanish to validate it was unanswered. Never mind that even if it was real, it wasn't ever signed, so has no force in any case.

Make of that as you will.

Personally, this player rather suspects the thing was cooked up for convenience's sake...