Game 10

J Flower wrote:A bit like tax collection & Highway robbery

Either way you loose your money

although both of the above have a chance of getting lynched

I am shocked, hurt & wounded, the privateering branch of the French Navy has worked really hard to play by the rules of the period.....Paper work is 1st rate, attended the London Conference to help clarfy what the rules are, carefully followed Scots bye-laws which apply in territorial waters, and have been really nice to fellow sailors......even the ones from Tuscany and Cuba who attacked me.

In fact it could be said that we have been a lot more respectful of the "conventions" than a lot of other navies.......Venice & France spring to mind (who have both had their Governments saying sorry and paying compensation for their actions). But now people are talking about "Lynch Mobs"

Guess not having best quality paper work respected is a sort of occupational hazard for privateers.

Papa Clement wrote:

Jason2 wrote:With me and Stuart, he (and quite fairly) felt he had the letters so he and his ships were privateers...I deliberately took the opposite view and given the raids his ships were doing that were close to Scottish waters my stance made sense.

It was also quite good fun.  I could write some lovely speeches being rude about privateers and Stuart could write some great pieces in his defence.

Stuart's legal defences are always amusing - he does righteous indignation very well, but tends to fall down on the facts.

Without knowing more, I think the general principle is that if someone is breaking the law in your waters, then you can arrest and charge them.  If you are responsible (or deemed to be responsible) for policing a stretch of international waters then you still have a strong case for interfering.  And of course if you are English and every pirate is against you or your enemy is known for using false flags, you can at the very least stop/search and/or impound just about any ships, releasing those who are proved to be legitimate traders.  In real life the world would applaud such actions, but for some reason in G7 those with pro-Spanish leanings tend not to.  Which is in itself highly suspicious.

I imagine Scottish lawyers have found similar sentiments expressed in G10 by those with pro-French leanings, and will draw their own conclusions.

No one disputed the rights of the Scots to ban privateering in their territorial waters - the problem was where did Scots territorial waters end and international waters start? The London Naval Conference favoured three miles but as a rule of thumb French privateers work on the basis that if you can see the Scots coast (and more importantly they can see you) do nothing which might upset Scots lawyers.

So If people want to avoid French privateers they can always try coasting down the coast of Scotland - pity about the rocks, tidal races, and the naughty Scottish wreckers.

Would like to say I really enjoyed the London Naval Conference but I am not sure everyone was so impressed when the French Envoy to talks in Rome ref the Spanish succession showed up to sign a treaty (which the Emperor had totally ignored and not passed on) and had no other briefing while in London the French Envoy showed up with a detailed list of questions and proposals.

At the G10 London Naval Talks the English put forward positions which are really tough on neatral and third party rights in the event of conflict. But not even they claim like the G7 English the right to sail into other peoples waters in peace time and try and levy English tolls on their shipping! Or claim the right to sail into other peoples waters in peace time and sink or capture shipping which may have been used for commerce with their foe or for raiding in a recent war.

Oddly in G10 I am now trying to play from the other side of the hill and play using "English" rules on blockades and the like which would have my free trade self in G7 screaming for his Lawyers! Since the Lady Emma Murray (daughter of the former Lord President of Scotland beheaded by English Invaders) is now in exile in Spain wonder if the small group a Catholic Scots exiles can include a Maritime Law expert? While if anyone apart from Lord Derby tries to order the HEIC around like this in scabble ........you know the bit were the America North blockade of American South nearly caused a war with Britain......you can forget the nearly.

Stuart Bailey wrote:No one disputed the rights of the Scots to ban privateering in their territorial waters - the problem was where did Scots territorial waters end and international waters start? The London Naval Conference favoured three miles but as a rule of thumb French privateers work on the basis that if you can see the Scots coast (and more importantly they can see you) do nothing which might upset Scots lawyers.

So If people want to avoid French privateers they can always try coasting down the coast of Scotland - pity about the rocks, tidal races, and the naughty Scottish wreckers.

Would like to say I really enjoyed the London Naval Conference but I am not sure everyone was so impressed when the French Envoy to talks in Rome ref the Spanish succession showed up to sign a treaty (which the Emperor had totally ignored and not passed on) and had no other briefing while in London the French Envoy showed up with a detailed list of questions and proposals.

It sounds like I would have quite enjoyed the London Naval Conference as well.

From what is written here I clearly view things somewhat differently. Trying to limit jurisdiction to territorial waters works only to the point that everyone accepts the same rules, so if a pirate sails from Scottish waters into English waters, they know that they will be pursued by the English navy if the Scottish navy refuses to sail into English waters. Of course that still leaves the problem of international (or disputed) waters ... who is responsible for catching the pirates then? If everyone accepts that pirates are a menace and should be hunted down, then they should also accept a reciprocal duty to come to the aid of any merchant ship they see being attacked in International waters. Since pirates often use false flags this means mutual protection for all merchant shipping - sink, capture or drive off the pirate first, saving the merchantman, then determining whether the pirate is a privateer and has some kind of legitimacy afterwards. The obvious analogy is that of a policeman - he can arrest on the suspicion of a crime having been committed, but then release if this is found not to be the case. And since piracy is universally recognised as a crime, there are really very few excuses for not enforcing the law against them.

Stuart Bailey wrote:At the G10 London Naval Talks the English put forward positions which are really tough on neutral and third party rights in the event of conflict. But not even they claim like the G7 English the right to sail into other peoples waters in peace time and try and levy English tolls on their shipping! Or claim the right to sail into other peoples waters in peace time and sink or capture shipping which may have been used for commerce with their foe or for raiding in a recent war.

Oddly in G10 I am now trying to play from the other side of the hill and play using "English" rules on blockades and the like which would have my free trade self in G7 screaming for his Lawyers!

It is very difficult (if not impossible) for there to be laws which aim to protect 3rd parties in the event of war. I suspect that part of the London Naval Conference was designed to try and mitigate the effects of the kind of blockade I enforce against UDP in G7. There are broadly 3 aspects any law would need to cover:
1. Respecting the right of combatants to blockade and therefore stop/search/apprehend those ships which are breaking the blockade.
2. Rules in respect of false flags (usually used to get round the blockade).
3. Rules which permit customs patrols and local tax collecting.

In G7 all merchants operating in/around UDP were aware that UDP was under blockade and if they sailed in that zone they ran the risk of being charged with breaking the blockade and therefore took the consequences. This had to apply irrespective of flag because UDP used false flags. The Royal Navy was scrupulously fair, permitting many more ships through than were seized, depending on cargo and intention. What Stuart has failed to mention is that he instigated a policy of taxing English and Ottoman ships passing through the Straits of Gibraltar (which is not a war zone and when (at least officially) England, Ottomans and Spain were not at war) - this was to apply political pressure on England/Ottomans and in the case of his action against England was a breach of Treaty. This inevitably led to a clamp down on Spanish(Flanders) ships who were blockade running into UDP and a stricter interpretation of which cargos would be impounded and Spanish intentions. Had Spanish intentions not changed, then the terms of the blockade would probably not have changed. But, as I posted earlier, Stuart is rather good at righteous indignation, just tends to fall down on the facts.

I would be interested in reading about what the London Naval Conference decided, just for reference - they may have cracked it, but I suspect it may be more an expression of hope than a legally enforceable agreement.

Apologies in advance to anyone expecting inter-action with the Asante this coming turn - I seem to have missed the deadline! (A mixture of long holiday, germs and general insouciance, I'm afraid.)

Papa Clement wrote:
I would be interested in reading about what the London Naval Conference decided, just for reference - they may have cracked it, but I suspect it may be more an expression of hope than a legally enforceable agreement.

For information the London Naval Conference considered five main issues issues:

1) Who can issue letters of Marque

2) Rules of Blockade

3) Third part rights and what goods are contraband and what is not?

4) Treatment of civilian sailors

5) Territorial limits

- Lord Godolphin pushed for rules on letters of Marque to be tighted pushing for this right to be limited to Soverign, territorial and naval powers only. Which would have disallowed the letters of Marque of non territorial rulers like King James in exile as well as letters of Marque from landlocked powers like Bavaria or non Naval powers the Ashanti. The Godolphin doctrine also said that Letters of Marque are only valid if issued by a head of State or his accredited representative such as King William or his accredited representative the Admiralty in London with letters of Marque issued by Colonial Governors are only to be considered provisional and subject to final approval.

- For reasons not really clear some people did not seem happy about the accredited representative of Louis XIV of France being the Privateering Branch of the French Navy.

- Lord Godolphin pushed for formal declaration of Blockades and a time period to allow third party shipping to clear the area. After the expiry of the warning and time period the Godolphin Doctrine gives Neatral shipping NO RIGHTS at all and the tricky question of what is contraband is ignored. Basically if you are in a port or territorial waters of a party at war you are a target and can be seized or sunk. The only defence is if a third party ship can show it sailed before the Blockade was declared is will only be turned back not seized. (I said Lord G was pushing the most hard line possible on neatral shipping rights).

- Conference seemed to agree on good treatment of civilian sailors from seized ships - to be set free with passage money and absolutely no one is to sale them as galley slaves etc (Note the Ottomans were not at the conference).

- Conference seemed to settle on 3 mile territorial limit and confirmed that states can ban privateering etc in own territorial waters. A position strongly pushed by the Scots.

Lord G did produce a international treaty which would have come into force if enough states signed it. Louis XIV of France was given copy of treaty but it seems to have vanished into his pending tray.

But interestingly when French Royal Navy bombarded Genoan Port before a declaration of Blockade had given time for third party shipping to clear the area and damaged a lot of third party ships. The French Government accepted that it's Admiral had made an error and paid compensation for the lost and damaged shipping.

This would seem to imply that the London Naval Conference may not be legally binding but does have degree of moral authority over the conduct of war at sea! It should be noted that the legally upstanding French Privateers have followed both the laws of France, Scots byelaws and international guidelines ref action at sea to the letter:Bk:

Fortunately, nothing has been said about actions on land....... "Dont you just love the smell of buring Fishing Ports in the Morning......it smells like Victory!"

Stuart Bailey wrote:Lord G did produce a international treaty which would have come into force if enough states signed it. Louis XIV of France was given copy of treaty but it seems to have vanished into his pending tray.

But interestingly when French Royal Navy bombarded Genoan Port before a declaration of Blockade had given time for third party shipping to clear the area and damaged a lot of third party ships. The French Government accepted that it's Admiral had made an error and paid compensation for the lost and damaged shipping.

This would seem to imply that the London Naval Conference may not be legally binding but does have degree of moral authority over the conduct of war at sea! It should be noted that the legally upstanding French Privateers have followed both the laws of France, Scots byelaws and international guidelines ref action at sea to the letter

Fortunately, nothing has been said about actions on land....... "Don't you just love the smell of burning Fishing Ports in the Morning......it smells like Victory!"

Thanks for this, Stuart. I am exceptionally bored at the moment waiting for the latest (and very important) G7 turn to arrive - so bored in fact that I did start to wonder whether I should try Austria in G8 - so I will give a brief summary here and then look at individual aspects of it.

Overall it seems to have been only half-completed - so it reads more like a typical piece of committee-designed reaction against a perceived threat rather than a robust agreement to worry the likes of the corsair branch. Perhaps that is inevitable when each contributor thinks they have identified the problem and the critical answer which solves that problem. It is one of the reasons why internationalism fails and to justify the time they have committed, the parties end up agreeing how awful piracy is and then 'virtue signal' their opposition to it by signing something which doesn't solve the problem. It is hardly surprising France didn't sign it - King Louis was probably laughing behind their backs that they accepted you as a delegate. I'm fairly sure in G7 you would not have invited Blackbeard to a Spanish-led anti-piracy conference and expected him to sign up to be a well behaved pirate and not do piratical things.

Part of the problem in G10 is that France and her allies do not make declarations of war, just commit acts of war, whilst others stand by. The Conference would have been much more effective if instead of trying to codify the things they did not like, they all agreed that whether they were a signatory or not, if any nation broke any of its rules, they would all face trading bans and possibly war. If France knew that she would suffer for sponsoring attacks on neutral shipping (such as happened in Genoa) then perhaps she might not have done what she did. I don't know the current repercussions, but even if the objective was purely economic, it is probably to France's advantage to cripple Genoa's ports and sink ships trading with Genoa knowing that to replace that lost income Genoa would have to invest more money much more ineffectually during the later months of the year. France therefore gains market share and higher trade income. It isn't fair, but it is how the game rules on investment work. If a £10K investment in January with recruits yields a £4K profit (the same as the profit from a merchant ship), then each ship lost would require a £20K investment without recruits to replace it in January. Since trade investments made part way through the year return significantly less, even if we assume a 20% reduction every quarter, by the time we have reached June, the compensation required would have increased to £33K/ship. And none of this includes the loss to Genoa of 'foreigners' tax revenue or customs revenue. France may have paid this kind of compensation, I don't know, but I somewhat doubt it. Compensation normally goes above and beyond the economic damage, reflecting the culpability of the one who caused the loss, so if France had been offering £50K/ship that might have been more appropriate. Genoa (and other 3rd parties damaged in the assault) would still be entitled to be aggrieved at the loss of life in such a cowardly and unprovoked attack, so I suspect they would be able to milk this for honour purposes for quite some time.

As a strategy to boost profits from their own trade, going around sinking foreign ships may well be highly profitable for France and nothing from the London Naval Conference prevents them from doing that. Simply producing a document which 'nice' players agree to might boost their honour in the short term, but without teeth why should anyone take any notice of it?

On to the specific points and how it could be improved:

Stuart Bailey wrote:
For information the London Naval Conference considered five main issues issues:

1) Who can issue letters of Marque

2) Rules of Blockade

3) Third part rights and what goods are contraband and what is not?

4) Treatment of civilian sailors

5) Territorial limits

- Lord Godolphin pushed for rules on letters of Marque to be tightened pushing for this right to be limited to Sovereign, territorial and naval powers only. Which would have disallowed the letters of Marque of non territorial rulers like King James in exile as well as letters of Marque from landlocked powers like Bavaria or non Naval powers the Ashanti. The Godolphin doctrine also said that Letters of Marque are only valid if issued by a head of State or his accredited representative such as King William or his accredited representative the Admiralty in London with letters of Marque issued by Colonial Governors are only to be considered provisional and subject to final approval.

- For reasons not really clear some people did not seem happy about the accredited representative of Louis XIV of France being the Privateering Branch of the French Navy.

- Lord Godolphin pushed for formal declaration of Blockades and a time period to allow third party shipping to clear the area. After the expiry of the warning and time period the Godolphin Doctrine gives Neutral shipping NO RIGHTS at all and the tricky question of what is contraband is ignored. Basically if you are in a port or territorial waters of a party at war you are a target and can be seized or sunk. The only defence is if a third party ship can show it sailed before the Blockade was declared is will only be turned back not seized. (I said Lord G was pushing the most hard line possible on neutral shipping rights).

- Conference seemed to agree on good treatment of civilian sailors from seized ships - to be set free with passage money and absolutely no one is to sale them as galley slaves etc (Note the Ottomans were not at the conference).

- Conference seemed to settle on 3 mile territorial limit and confirmed that states can ban privateering etc in own territorial waters. A position strongly pushed by the Scots.

On "Who can issue letters of Marque", I can see why they tried this approach: logically only sovereign, territorial and naval powers should have ships, so to try and stop trading companies (like HWIC), pirates, other factions, etc from being used as a front is good. But it falls down when they try to apply it to non-territorial rulers (King James in exile, etc), for if King James lands in England and is acclaimed by the people of Portsmouth and the English fleet based there, that surely makes him a sovereign, territorial and naval power. I know it would take some time, but if the situation was reversed and William became the King in exile, kicked out of UDP as well, would the same people who drafted this expect William to comply with the Conference and refrain from issuing letters of marque? I think not.

It is also rather unfair on nations like the Asante who may (by the help of a western mission?) build their own ships - that would make them a naval power. It would be relatively easy for an unscrupulous faction to create a naval power in this way and use them as a front.

The rules of blockade section is more curious still: it seems to be a variation on the riot act, which is normally read when the mob know they are facing force to make them disperse. It is usually pointless trying to send a local official out to read a piece of paper to a mob which is unprepared to listen and has decided to riot because the authorities are not prepared to do anything about their grievances. The trouble is that there is nothing to stop ships from the nation under blockade claiming that they are neutral or carrying goods permitted under the terms of the blockade. Effectively, they can just sail away if approached. So although giving neutral shipping no rights is actually a good way of handling it, it is undermined by this huge loophole.

You have already pointed out the difficulty over what happens to crews from seized ships: some cultures such as the Ottomans take slaves. There are better things to do with crews, but since it is highly unlikely any shipping will be caught perhaps it is academic.

I have dealt with the point about territorial limits and why that doesn't work in an earlier post.

Overall it pretends to be what it isn't because if it had teeth then those who signed it would have to take on the responsibility for enforcing it. If the problems I have highlighted were addressed, though, then in principle an agreement by European nations could be a way forward.

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Fortunately, nothing has been said about actions on land....... "Dont you just love the smell of buring Fishing Ports in the Morning......it smells like Victory!"      

I just shared this with my Vietnamese deputy. She gave me a mile wide smile, and commented, ‘With such logic and tactics, they lost the American War...’

Kerensky wrote:

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Fortunately, nothing has been said about actions on land....... "Dont you just love the smell of buring Fishing Ports in the Morning......it smells like Victory!"      

I just shared this with my Vietnamese deputy. She gave me a mile wide smile, and commented, ‘With such logic and tactics, they lost the American War...’

Thanks mate That actually made me LOL and at the moment I need that

I had a major issue so didn't send in a turn or letters this month my sister, her wife, two foster children moving to adopt them I would have been the uncle I felt like it already were killed by a truck driver high on drugs and I have been handling the legal issues and funerals with little help my folks are heart broken as is my brother who is in the US Amy and deployed in a sensitive area so can't be easily pulled out.

The scum is up on major charges and the plea deal will likely not be very good the DA will go to trial if he needs to and will throw the book at him if needed.

Thanks for letting me vent it helps my dear wife has been my rock and keeping me going.

Anyway back to the game on Letters of Marque I plan to create a law regarding it in my nations since its land locked and have no navy they might need to go this route to even have some kind of naval option. I'm not sure how far I would accept the European agreements but they will influence how we set the Privateer Law up.

Dear god mate, I am sure I speak for all of us when I say you have our complete sympathy and support. Many of us have had difficult (to put it mildly) situations over the years and feel it's fair to say the forum has always been supportive. If there is anything any of us can do, even if it is just people to talk to, I am sure we all will be willing to do help

Dear Tkolter,
I am saddened to hear of your multiple loss. I know from experience that there is little I can say at this time to assuage the pain in your heart and mind. I concur with Jason2’s message. All I can say is that if you need anything I can help with, I am here, as I am sure all players of this game will be.
We laugh and joke together, but we are also here for each other, when the sun dips below the horizon of life.
Letting it out & burning off the fury and desolation is a good choice, as the alternative of bottling up does not work out for most in the long run.
May you and your family find the strength in your time of trial.
James

Dear Tkolter,

I would just like to echo James words which say what we would all like to say only in a much more articulate way than I could ever manage.

Many years ago by mother's twin sister lost her youngest daughter in a bad traffic accident and the grief never really ends, but you carry on day to day for the living and in time it dims a little as you work through the process of grieving. Which is a totally normal human process and a important part of what makes us human. After fourty years my Auntie and my Mum her twin sister seem to be over the grief but to this day if the hymn played at Haidi's funneral is played they both have to leave the room in a hurry.

We are all different in how we manage grief but after a while doing something physical like hitting a punch bag or a cricket ball really hard or even walking helps get shift some of the rage which can be a bye product of grief. While playing silly games like working out your southern african position on letters of marque and the like can help to give the mind a bit of a needed rest.

Yours sincerely

Stuart

I certainly will offer prayers for your and your family. I have personally witnessed the ver events your speak of in my 25 years of service. It doesn't get easier and it is always someone making a horribly irresponsible choice that ends something beautiful.

I will certainly remember you and yours in prayer. Grace and peace TKolter.

You and your family are in my thoughts and prayers Tkolter. Often events do not make sense as to why someone would do that and we are left to find our way forward from it. You only have to ask and we will join you on your journey forward.

Regards Mark

What a heartbreaking loss, so sorry to hear it.

Just like to add my name to the rest. Wishing you well in these darkest of times.

The hardest part of life is losing loved ones. Remember the great times you had together. Nobody can take those memories away from you.

Best Wishes. Roy.

Belated but no less deep sympathies from a fellow Game 10 "African"... Don't know if it helps when folk remark on the enormity of your sudden loss, but it is clearly a common chord.

The Revenant wrote:Apologies in advance to anyone expecting inter-action with the Asante this coming turn - I seem to have missed the deadline!  (A mixture of long holiday, germs and general insouciance, I'm afraid.)

Or maybe not... I got an email from Agema a couple of days later, noting I hadn't sent orders and saying it might not be too late. So I rushed out what I had it in mind to do and with luck it may have made the cut. Could go either way. Waiting to see...

Must be nearly time for the turn. Next week.?

"Fake News" By Game Ten LGDR?

Don't get too confused when you read the "August" News for the month of September.

Do we have the Mastermind behind the Apollo Assc at last revealed? Or is it a cover up of a cover up covered over in covers?

Russia has had a good start in this LGDR world to date we are getting to the end of yet another game year, & I don't seem to recall any Naval losses for the Tsardom, but where did the Tsar find those Tulips......? No wonder the Archduchess was impressed any man who can get Tulips to bloom in September must have a special touch.

What on earth was the Rozwi chieftain talking about to the Scots ambassador?Is drinking half a bottle of whiskey compulsory to understanding ?

Is Denmark now allied with England, as Princess Anne second in line to the throne is married to a Danish Crown Prince ?

Phillip of Sicily seems to want to become King of Spain as well, even though Carlos III has been confirmed king of Spain by the Pope, Louis of France & William of England & Scotland, will it mean that if Carlos III dies that the succession goes to the next Hapsburg in line?

What on earth is the Dutch Ambassador to Spain playing at, I write his orders & I haven't got a clue?

Long live the King of the Poles, whoever he maybe?

Just a few questions from the initial read of the paper, sure there will be more to follow

If the Contessa’s advice of the day is : With great power, comes great responsibility.

Since I am playing one of the smallest and least powerful positions does this mean I can run riot? Shortly after calling out the vile slandering but nameless bounders who called by a Character a) A Pirate & B) A traitor to Louis XIV.

Lies! all Lies!! I am loyal to my King.......and I have it on the very best and most expensive French Legal advise that my letters of Marque will stand up in any French court.

As for the Duchess of Saigon comments about burning villages not being a route to victory........Vietnam may be a special case since due to all the rain not even the Yuan Mongols could get it to burn properly. Tactic worked fine for the Romans and all the powers which followed them in Italy, probably because its a lot dryer and things burn better.

Finally at the risk of being branded as a somewhat dodgy privateer for good - Last Saturday was in London playing in a Magagame "By Grace of God". Set in the period just after the end of the English Civil War. Did not ask for any particular position but oddly ended up with Robert Blake and control of the English North Sea Fleet. Not a very important character or role but in theory "Privateering" was a handy way of picking up extra cash.

In my single minded pursuit of funds for a poor Navy - starved of funds by a un-careing Parliament - I sadly managed to avoid high points of the game such as Charles I being thrown out of a window in Scotland by some of the "Royalist" factions and London being taken over by the Levellers/Fifth Monarchist factions. But did avoid all foreign complaints & getting sacked while gathering £203,000 in Prize Money (Self presevation Society?).

Turned out later that the nasty un-careing Parliament which was starving the Navy was actually badly in the Red and at one stage only had £7,000 in the Treasury.

The Good news was that my the end of the game Charles II had been able to do a deal with moderate Parliamentary leaders like Cromwell, Fairfax and Blake's nice newly doubled in size fleet followed the Independent leadership in going over to Charles so exit No 2 (which involved the West Indies and a Black Flag) did not come into play. Not being directly responsible for the end of Charles I helped most of Parliament make its peace.

Pity Charles getting London back is probably going to mean the Great Fire of London a few years early.

Very interesting on the megagame. Do you have any links or will there be additional write ups you can share? Sounds splendid fun.

& I explained your sense of absolute certainty, on the French Corsair tactical approach, to the Empress of Hanoi over morning coffee. I also slipped in that you were ‘French’.

A pout, & then a big smile.

“Many western minds correlate the ability to destroy with the ability to win. It is a certainty they give you. Certainty is the best possible gift you can have from any opponent. Absolute certainty led the French to Diên Biên Phu.”

Kerensky wrote:Very interesting on the megagame. Do you have any links or will there be additional write ups you can share? Sounds splendid fun.

& I explained your sense of absolute certainty, on the French Corsair tactical approach, to the Empress of Hanoi over morning coffee. I also slipped in that you were ‘French’.

A pout, & then a big smile.

“Many western minds correlate the ability to destroy with the ability to win. It is a certainty they give you. Certainty is the best possible gift you can have from any opponent. Absolute certainty led the French to Diên Biên Phu.”

Hi,

Three megagame links below which you may find of interest - plus the links from them to other world wide events. Though I suspect if you arrange a West Coast USA holiday/business meeting which strangely happens to co-inside with a Mega-game in the states the Duchess may smell a rat.

http://www.megagames.org.uk/mm-who.htm

https://megagamemakers.uk/

http://www.beckybeckyblogs.com/life-in-leeds/

Nothing much about grace of god up yet but the Empress of Hanoi may find some of the accounts of past eastern/vietnam games interesting. Trying to remember the name of the game where the designer decided that the best way to capture the feeling of the Vietnam war period was to have the Americans and the Viet Cong playing totally different games! With the Americans playing a tactical game while the Viet Cong side were basically playing a political game. So while the Americans were digging into their landing zones and trying to avoid losses the Viet Cong were gaining points for doing things like re-education, helping villagers and holding political meetings.

Next year "The two brush stokes" game set in China in the 1930's may be interesting. Any hints about what I should play?

The third one is a a blog by a friend of mine who oddly enough is called Becky. It was her husband to be who played Charles I with such hard core devotion to the right of Kings, High Church, etc that his own faction (Ok Irish and Scots Covenanteers who had gone Royalist) arranged his "unfortunate" fall from a window in the London version of "For Grace of God".

Becky is a enjoyable writer but does like some odd stuff like SF and disaster games but if you go back a a bit back in her games reports you will find ones on the Russian Civil War and the Undeniable victory (Iran Iraq 1980's) which were games closer to the political/military inter-play enjoyed fans of Agema style games.

You will probably enjoy the report from the Political Leadership angle about the "Undeniable Victory" which explains why one Stuart almost got blamed for everything and hung (sorry I mean shot) by his own political leadership. I would hasten to add......a) It was not my fault b) An account from the Airforce would have been very different & c) Certain "Ministers" are not aware to this day how close they were to an unfortunate helecopter crash!

Kerensky wrote:Very interesting on the megagame. Do you have any links or will there be additional write ups you can share? Sounds splendid fun.

& I explained your sense of absolute certainty, on the French Corsair tactical approach, to the Empress of Hanoi over morning coffee. I also slipped in that you were ‘French’.

A pout, & then a big smile.

“Many western minds correlate the ability to destroy with the ability to win. It is a certainty they give you. Certainty is the best possible gift you can have from any opponent. Absolute certainty led the French to Diên Biên Phu.”

Its a lie! I am only a little bit French (Protestant), mostly English & 1/16 Welsh.

Wales a land of mountains and rain were Roman, Saxon, Viking, Norman and English armies also found nothing to burn and nothing to do but starve while their chain mail rusted in the rain. Like Vietnam, Scotland and Afghan territory Wales comes under either tactical approach b) Bribery & c) Here be savage women/dragons......stay away.

For all other locations the tactical approach of Romans, Mongols, Ottomans, Russians etc still seems valid esp when applied to Italian Merchant Princes & German Electors with flamable estates, palaces and juicy merchant ships loaded down with loot, plunder, gold, spices, exotic textiles, gemstones beond price, scumper me banacles and shiver me timbers

Ok, Ok got a bit carried away there.......might be general goods, fish, livestock and timber so war but I live in hope of an East Indiaman loaded with the teasures of the East, gemstones etc is on its way so the Doge of Genoa and spoil his harem and bribe various Cardinals:D