Who has the power?

Just going to throw an open question onto the floor;

Basically there has been some debate as to who holds th epower in Poland, is it the king or the Polish Nobles, in older games of LGDR, Poland was a single player position & was extremly powerful , this was changed by Agema , making Poland potentially powerful so long as all the parts of the fragmented position were active & working together.

In a similar way on Paper the Holly Roman Empire could be a dominant force, the Electors all derive their power & status from the Empire, but don't want to see an over powerful Emperor. Hapsburg Emperors hold more territory outside the Empire than in it, so can see the Empire as a useful tool to help them expand Hapsburg interests, but find it hard to get support from the Electors & the other Estates.If Kaiser is lucky a few active Electors will support him, if not it is a lonley place to be.

The Papacy has potentially a lot of power as well, as leader( alongside The Holy Roman Emperor) of the Catholic world, but how is that power enforcable. Rome needs the Catholic powers to listen to his propsals & act accordingly potential is there if others cooperate.

Similarly the King of England, Scotland & Ireland rules the territories in the title, but day to day running of government is in the hands of the Prime Minister(s).

All the above positions are in theory major power play positions but don't often seem to come to the fore or totally dominant posiitons as for example France, or possibly Spain,

Maybe I have just had experience in the wrong games, but is this opinion also relevant for other games & positions?

Well, my limited take is:

Well run, the Papacy can influence the honour of catholic rulers with praise or scorn. This must be used judiciously, but they can sway minds. If they overuse this power, it will fade away. They have some rather specious claims on some other territories, but almost no way to ever enforce those claims. This is the position for those who like to make witty commentary about what other people do. If you're looking to grow your position, this one is not the best choice.

With England, most of the power is with the English player. Parliament can be an issue, but at least it's a functional form of government. The king, sometimes foreign, has power over certain things, but would be wise not to push matters because parliament has a recent history of deciding kings aren't kings any more...

In game 7, I played the jacobites for a while and managed for force out the protestant prime minister and get mine in, and I still didn't get control of the country. Basically, the English player had a new ruler, but the English position was still his to run. I gave up at that point, and the next jacobite player went full autocrat. I can't blame him given how my attempts to do it reasonably didn't get me the prize. At some point, I think the game sometimes forces you to do stuff like burn down parliament because of the way Richard establishes position control.

Poland is an utter mess. It is fractured into different player positions none of which are much, the government is completely dysfunctional (any single member of the polish parliament can veto all legislation passed in a session essentially and dissolve the polish parliament), and the king is foreign to boot with almost no power anyway. Basically, nobody holds power in Poland, it's a dumpster fire. The polish nobles get to take turns spitting in the fire to amuse themselves.

_IF_ all this were fixed, it might be able to stand on closer to equal footing to its neighbors. Even if all this is fixed, Poland is still well below the base power level of most of its big neighbors, Russia, Austria, and the Ottomans in my view. At the end of the day, population levels drive the power base in the game, and these all have more population than even a fully united Poland.  Fixed, It's probably on par with Sweden, or a bit ahead. I personally think Richard seriously overcompensated for this mythical "in one game Poland was awesome" thing. Historically Poland was weak in this period and Richard seems to work hard to keep it that way.

Absolute monarchies are a cake walk in comparison, and the big ones in game have big economic bases, bigger recruit pools and are just simply more powerful positions.

I think that's actually a bit of a pity because absolute monarchies were also historically pretty dysfunctional and didn't bring out the best in their nations. If you as a player have to sweat dealing with a fractious form of democracy, you ought to reap some of the benefits of that in greater economic development and the like.

I have never played the semi "Republican" positions of England, UDP or Venice but I do get the feeling that to make up for having to manage public opinion and parliaments they do have a lot of advantages esp in terms of trade, low interest loans, R & D and general economic health.

Basically you can smash these three into the ground but give it a year and they are back as big and ugly as before while many of the absolute monarchies like France, Spain and Austria seem to be a lot more fragile than them in Economic terms. For example in G2 and G7 England had the kitchen sink thrown at it but remained a leading economic power while in G10 Spains political crisis seems to have resulted in an huge economic crisis as well.

Not sure if Poland is weaker in the game than in history but my feeling is that Spain, Prussia, Russia and Moghul India do start out stronger in 1700 than they were historically.

Ref the value of the fancy titles held by some positions like Holy Roman Emperor, Pope, King of Poland, King of Poland and even the Ottoman Sultan. My feeling is that these titles are materially hollow and if you try and use your title to order Agema NPC's around you will just be ignored.

But if you work them properly you can gain a lot of indirect benefits like honour and recruits for your Imperial and Royal institutions. They also seem more important if you have other players.

Trying to use the authority of your position/title to order players around hardly ever works. But a player Emperor/Ottoman Sultan/King of England who has the full backing of a couple of Electors/Bays or Ministers is going to be very strong.

Through to get Poland back to its glory days in G1 I suspect you will need probably three players willing to work in co-operation for a long time and probably a generous backer willing to splash some cash in their direction.

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Ref the value of the fancy titles held by some positions like Holy Roman Emperor, Pope, King of Poland, King of Poland and even the Ottoman Sultan.  My feeling is that these titles are materially hollow and if you try and use your title to order Agema NPC's around you will just be ignored.

But if you work them properly you can gain a lot of indirect benefits like honour and recruits for your Imperial and Royal institutions.  They also seem more important if you have other players.

Trying to use the authority of your position/title to order players around hardly ever works.  But a player Emperor/Ottoman Sultan/King of England who has the full backing of a couple of Electors/Bays or Ministers is going to be very strong.

For me, Stuart has hit home with this bit. In-game the title is meaningless unless you play with some personality to win people over. You may be King of this or Sultan of that but if you throw your title around and expect other players to obey you, you've had it.

G10 is an excellent example. King William II of Scotland (ok and III of England and Ireland) is played by someone whose main position is as Stadtholder of the UDP. England and Scotland are played by two amazingly nice, but still independently minded, individuals. Now if King William had come in and started ordering around the English and Scottish players, he would have found himself suffering the fate of James Stuart...or possibly Charles, first of that name...instead he came in and (in typical Dutch style) went "hey, lets all be friends and work together and lets see what we can achieve"...and made friends instantly.

Jason wrote:

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Ref the value of the fancy titles held by some positions like Holy Roman Emperor, Pope, King of Poland, King of Poland and even the Ottoman Sultan.  My feeling is that these titles are materially hollow and if you try and use your title to order Agema NPC's around you will just be ignored.

But if you work them properly you can gain a lot of indirect benefits like honour and recruits for your Imperial and Royal institutions.  They also seem more important if you have other players.

Trying to use the authority of your position/title to order players around hardly ever works.  But a player Emperor/Ottoman Sultan/King of England who has the full backing of a couple of Electors/Bays or Ministers is going to be very strong.

For me, Stuart has hit home with this bit.  In-game the title is meaningless unless you play with some personality to win people over.   You may be King of this or Sultan of that but if you throw your title around and expect other players to obey you, you've had it.

G10 is an excellent example.  King William II of Scotland (ok and III of England and Ireland) is played by someone whose main position is as Stadtholder of the UDP.  England and Scotland are played by two amazingly nice, but still independently minded, individuals.  Now if King William had come in and started ordering around the English and Scottish players, he would have found himself suffering the fate of James Stuart...or possibly Charles, first of that name...instead he came in and (in typical Dutch style) went "hey, lets all be friends and work together and lets see what we can achieve"...and made friends instantly.

I personally think the G10 King William of England,Scotland & Ireland aka Staadtholder of the UDP, has been given a very lucky break as he has been put into a team with two experienced & level headed ,friendly Players who are prepared to work together with him, unlike some team positions there appears to be a great deal of respect & understanding for each other.

That's why medium sized positions are better even I can't order people around without consulting them.

Did any of you ever consider imbedding spies in parliament or whatever your system is to sway vote say your England and its King why not place influential commoners you control into The House of Commons in time the Prime Minister might end up with no power you controlling the majority by covert means.

I can't do that since I have no elected government but many of you in the royal position might consider this you don't need to control everyone really just cogs in the machine individuals who can bring others to vote with him not dead weight. And counterspies to protect your position which has less cogs to control so is easier.

tkolter wrote:That's why medium sized positions are better even I can't order people around without consulting them.

Did any of you ever consider imbedding spies in parliament or whatever your system is to sway vote say your England and its King why not place influential commoners you control into The House of Commons in time the Prime Minister might end up with no power you controlling the majority by covert means.

I can't do that since I have no elected government but many of you in the royal position might consider this you don't need to control everyone really just cogs in the machine individuals who can bring others to vote with him not dead weight. And counterspies to protect your position which has less cogs to control so is easier.

I hadn't considered that but it's a brilliant idea and so inkeeping with the period when bribery and a bit of corruption of MPs was quite ok

Jason wrote:

tkolter wrote:That's why medium sized positions are better even I can't order people around without consulting them.

Did any of you ever consider imbedding spies in parliament or whatever your system is to sway vote say your England and its King why not place influential commoners you control into The House of Commons in time the Prime Minister might end up with no power you controlling the majority by covert means.

I can't do that since I have no elected government but many of you in the royal position might consider this you don't need to control everyone really just cogs in the machine individuals who can bring others to vote with him not dead weight. And counterspies to protect your position which has less cogs to control so is easier.

I hadn't considered that but it's a brilliant idea  and so inkeeping with the period when bribery and a bit of corruption of MPs was quite ok

I think the correct period term for payments to your own side is not "bribery and corruption" but "patronage". If I was ever running England or Scotland I would be spending every penny of own income on buying up rotton/pocket burgh's. But I also think the same applies to all positions and not only the Parliamentary ones if you want your orders to be actioned.

Hell, if you are Louis XIV in G10 and provide the Privateering branch with a £1m of Patronage/Budget (not a bribe!) you even get orders actioned you were not even aware you had given.

If you ignore the green light given to the Rumelian Army for the odd sack and general looting in G2 since it was not my money think the largest "bribe" I ever paid in a game was to honour the last will of Carlos II in G7 which as well as making Charles von Hapsburg his sole heir left money to all his loyal ministers, servants, soldiers, sailors and loyal members of the Cortez etc. It took a very large chunk out
of the Spanish Treasury but in one month Carlos III was crowned and every member of the Spanish Military, Government and various Cortez had accepted the will (from which they benefited......funny that) and had taken an oath loyalty to the new King.

In Contrast the will of Carlos II in G10 also left money to all his loyal soldiers, members of the cortez etc but when the Regency Council in Madrid ripped it up in favour of putting a usurper on the throne they also totally ignored all of Carlos II bequests to his loyal soldiers and governors. Is it any wonder that some of the disappointed beneficaries then openned the gates of Milan and defected to the Duke of Savoy?

Interestingly one of the largest area's of "Patronage" open to rulers historically was via Church appointments. Interestingly in G7 King James III of England (A Catholic) has gone back on earlier Jacobite promises to leave the Church of England alone and is now enforcing his headship which gives him a very large pool of appointments/Patronage to play with. While in G10 the Pope is pushing his rights over the appointment of Bishops. Wonder if Catholic rulers in G10 who accept Papal control of appointments this see their honour score go up for being loyal Catholics or down as their ability to offer "Patronage" is lowered?

Some how I think France is going to end up with a lot of Bishop-Elects in that they have been appointed by the King but some how they never got around to visiting Rome and getting their appointment confirmed

To be fair in game 7, I made promises about the Church of England. After I dropped the position somebody else took it up. I don't think one player's promises are binding on the next player if they haven't been put into a treaty and signed. I can't really blame them.

Ok I have played Poland.

The King of Poland is an Elected Monarchy. Poland is made up of 4 States, Lithuania, Polish Ukranie, Poland and Courland.

The King has no Power, except as elected Head of State.

Poland as a whole (all 4 of the commonwealth) cannot go to war unless they all agree.

Poland its self (not the commonwealth) is basically ruled by the Sjem (council) if ONE member objects to a bill it will not pass. This was how Russia kept it in check by bribing the nobles and bishops to block and laws they did not like.

It is also illegal to sell Polish horses to any one!

Basically as the state Poland is knackered, its hands are tied in many ways, any one can become King of Poland..... If they have enough money to swing the vote.

But it is a fun position to play.


The reason it is so hamstrung is because in LGDR 1 Poland was not 4 states and the guy who played it went on to nearly rule all of Europe so strong was his postion!
Richard decided to split it into a commonwealth. However saying that I suppose 4 Players could unite the Commonwealth and take to the saddle and run around europe?

An interesting Op-Ed to consider. I have played this now for just under 2 years (second time), but my perspective would be along the following lines:
I see Stuart's point that the 'republics' likely have significant advantages in game economically, to offset the immediate military power of a larger absolute monarchy.
There are innate advantages & disadvantages in each position, with the 'collegiate' powers working best if blessed with an experienced & stable coalition of powers.
The deciding factor for me though is how they are played (both absolute & 'collegiate') not necessarily their inherent advantages. The point from Jason on 'You may be King of this or Sultan of that but if you throw your title around and expect other players to obey you, you've had it.' holds for both absolute & coalition.
If a position is played with finesse and style, and with a touch of humility and strong personal interaction, it seems to do quite well (again, based on my observations in G9 & 10).
I see a reflection in real life environment, where people of rank (in a work context) often do not have any real authority or influence, because they expect it as a right from their position. The people with real authority (or influence), have earned it from their actions and behaviours to others over a period of time. Often, the person who can swing a meeting or committee is that person, not the person with the 'title'. Power is influence in my book, the subtler the better.
If you rock up to a game & expect it to all go your way as you are X, it is a brave play, but likely to not succeed (unless you can back it up with a whole lot of personality and charm).


P.S. Just accidentally voted on a few other comments (thought they were expanders/ contractors rather than voting buttons... =/)

After reading the above posts my immediate thought was "The Pope in G10 is going to need bucket loads of personality and charm!" to pull off his starting play.

But to be fair while its very rare the larger than life Character approach can work at the head of a collegiate position. An Ottoman Sultan in G2 did pull of the huge, larger than life character approach and got away with issuing orders wild orders to his poor over worked under-paid Grand Vizier (me) and his Bey of Egypt like "Bring me the **** head of the ***** traitor Michael of Moldavia" and a truely alarming declaration of war against Venice. And some how people followed him, mostly I think to see what was going to happen next.

But that Sultan was a true warlord and was just offering leadership to the Ottoman Empire rather than trying to CHANGE it internally. He also tended to work on the basis of what his Beys were reporting and order them to help him fix it.

Think the problem with 'collegiate' positions like the Ottoman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth etc which gives them a bad reputation is that many players think their objective is to "centralize" them ie Turn the Holy Roman Empire into a united German state and then end getting frustrated when they then end up fighting against their own people, diets etc and suffer huge downward pressure on their honour and economic health while making very small progress.

While wanting to be a Ottoman Peter the Great or unite Germany or Italy 150 years early or even return the British Kingdom Isles to rule by King James and restore the Catholic Faith are big and worthwhile ambition's players need to accept that these objectives are not going to be done by title or even sweet reason and you are just going to have to accept that the odds are against you, its going to do huge damage to your honour and economic health and its going to take a military solution not fancy speaches to the Imperial Diet or the Scots Parliament. Just ask Jason Flower about his attempt to unite Germany in G2 or the James III player in G7.

In many ways the best way to take advantage of titles like Holy Roman Emperor is not to try and turn your Empire into Germany but act in a strictly constitutional manner and act as guardian of its traditional laws and protect the rights of its Princes and free cities. Not only will this do your honour score a power of good but upstart Prussians who want to be Frederick the Great 40 years early can be drowned in Imperial Red Tape.

Kingmaker wrote:Ok I have played Poland.  

The King of Poland is an Elected Monarchy.  Poland is made up of 4 States, Lithuania, Polish Ukranie, Poland and Courland.  

The King has no Power, except as elected Head of State.

Poland as a whole (all 4 of the commonwealth) cannot go to war unless they all agree.

Poland its self (not the commonwealth) is basically ruled by the Sjem (council)  if ONE member objects to a bill it will not pass.  This was how Russia kept it in check by bribing the nobles and bishops to block and laws they did not like.

It is also illegal to sell Polish horses to any one!

Basically as the state Poland is knackered, its hands are tied in many ways, any one can become King of Poland.....  If they have enough money to swing the vote.

But it is a fun position to play.


The reason it is so hamstrung is because in LGDR 1 Poland was not 4 states and the guy who played it went on to nearly rule all of Europe so strong was his postion!
Richard decided to split it into a commonwealth.  However saying that I suppose 4 Players could unite the Commonwealth and take to the saddle and run around europe?

I also played Augustus the Strong "Elector of Saxony & King of Poland" - unfortunately Saxony rolled the dreaded x2 famines in following years very, very early in game which wiped out the position and the I was in a Commonwealth of one which probably amended game experience.

However with a bit of digging was able to gain some benefits from my empty title:

- Saxony has a well developed mining Industry, as King of Poland was able to claim mineral rights esp on Crown Lands allowing the use of Saxon miners to develop new mines in Poland.

- Large undeveloped Crown Lands allowed for investments in Forest clearing and Agricultural development. Given time could have developed a healthy grain/potatoe surplus.

- Not able to tax citizens of the Commonwealth without permission of the Diet (which I was not going to get) but had control of foreign policy and nothing about not being able to tax foreigners. Basically this resulted in 0% for Saxony, 5% for France who was investing in Polish Agriculture and 10% for everyone else. Also funded development of Danzig and roads/canals which linked Dresden to Danzig plus a small fleet in Danzig which basically ment Saxony was no longer landlocked and was getting ready to flog its Missen to the world.

- As King of Poland was unable to declare war without permission of Diet but was able to appoint Hetmen, inspect and give orders to the Polish troops in Poland to drill, replace matchlocks with flintlocks and the like. Was also able to maintain my Royal Bodyguard on Polish soil which come the end included most of the Polish Artillery and key garrisons in Danzig, Lvov and Warsaw.

- Basically I was playing the King of Poland as a hired in CEO with board of directors who could take day to day decisions to improve risk management. So come the day the Russians, Swedes or Ottomans invaded they were going to run into a degree of opposition from the Royal Army and the "Shareholders" AKA Polish Nobility would then have to decide if it was going to allow the take over or fight lead by yours truely and the Royal Hetmen. Gut feeling was that the Polish-Lithunian Commonwealth was never going to vote to attack anyone but with funds I could use Saxon Army, Royal Bodyguard and 200 Squadrons of Cossacks for a private campaign against Crimean Slavers for instance. And if anyone did invade the Commonwealth, Agema would probably give the Poles a fighting chance, was using meeting of the full diet on horse back so any agent thinking about shouting veto was probably thinking I am not going to get out of this field without having a really nasty accident.

In conslusion I think the major problem for the King of Poland in later games is not lack of ability to do things, its lack of money! Basically the Diet holds to the really old fashioned idea that the King should "live on his own" but given a long period of peace and good harvests and the non rise of Russia it may be possible to build up a Royal-Saxon position. Historically, this never happened and the Polish Monarchy never really got over the GNW and the Rise of Peter the Great but I do not think its set in stone that this is going to happen in game.

Certainly a challenge worth exploration.

Neither Holy, Roman or and an Empire? Yet it possesses an Emperor, a Diet, courts and an Army?
The enigma of the HRE, it’s presented as a proto German state, yet in theory contains, Czechs, Flemish, Tuscan, Milanese and Savoians, as well as various German speaking states.
I’ve played the Emperor for over 5 years and found it a frustrating role, various Electors have come and gone, but only one has stuck it out throughout and he has his own agenda.
I have tried to bride, flatter and cajole the various NCP Electors, Dukes, Landgraves and Margraves with varying results, whilst trying to uphold the Imperial constitution and the Westphalia settlement.
Fortunately I’ve not had too much in the way of Turkish or Hungarian distraction, otherwise it,s unlikely I would have managed to achieve even the limited success i’ve enjoyed thus far.
Basically it’s like herding cats, but I think trying to achieve a consensus within the constitutional framework of the Reich has achieved more results than an more militant approach.
Perhaps a credible external threat will rally the disparate states of the Reich to the Imperial cause.

Goldstar wrote:
Perhaps a credible external threat will rally the disparate states of the Reich to the Imperial cause.

Would like to point out that various games have seen French Republican armies pouring across the Rhine and the Ottomans cut the Hapsburg Army to bits then starve Vienna into surrender and the disparate (NPC) states of the Empire did not rally.

Historically when the Reicharmee did take the Field it was always a bit of a joke with the states who sent units sending their worst.

At Rossback the Prussian Cavalry rode the whole Reicharmee off the field in less than an hour.

When playing as Emperor rather than mess around with the Reicharmee I always went direct to the Electors or the Poles and paid cash for good quality units or asked for permission to recruit against the Ottomans.

Having played Kaiser in G2 as a Prussian Protestant. It maybe that I started with a disadvantage when trying to get Imperial institutions to do anything. Plus I think Agema may use certain mechanics to help keep ingame balance, an Empire that can fully mobolise the whole strength of central Europe Is a major game changer, so having some parts of it ally to outside powers or simply ignoring the Kaiser stops that happening. Maybe the Polish posiiton is similar, just less people are interested in playing Poland( maybe due to historical fate) than parts of the HRR.

Also Austrian position lies mainly outside the Empire, Hungary & Bohemia are not actually parts of the HRR but are hereditary Hapsburg lands. That the Hapsburgs have a stranglehold on the Imperial title means the two are closely linked but they are not the same. it is possible a non- Hapsburg can take the throne, buti t isn't easy

Similarly the Papal position, if all the Catholics decided to back the Pope & do as he commands then The Holy Land would never have fallen to the Turks. In theory he can unite the Catholic world but in practice it never seems to happen entirely.

J Flower wrote:Having played Kaiser in G2 as a Prussian Protestant. It maybe that I started with a disadvantage when trying to get Imperial institutions to do anything. Plus I think Agema may use certain mechanics to help keep ingame balance, an Empire that can fully mobolise the whole strength of central Europe Is a major game changer, so having some parts of it ally to outside powers or simply ignoring the Kaiser stops that happening. Maybe the Polish posiiton is similar, just less people are interested in playing Poland( maybe due to historical fate) than parts of the HRR.

Also Austrian position lies mainly outside the Empire, Hungary & Bohemia are not actually parts of the HRR but are hereditary Hapsburg lands. That the Hapsburgs have a stranglehold on the Imperial title means the two are closely linked but they are not the same. it is possible  a non- Hapsburg can take the throne, buti t isn't easy

Similarly the Papal position, if all the Catholics decided to back the Pope & do as he commands then The Holy Land would never have fallen to the Turks. In theory he can unite the Catholic world but in practice it never seems to happen entirely.

Think that most games of Glori the only power which has an interest in a united Holy Roman Empire and making the Imperial Crown actually mean something are the Hapsburgs, while the odd game may also include a player who wants to unite "Germany" and exclude the Hapsburgs and the non German parts of the Holy Roman.  Effectively a re-run of C19 arguments over Germany 150 years early.

While players often yet away with taking over the odd territory in the Empire esp if ithey have a claim to the territory. In most games the Hapsburgs are strong enough to block anyone else from building up a "German" rival to the Empire or even taking over very large chunks of their "Empire".......a good example being early on in G7 when Prussia and Saxony came out in favour of a united Germany (with Austria, Bohemia, Flanders excluded) and started to annex a few small free cities as a start.  Only to run into solid wall of Imperial Red tape and legal charges, screams that they were betraying the peace and stability of the Empire and the threat that if the laid siege to even one little Bishop-Prince or Imperial Free-City a 100,000 good subjects of the Empire would march to the rescue.

But while strong enough to block the attempts of other Electors the Hapsburgs normally have too many other concerns like Spain, French, Ottomans and too many potential foes to pull old Imperial Claims out of the file and try a re-run of the 30 years war.  Basically to unite the Empire under something like the 1629 settlement a Hapsburg Emperor would probably need NPC or friendly Bourbons and Ottomans for at least a decade and probably a couple of highly co-operative player Electors.

G2 was a odd one in that the Hapsburgs lost Spain and with it Flanders early in the game when Philip of Anjou became King of Spain.  Not only did this reduce Hapsburg power but when Philip proceeded to annex Portugal it triggered wars which kept Western Europe occupied for ages.  Meanwhile the Austrian Hapsburgs managed to fall out with most of Eastern Europe and picked on the wrong over worked under-paid Ottoman Civil Servant and got wiped from the map.

This resulted in Prussia taking becoming the dominant territorial and military power in Germany and taking the Imperial title at first backed by the Catholic Elector of Bavaria who wanted a more united Germany to counter-balance the recovering Power of France and the Ottoman Army of the Will of God.

But even with no Hapsburgs, friendly Ottomans & English & with direct rule over half the Empire the Emperor was unable get the Empire to work for him.  Resulting in a final desperate "Blood & Iron" approach which lead to the biggest blood bath you have ever seen just prior to the game folding.

Given time I think the Empire would have finished his united the German Empire.  With the West Bank of the Rhine going to France, Bohemia being part of the Hungarian Kingdom and Carniola etc being Ottoman.  But it may have had a Hanover shaped hole in it ruled by the King of England...........I am not saying the English Ministers were keen to keep the Jason's Prince of Wales out of the Country and looking after his dear old Dads homeland but the man had his own Harem (trained in Music, Dance and sewing his socks) and a Janissary Bodyguard.

I know Glori forces are larger then historic ones and having a Janissary Bodyguard of a few hundred is trendy and fashionable but 20,000! A hard core of a force which had somehow survived picking fights with a over worked and under paid Ottoman Civil Servant, attempts at mass slaughter, death marches and being sold into slavery.

Oddly while western Germany drowned in blood during the Emperors last campaign no one touched Hanover or upset good King George eldest son has he enjoyed his Opium Pipe and really, really nicely darned socks.

With the Scots now "recruiting" in Moghul India in G10 is Jason how trying to rebuild his Hanovarian Utopia on the Clyde in G10?

I don't know, here I am almost 5 years after I dropped G2 and still I have to put up with these lies about my time as Hanover...I had less than 4,500 ex-Ottomans serving me...and not just janissary but mamelukes and random bits of the Army of Syria...all happy to have a new home serving an understanding lord who treated them with respect...

And I'm recruiting in India in G10?  news to me, afraid while I might have permission to do so, the Scottish economy isn't really strong enough to allow me to afford it...unless someone wants to give me a million pounds or so?  Perhaps a claimant to the Spanish throne might?  As compensation for he destruction of the Darien Scheme, to try and get some Scottish goodwill for their claim?

And I'm sorry, I have no intention in anything on the Clyde...the Dee, Don and Forth are the places to be