Game 10

Och naw , if ye wir the Pape ye cud pick it aw up as ye gang along . Dinnae fash yersel . Wink .

Goldstar wrote:A step to far for a member of the Church of Scotland I feel.

But think, you could bring the wisdom and insight of John Knox to the position...and in G10 I am sure a Pope with *ahem* a Scottish influence would find support from Lord Melville

Pre-destination and the primacy of the holy text in the vernacular is unlikely to be popular in the Holy Church. I’ve compromised enough playing a Lutheran and a rather senior Catholic.

But you could move the imperial see to Aberdeen, introduce deep fried haggis and buckfast to the holy communion

(warning this post may contain nuts)

Have just picked up my copy of the Merurius Politicus........and it was only one ear not a whole head which ended up nailed to a door and only a couple of torched buildings.

By the standards of some of the historic Corsairs and what the Army of Louis XIV did in the Thirty Years War and then later to the UDP and the Palantine etc think this would only count as a friendly warning shot.

I always like to think about it as 'what was written in the Mercurius Politicus' and 'what will be written about it in the Mercurius Politicus'...

I confess to being an admirer of Putin's ability to influence perceptions of reality. Not his politics or his beliefs, but his sheer audacity in the use of 'maskirovka' (roughly translates as denial, deception and camouflage). The West has no idea how to handle it effectively.

The trick in this game is to consider your audience. Are you writing for the players, or the 'Court of Europe'. Are you influencing players or the Court (i.e. your honour)? Or are you creating a 'new perception of reality' in the minds of the countless NPC's in the game?

I am still learning myself, but my tip to all (who would like to try) is consider the audience. When I look back at my written pieces, the ones that have failed are when I have tried to 'write for all of the above', and end up failing to deliver on all counts.

Stuart & I are already students of 'maskirovka'. Even if this angle does not interest you, I recommend 'thinking audience' when you write your speeches & pieces in the MP. It will help you no end.

Papa Clement, calling a fellow player Vic the *****s is unnecessary and blatantly rude. There is no need for it. You have been playing agema games for well over ten years now as I know you joined the start of game 7 as France. Therefore, to say now that the game is too much a wargame is just duplicitous. You had painted yourself into a corner through poor diplomacy, not because this is a war game. Which it is and has always been. France and its allies were never hostile to Genoa and initially welcomed it into the faction. It was poor diplomacy which has led to the invasions by Tuscany, Savoy and France and attacks at sea by the Corsairs.

Within the game I will contact the Genoan player and offer potential paths forward which will be generous.

What is poor diplomacy is holding over grudges from one game to another. From game 7 to game 10. I believe the correct term is being "passive aggressive" when you criticize others for your own failings and make statements that you are leaving the game. You did exactly the same in game 7, when you said you were leaving the game because of an unfair alliance built up against you (which was the result of failed diplomacy on your behalf), only to reappear in another position in the game - Jacobeans and with a new name on the forum. How many personas have you run on the forum so far? I have lost count.

You complained on the forum about my not writing to you within the game. When you received a letter from me you copied it onto the forum claiming I was cheating and you had proof and the GM should do something. Why would anyone want to write to you again?

Children are encouraged to play games so they can learn about winning and losing and so do not have tantrums when they lose. When I am beaten in a game I trust I accept it in good grace and do not complain about how unfair it is. These games are conducted by people who can and do respect each other. This includes not calling names within or outside the game and behaving in a grown up manner. You have previously stated as how you are from Yorkshire and so you can be quite blunt and have no problem with that approach. So grow up.

If I meet you in another game I will start with an open mind and not hold over grudges from previous games, I trust you can do the same. That would be called good diplomacy.

Glory can be a war game.

It is also other types of games. Asserting it is and always was a war game is perhaps why your diplomacy or lack there of was poorly received by some players.

I know that I started with no opinion on the Spanish succession. The results either way had no impact upon me or my position, except my view that a royal questionable birth conjured out of thin air shouldn't take the throne.

I developed one after wasting game time and real money getting ignored or insulted by the French faction. My letters went unanswered, or I received answers that didn't address any of the questions I asked.

While it wasn't why I dropped the game, it was a contributing factor. I was annoyed enough to seriously consider sending hordes of Cossacks to burn the french countryside.

Deacon wrote: I was annoyed enough to seriously consider sending hordes of Cossacks to burn the french countryside.

So you wanted to be a land version of Stuart? I hope you planned to issue them with nails for any mayors they ran into...

I was thinking of locking them inside of city halls and burning them down. I thought that would be more efficient. The accidental burning of the rest of the town would just be an unfortunate consequence.

@ Basilieus. I would put my position down to a conscious choice to join the other side, rather than poor diplomacy. Your team is well organised & cohesive, so providing some opposition is a call I made. & for what it is worth, I am having a whale of a time! & I bear no ill will.

@ More Widely. I enjoy the game a lot, but I do not take it personally. It’s a set of characters we are converting from history into myth, not each other in real life. I am pretty comfortable giving & receiving flack in game, militarily or diplomatically, as it is aimed at a set of (sometimes?) over the top characters in an imaginary world. War is, after all, diplomacy by other means. I would find it hard to bear a grudge. Mild irritation on the day I first read the orders, maybe, but actually enough to disturb my equanimity, not really. I feel life is too good & too short to sweat the small stuff.

Where I choose to draw the line is here, in the forum, as this is where you are talking to people, not their characters (& assorted minions). This is no longer the month long reflection on orders, but the rapid fire of social media. Instant electronic communication is the boon & the bane of the modern world.

Of course, this is me, my choices & my opinion. We all get to make our choices in this life, but it has sometimes helped me, to hear how others view it/ play it.

& @Deacon, can I borrow you old Cossacks? =)

Poland is an open position now. Lots of cossacks at the ready! If somebody picks it up, I'd be happy to tell them what I had cooking so they know the lay of the land.

I don't take the flack personally. I do take having my time and money wasted badly.

I do find it a bit strange that Basileus is saying he doesn't hold grudges in the same message he says he didn't write because... he holds grudges?

@ Deacon. I felt you were in a great position, just clearing some ‘heavy weather’ before the breakthrough. I recommend this position!

Fair Play. If it is money & time, I understand the perspective.

I hope G8 continues to provide entertainment & challenge.

based on posts to this message thread and a sense of having very similar outlooks I wish Kerensky wasn't controlling the Spanish position in G9

I enjoy, dare I say love this game so much I never like to see a player drop from a game. I think losing Papa Clement is a loss and I think our game world would be richer by having certain positions active and the Papacy is one of them. I can not remember a game world where the Pope has been active for long enough to see the position develop and that is a shame.

The game can be very frustrating and I do think Kerensky offers some great advice and something I have been doing for a few years. With the long turnaround of turns, if eagerly anticipate every game return but if its bad...and can be really bad in my case.....I simply leave it alone for a few days to a week. It does help me a lot and hopefully means I offer a more measured set of orders.

Finally, you are all, friend and foe alike a great set of players and on this forum I personally have received nothing but support and help when needed as well as a lot of fun and humour. I hope the good nature of the forum can be retained.

@ Count de Monet. No Worries on G9, I see crossing swords as part of the game. Some live on creation, some on war, some on agents of deception, some on oratory & some on a combination of all four.

I believe finding your own perspective always helps.

For example, I came out of retirement (amateur), to fight the chap in my profile pick for a charity event (a Cambodian orphanage). For me, it was about raising money. For him, he had to win. He spent the four month build up playing mind games with me.

On the night of the fight, the first two rounds were like the Alamo, and I was going the way of John Wayne. In the third, I came out of the traps like a man possessed & took him out with a TKO in 49 seconds. It is one of the reasons I view myself as quite resilient.

It certainly makes hammering of fictitious ears & stealing of fictitious ships unlikely to make me crack. & all I need is my pen. =)

Broadly, there are four ways to get me onside:
Persuade me of the righteousness of your cause.
Being someone I come to respect/like.
Outrageous bribery.

On the fourth, I don’t think any of you are my type, but I remain open minded. ;-)

I am not in game 10. After reading this thread I kind of wish I was. Certainly very feisty.

As in real life. Any country or player can do as they wish. Don’t get upset by it.To call Lgdr a war game. I would disagree with. Most games of Lgdr go years without major wars. In game 8 there has never been a war in Europe. 

Any game can have any outcome. That’s the beauty of the games. Don’t get upset or angry if the outcome doesn’t suit you. It’s a game. There will always be winners and losers. Enjoy.

jamesbond007 wrote:I am not in game 10. After reading this thread I kind of wish I was. Certainly very feisty.

As in real life. Any country or player can do as they wish. Don’t get upset by it.To call Lgdr a war game. I would disagree with. Most games of Lgdr go years without major wars. In game 8 there has never been a war in Europe. 

Any game can have any outcome. That’s the beauty of the games. Don’t get upset or angry if the outcome doesn’t suit you. It’s a game. There will always be winners and losers. Enjoy.

Completely agree, esp about LGDR not being a war game. Maybe a game in which a war may break out Perhaps G7 is the nearest we have to a war game, does feel like that sometimes.

G10 does have its moments it has to be said. At the same time, if you want to focus on nation building and not get caught up in the matter of who is king in Madrid, you can do so

Kerensky wrote:@ Count de Monet. No Worries on G9, I see crossing swords as part of the game. Some live on creation, some on war, some on agents of deception, some on oratory & some on a combination of all four.

I believe finding your own perspective always helps.

For example, I came out of retirement (amateur), to fight the chap in my profile pick for a charity event (a Cambodian orphanage). For me, it was about raising money. For him, he had to win. He spent the four month build up playing mind games with me.

On the night of the fight, the first two rounds were like the Alamo, and I was going the way of John Wayne. In the third, I came out of the traps like a man possessed & took him out with a TKO in 49 seconds. It is one of the reasons I view myself as quite resilient.

It certainly makes hammering of fictitious ears & stealing of fictitious ships unlikely to make me crack. & all I need is my pen. =)

Broadly, there are four ways to get me onside:
Persuade me of the righteousness of your cause.
Being someone I come to respect/like.
Outrageous bribery.

On the fourth,  I don’t think any of you are my type, but I remain open minded. ;-)

Must say I am quite impressed by this though my own fighting style is more fencing/period swordsmanship fightclub (if you've seen the Bond "Die another day" and the swordfight in that...though I prefer the spear...anyone can be a hero with a sword ) and my fundraising has been more by my talents for grant-writing though perhaps I've missed a trick

As to the four ways, I'm with you on 1,2 and 4...oddly 3 has never worked on me though I think that is more because no one has yet tried to bribe me in the right way

Deacon wrote:
Poland is an open position now. Lots of cossacks at the ready! If somebody picks it up, I'd be happy to tell them what I had cooking so they know the lay of the land.

I don't take the flack personally. I do take having my time and money wasted badly.

I do find it a bit strange that Basileus is saying he doesn't hold grudges in the same message he says he didn't write because... he holds grudges?

Well, I was sorry to see you leave G10 and would like to hope you might return in the future. I always felt you were the one person who was really working to find a peaceful solution to that matter I've always enjoyed being in a game you are in, your style and approach has always made the games more fun.

On Basileus, it's interesting how we can read the same post and draw different conclusions but like Basileus I have a...complex...relationship with the individual in question so it's quite possible that clouded and affected my reading of his post

It is curious - the forum went silent until I announced I was leaving the game and then it explodes in comments.  I'm sure it is nothing to do with me!

Goldstar - G9 may or may not need a Pope to sort out the Spanish Succession, but I don't think it would be helpful for me to become 'rent-a-Pope', jumping between games like some religious bossy boots, stamping my mark on them all.   I have shown some of what can be achieved by a Pope with an understanding of the faith he represents, playing historically.  I don't think it is a good idea to play the same nation in multiple games - better to let others interpret the position as they choose.

Kerensky - of your 4 "ways to get me onside", I think only the first would work with me.  I would add a 5th, which seems to be the favoured option by some in G10, namely bullying/intimidation.  It was not always the case, but now appears to be normal for players to take towns without declarations of war and then demand concessions or the town itself, instead of declaring war and then hoping to gain the town as the result of any peace.  I start from the standpoint of respecting/liking all players, but should they attempt (3) or (4) on your list (or 5 on mine), or break treaties, or get caught out cheating, etc, then it is very hard to like them.  I can respect an enemy, even a persistent one and not necessarily like him, just as I can like an ally, but not necessarily respect him.

Basileus - what you do in G10 is no longer my concern.  France had the same chance as every other player to submit a case in favour of the Bourbon claimant, but you chose to leave it to Stuart.  To suggest that the judgement was biased against France before it was made because of a grudge you believe I hold against you from another game is false, especially since in the game you refer to you were fairly beaten and dropped some time before I joined G10, as I believe, did your pal Vic (if you choose to interpret my description of him as Vic the ***** in an unfavourable way then that is entirely up to you - I do not know what to call him now he has lost his title of Duke and his status within the Holy Roman Empire).   It would be somewhat unusual for the winner to hold a grudge, but perfectly understandable for the losers to do so!  My G10 objective was to research and deliver a judgement on the Spanish Succession as asked for by players on all sides.  The judgement itself was the objective, not forcing its implementation which by the nature of the Papal position I could not do.  I have been accused of many things, but not causing the death of King Carlos in G10 and provoking the crisis of the Spanish Succession just so I could join the game a few years later to irritate team France?  I did not leave G10 because I "lost" - there was nothing for me to lose.  Like Stuart's description of me as "the Emperor's lawyer", your assertions do not stand up to scrutiny.  Otherwise you are entitled to your opinion of me which remains significantly more favourable than my opinion of you.

Deacon - I very much enjoyed what you were trying to do as Poland such that I understood the complexities of the Commonwealth!  As I have mentioned before, your efforts to promote peace helped me considerably by allowing me to save a great deal of time and money not repeating past failures.  I do not view them as failures because they provided evidence of what did not work - they were were a necessary step in understanding what could work.  As the only other player to have attempted to play the Papacy, I very much appreciated the warnings of various pitfalls and background suggestions you made for organising the Papal States.

Count - I don't know who you play in G10, but if you corresponded with me, I thank you.

Jason2 - although I left just before penning my first letter to Lord Melville (to help cure his insomnia - sorry), I like to think we would have discovered much in common.  It is either a strength or a weakness (depending on your viewpoint) that I throw myself into games, overly research positions and perhaps attempt overly historic roleplay.  Occasionally I will upset people (perhaps frequently on the forum), though I can't think of a time when I have deliberately done so in a game and through regular correspondence such misunderstandings usually lead to a reconcililation.  


As to which position I will play next and in which game, I do have some ideas.  When choosing a position I do tend to look to explore metahistory, a country or situation which I don't necessarily know much about, but which could develop along a different path.   I try to to bring those alternatives to life whilst respecting the historical foundations.  This reflects my interest in the history/culture/philosophy/religion of a particular country and why to me the game is much more than a wargame.  I am currently working on a few options and will choose one which I think offers the most possibilities.  Hopefully the one I choose will be available in G8 or G9, but whether this happens will be up to the GM.  I may or may not reveal what that position is ... it might be more fun to see if anyone spots it.

Speaking as someone who has played a couple of Polish Commonwealth positions and spent a long time dealing with the hordes.......the good news is that you can hire up to 200 Squadrons of Light Cavalry in the Commonwealth.

The bad news is that Richards Cossack NPC's are gits to deal with........3rd on my git list behind the Janissary Corp & the Hungarian Diet.

Think if you hire 200 Squadrons of Cossacks to raid France etc points to consider are:

- Desertion levels......a lot are going to take your cash and not make it past the first Inn.

- The plundering and looting on route and how much this is going to upset the locals.

- The fact that the Cossacks are perfectly happy to take your cash to do one thing then take someone else's cash to do something else! (I am not bitter you understand!!).

PS Ref G7 Think comment that the Hapsburgs being beaten is a bit extreme. Had to swap Scotland (not ours) to get rid of the French from Mexico City and get back a captured Austrian Army but over two wars with the French we are still up Hispaniola and Franche Comete and have not lost a inch of Hapsburg Territory. Best of three anyone

@ Jason. Fair Play. I tried fencing, but lacked balance with a sword. I still box, but these days just fighting middle age, one day @ a time.

@ Papa C. We are all different in our motivations and behaviours, and that is fine.
I take the stoic approach. You can only truly manage your own thoughts & your own actions. Everything else is fine, because their is no point worrying about what you cannot directly control.

I always found actively disliking someone cost me way to much energy, so I gave it up, long ago. Whether someone likes or respects me is there choice. Rest assured, it never affects me much either way, unless I truly admire them (more an outside game occurrence).

In the game, I am phlegmatic. We all make sharp moves, play the angles & attempt to manipulate events. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. C’est la Vie.

@ Stuart. 200, cash & carry more of someone else’s cash it is...

Kerensky wrote:
I always found actively disliking someone cost me way to much energy, so I gave it up, long ago. Whether someone likes or respects me is their choice. Rest assured, it never affects me much either way, unless I truly admire them (more an outside game occurrence).

I agree with your first point, but your second is much more interesting.  There are so many people in the world that it would be statistically improbable if I never interacted with someone who didn't like me.  I could, theoretically, be so unlucky that I only ever meet people who dislike me, though that does not appear to be the case.  So I don't particularly mind whether people like me or not.  That might sound like a stoical approach, but it isn't.  It does, perhaps, make it slightly harder for some people to deal with me as I don't respond as they expect to certain of your 4 points.  But we are all different in that.

I was using the term Cossacks liberally. There is a lot of polish light cavalry, some of which are obviously cossacks.

I wasn't talking about NPC cossacks.

@ Deacon. Could the King of Poland be about to make a triumphant return to Warsaw?

I honestly believe you were close. Richard always seems to make it ‘darkest before dawn’, when you are close to pushing for a major shift away from historical progression.