Game 10

Jason2 wrote:Now that was strange!  Did a reply to Papa about debauchery in early 18th C Scotland, tried to post and got a message saying this topic was locked and I couldn't post to it.

Afraid it was a long post and was lost...not sure I have the energy to retype it.  But I think Papa we need to be careful, I think we were getting close to diplomacy with some of that  

As to Amy Pond, I have to admit to a weak spot for the actress and she is a true Highlander so would be good inspiration.

My guess is it is probably something to do with Windows10. I did find it rather curious that earlier this week Microsoft put out their usual demand that everyone should upgrade because Win7 is going out of support and it exposes customers to security risks, but then a day later the US National Security Agency reveals a bug in Win10 that is so serious it renders that version even less secure. And that is despite Win10 being a 'service' that is continually updating itself. Perhaps there is something to be said for luddites like me going back to Win98 or WinXP.

Somehow I doubt discussing a mythical Scottish enlightenment or your weak spot for an actress would count as diplomacy. It does seem to make the forum rather meaningless if players are so paranoid about posting that they try not to mention the game at all.

I agree with your comment on Saxon-related news, though. Someone has clearly done a lot of very detailed research and connecting religion with a bridge is also rather apt. Pontifex can be translated as 'bridge builder', but is also one of the Papal titles (though not one I use regularly (Pontifex Maximus)), the Pope being the bridge between temporal and spiritual worlds. There is quite a long explanation of it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifex_maximus

Nice to see a ruler of Saxony who has a flair for subtlety.

Papa Clement wrote:

Jason2 wrote:Now that was strange!  Did a reply to Papa about debauchery in early 18th C Scotland, tried to post and got a message saying this topic was locked and I couldn't post to it.

Afraid it was a long post and was lost...not sure I have the energy to retype it.  But I think Papa we need to be careful, I think we were getting close to diplomacy with some of that  

As to Amy Pond, I have to admit to a weak spot for the actress and she is a true Highlander so would be good inspiration.

My guess is it is probably something to do with Windows10.  I did find it rather curious that earlier this week Microsoft put out their usual demand that everyone should upgrade because Win7 is going out of support and it exposes customers to security risks, but then a day later the US National Security Agency reveals a bug in Win10 that is so serious it renders that version even less secure.  And that is despite Win10 being a 'service' that is continually updating itself.   Perhaps there is something to be said for luddites like me going back to Win98 or WinXP.

Somehow I doubt discussing a mythical Scottish enlightenment or your weak spot for an actress would count as diplomacy.  It does seem to make the forum rather meaningless if players are so paranoid about posting that they try not to mention the game at all.

I agree with your comment on Saxon-related news, though.  Someone has clearly done a lot of very detailed research and connecting religion with a bridge is also rather apt.  Pontifex can be translated as 'bridge builder', but is also one of the Papal titles (though not one I use regularly (Pontifex Maximus)), the Pope being the bridge between temporal and spiritual worlds.  There is quite a long explanation of it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifex_maximus

Nice to see a ruler of Saxony who has a flair for subtlety.

I was thinking that what with discussing the "benefits"  of Lord Melville converting to catholicism, etc, some might see that as diplomacy.  Just would rather go for caution rather than have Richard call us out  

Jumping back slightly, on honour (and this bit was in the lost post and is quite short), I do think it's good for the games if there is a regular change in the top spot.  I still think Kerensky will reclaim his position, either that or Jason will leapfrog both of us.

I thought I recognised the use of Pontifex from somewhere, thanks for confirming. It will be fascinating to see what route this new (and I am assuming the articles mean we have a new player) Saxon player takes.  In their position, would I see the priority be on aiding the Emperor against France or enforcing my claim to the Kingship of Poland? Or could the focus be on internal development and ignore the wider issues?  I will watch with interest

Jason2 wrote:I was thinking that what with discussing the "benefits"  of Lord Melville converting to catholicism, etc, some might see that as diplomacy.  Just would rather go for caution rather than have Richard call us out  

Jumping back slightly, on honour (and this bit was in the lost post and is quite short), I do think it's good for the games if there is a regular change in the top spot.  I still think Kerensky will reclaim his position, either that or Jason will leapfrog both of us.

I thought I recognised the use of Pontifex from somewhere, thanks for confirming. It will be fascinating to see what route this new (and I am assuming the articles mean we have a new player) Saxon player takes.  In their position, would I see the priority be on aiding the Emperor against France or enforcing my claim to the Kingship of Poland? Or could the focus be on internal development and ignore the wider issues?  I will watch with interest

I think Richard has enough common sense to appreciate that I was not offering anything nor were you accepting anything - there is nothing to offer or accept. Musing on the highly improbable doesn't seem like diplomacy to me. Having played Scotland twice now, I do think it would be interesting if you could play a Catholic Scotland next time, though. It would give you a different appreciation of the history.

I agree that a change at the top of the honour table makes things more interesting. It is a shame the table doesn't actually give the score so we can all see how many points there are between positions on it. Might also give players more of an insight into the kinds of things needed to get higher or lower on the table. I do wonder if the table really reflects what we consider to be our in game achievements or is it merely a reflection of how many parties a player holds or how many wars they can keep out of? Oddly war doesn't seem to guarantee a move up the table, though being involved in a war you are losing seems to be a guaranteed way to move down the table. Not sure if it is still the case that if EH goes up by 1, honour goes down by 1. If it is then it is a bit tough on players who want to nation build and develop trade (both activities are usually classed as harmless to others if not generally beneficial and so should be positives), yet they will be penalised in honour terms for doing so? I know elsewhere you have commented on how honour seems to work differently for Chinese positions than it does for Scotland, so perhaps the comparisons on the table really don't mean that much after all?

I haven't had any letter from Saxony, so can't really comment on his priorities (which probably would be nearer to diplomacy!)

In G6 me taking Scotland Catholic was an option, simply because England showed no interest (friendly or hostile) in their northern neighbour whereas France pushed to re-establish the Auld Alliance.  If that game had lasted, you may have seen me playing a very different Scotland to my G10 version (in G6, Darien had survived, which gave the Scottish position a very different feel).

On honour, I have to be honest I still struggle with it.  I also feel there is so much variation between positions on how it works, in G7 it's become clear to me that Russian honour is linked to territorial expansion and you mentioned China!  
My personal take is, like so much in the games, things have evolved as the games have gone along.  Early in the games it was about banquets, etc but for many positions that is no longer the case  Scottish honour has its own unique character, for example.  I don't feel it is breaking the rule to say that if Lord Melville throws a banquet then his honour score might go up.  If he makes a speech (whether at a banquet or not) that is slightly mocking of a foreign power then that almost certainly will lead to honour going up.  It ties in with the Scottish national attitude, one of "who you looking at, pal", frankly I sometimes think Lord Melville is employing Billy Connolly as his speech writer. So if I mock the Corsairs, the Pope in Rome, the Jacobites or the Duke of Savoy, I'm doing the right thing.  Being too pro-England isn't a good thing (though being slightly pro-England seems ok).   What you might find odd is being nice about King William or King Louis, has the same beneficial effect.  
I would say I have never seen a link between economic health and honour though if there was a link I would have thought if EH went up honour would too, I would struggle to see how EH being better would drive honour down.
On the table showing the honour score, I initially thought that would be useful but could it end up too depressing for new players if they felt they were so far behind what was the point?  Let's use G10 as an example, Papa is a new-ish player in the game, if the table showed that the honour score of Scotland or Genoa is 30 points ahead, could that make Papa wonder what the point of being honourable was as it would take too long to catch up? Being the Pope aside of course!

Jason2 wrote:In G6 me taking Scotland Catholic was an option, simply because England showed no interest (friendly or hostile) in their northern neighbour whereas France pushed to re-establish the Auld Alliance.  If that game had lasted, you may have seen me playing a very different Scotland to my G10 version (in G6, Darien had survived, which gave the Scottish position a very different feel).

That would have been interesting. Can't even vaguely remember anything about G6. Must admit one of the really interesting things from a player perspective with England is revisiting relatively familiar history, but with a totally different viewpoint. Hopefully now we have peace in G7 I will be able to explore some of the strange things I have found in my research.

Jason2 wrote:On honour, I have to be honest I still struggle with it.  I also feel there is so much variation between positions on how it works, in G7 it's become clear to me that Russian honour is linked to territorial expansion and you mentioned China!  

Yes, that is what set me wondering. Just because there is a table, we (as players) assume that what it represents is comparable. But to gain (or lose) honour as one nation may require completely different things to another, and it may even differ between games?

Jason2 wrote:My personal take is, like so much in the games, things have evolved as the games have gone along.  Early in the games it was about banquets, etc but for many positions that is no longer the case  Scottish honour has its own unique character, for example.  I don't feel it is breaking the rule to say that if Lord Melville throws a banquet then his honour score might go up.  If he makes a speech (whether at a banquet or not) that is slightly mocking of a foreign power then that almost certainly will lead to honour going up.  It ties in with the Scottish national attitude, one of "who you looking at, pal", frankly I sometimes think Lord Melville is employing Billy Connolly as his speech writer. So if I mock the Corsairs, the Pope in Rome, the Jacobites or the Duke of Savoy, I'm doing the right thing.  Being too pro-England isn't a good thing (though being slightly pro-England seems ok).   What you might find odd is being nice about King William or King Louis, has the same beneficial effect.  

Yes, that does sound odd. Must admit I haven't analysed what I think are the reasons for my own honour moves. It was pointless trying to do so as England whilst the war was on, and I would expect Papal honour to be totally different anyway. It would be rather odd if I didn't gain honour for doing religious things, but did gain honour for holding banquets. It would be rather easy to mock Calvinists or non-Catholics, but that isn't how I play the game - I'd much rather try to bring people together, so perhaps I am losing opportunities to boost honour by being nice. That said I do think it is in character to uphold Catholic teaching and criticise those nations who fail to do so.

The other approach I wondered about was looking at how Richard uses the Papacy to intervene in other games. But there doesn't appear to be much consistency there. In some games he has played the Pope as a kind of extreme Reformation reactionary, even the idea of dialogue with non-Catholics is shot down. If that is what he expects a Pope to be like then it makes my version seem like a liberal! And perhaps more importantly it doesn't seem to be a very constructive way to play.

Jason2 wrote:I would say I have never seen a link between economic health and honour though if there was a link I would have thought if EH went up honour would too, I would struggle to see how EH being better would drive honour down.

I'm sure it used to be in the rules that honour inversely correlated with EH. Something to do with a rising EH favouring merchants and the lower classes, whereas true nobles despised merchants so are more interested in demonstrating their superiority irrespective of economic concerns.

Jason2 wrote:On the table showing the honour score, I initially thought that would be useful but could it end up too depressing for new players if they felt they were so far behind what was the point?  Let's use G10 as an example, Papa is a new-ish player in the game, if the table showed that the honour score of Scotland or Genoa is 30 points ahead, could that make Papa wonder what the point of being honourable was as it would take too long to catch up? Being the Pope aside of course!

I suppose it might be a bit demoralising, but is it not better to know what you are aiming at (if high honour is what you decide is important)? It would certainly bust a few myths about what influences honour. As Pope and King James it really doesn't bother me that much - honour at dangerously low levels, yes but if it is above 6 (which both comfortably are) then I don't lose sleep over something I can't understand. Actually having played King James with low honour for a long time I don't lose sleep over low honour either. I just think it would improve the play of everyone if we could track what works and what doesn't. It isn't so much about being top of a table - it may well be that in every game there are a couple of players with an unassailable lead; but others could still aim to raise their honour to a specific number or to climb a couple of places up the table?

Another change I thought of is what happens to the honour of inactive positions? This is probably more a G7 point, but perhaps honour for inactive positions should drop by 1/month until those players drop off the table. Moldavia (your old position?) is still top of the table, but it must be years since you stopped playing them. In fact that table is probably the most meaningless I have ever come across since 4 or 5 of the positions on it are inactive. At least in G10 all the positions on the table are active. If all you need to stay on the table is to do nothing (which is generally what inactive positions end up doing), then surely there can be few things less encouraging for players than that?

G6 was a bit of an odd game as far as I can recall.  It seemed to have a high turnover of players in key positions for some reason.  It also had odd technological quirks, such as France getting hold of breach loading technology, developing it for everything and trying to arm even its infantry with breach-loading muskets, and the Royal Navy having a large force of 120-gun LSoLs.

I tend to view the honour table simply as who is doing best in their honour score but that the way the honour is scored is individual to the position.  So, in G10 for example, you and me Papa will have to do very different things to boost (or reduce) that honour.  I will say that I started playing Scotland in a historical manner, so with a bit of attitude, my initial speeches criticising (say) piracy or privateering  were because that was I felt how Scotland would react...and it paid off.  Also, I would say being positive about being Scottish pays off so it's not all down to me attacking others or taking the mickey out of them.  France gains honour I believe by talking up "Beautiful France" so it's what benefits your nation
I suspect the Pope gets used in different ways in different games,  in G8 the Austrians are launching a new crusade it seems against the Ottomans, so wouldn't surprise me if the Pope there started being supportive of the idea.  In G10, longer term could the Pope push for a Crusade against the Ottomans once Spain is sorted?  Strangely in G9 I can't recall if the Pope has got involved in the verbal spat between Austria and Kwantung. 

On inactive positions, I have always assumed they simply maintain their honour score (unless an outside action somehow affects it) so in theory they will eventually be overtaken by other players.  G7 is therefore odd, yes I did play Moldavia for a few years but to be honest all I did was build on a previous players success, the fact it is still top of the honour table is a bit of a mystery (unless someone is playing it very quietly)

If there is some sort of inverse connection between honour and the economy, I have never noticed it

I'm sure when I was in Game 3 the honour of inactive's did drop down -I'm virtually sure that was in the rules somewhere - don't have the hard copies any more. Also I did not notice the reduction in honour vs increased EH but that might explain things when I played Scotland - partly again back to my Catholic Chancellor to Protestant Scotland and his personal lifestyle getting into the papers - oh such larks!

Jason2 wrote:G6 was a bit of an odd game as far as I can recall.  It seemed to have a high turnover of players in key positions for some reason.  It also had odd technological quirks, such as France getting hold of breach loading technology, developing it for everything and trying to arm even its infantry with breach-loading muskets, and the Royal Navy having a large force of 120-gun LSoLs.

Perhaps the high turnover of players is why I don't remember it. I do tend to forget that pre-G7 games did tend to run much more quickly.

Jason2 wrote:I suspect the Pope gets used in different ways in different games, In G8 the Austrians are launching a new crusade it seems against the Ottomans, so wouldn't surprise me if the Pope there started being supportive of the idea.  In G10, longer term could the Pope push for a Crusade against the Ottomans once Spain is sorted?  Strangely in G9 I can't recall if the Pope has got involved in the verbal spat between Austria and Kwantung. 

I suppose the obvious way to get quick honour points as Pope would be to find some Catholics who are imprisoned or persecuted and keep going on about it. Trouble with that is that most of the places this is likely to occur are outside of Europe, and inactive. Do I really want to start sending out missionaries to undermine other nations which might suddenly gain a new player? Not really as again that would limit their own game enjoyment; it would make more sense to send missionaries to smaller active countries to at least get protection for Catholics established, but that would perhaps be better done through diplomacy. It is tricky because whatever the Pope says (however it is originally meant) opens up the possibility for other players to gain honour by jumping on the bandwagon or knocking it over and that can have unforeseen consequences. It is also worth remembering that the Papacy has very limited resources so is really dependent upon others stepping up to the mark. If Lord Fong was going to persecute Catholics, there really isn't a great deal the Pope can do about it, so highlighting how awful Lord Fong is every month won't really achieve anything. In Europe where values are more similar he might have more success, but (unless my memory is faulty again) I seem to remember that being criticised by someone of a different religion can actually help your honour? There isn't a direct Scottish parallel, but I can't imagine it would be that sensible for Scotland to decide to be the standard bearer of Calvinism and each month insult as many non-Calvinist nations as possible - one of them at some point would bite back very quickly and invade Scotland.

Crusades are difficult theologically, and I don't think by 1700 they would have the same impact anyway. After the 30 years war there was a general horror of purely religious wars (I'm fairly sure that was mentioned in the rules somewhere). I'm surprised if G8 Austria has launched a crusade without Papal approval since it would need it. Perhaps they have decided on war with the Ottomans and having started then wish to use Papal approval as a means to gain more recruits for it? Can't really say as I'm not in G8.

Jason2 wrote:On inactive positions, I have always assumed they simply maintain their honour score (unless an outside action somehow affects it) so in theory they will eventually be overtaken by other players.  G7 is therefore odd, yes I did play Moldavia for a few years but to be honest all I did was build on a previous players success, the fact it is still top of the honour table is a bit of a mystery (unless someone is playing it very quietly).

If there is some sort of inverse connection between honour and the economy, I have never noticed it

Marshal Bombast wrote:I'm sure when I was in Game 3 the honour of inactive's did drop down -I'm virtually sure that was in the rules somewhere - don't have the hard copies any more. Also I did not notice the reduction in honour vs increased EH but that might explain things when I played Scotland - partly again back to my Catholic Chancellor to Protestant Scotland and his personal lifestyle getting into the papers - oh such larks!

Perhaps I've got it wrong about honour/EH interaction then? Strange how some ideas have stuck in the mind over the years. Just wish I could find where it was. I did come slightly unstuck last turn when I shut down a magazine expecting to get 5,000 tons of grain, but apparently that is an old rule no longer in use (the magazine was shut down but I didn't get any grain).

Moldavia has been top of the honour table in G7 since Feb-1706 when it leapfrogged above Spain and Shantung. For non-players it is now Feb-1714 and the list runs Moldavia, Spain, Shantung, Jesuits. Shantung might now be active, but fairly sure that Moldavia and Jesuits are not. So only 1 of the top 4 spots is active. This can be taken several different ways of course, but I suspect it must be incredibly frustrating for Spain as a long standing active player not to have reached the top spot. Despite not being best of chums with Spain in G7 even I am prepared to recognise that Spain has achieved a great deal in the last 8 years so either his honour has reached such a glass ceiling he can't break through or Moldavia has successfully researched levitation.

Unless someone knows better, I guess Moldavia in G7 holds the record for being top of the honour table for the longest time. Just a bit of a shame that it hasn't been played for 8 years?

And to rub it in even further, at 9th position on the table is Blackbeard who has died at least once if not twice during the game.

I'm not saying inactive nations should not appear on the table because that would be unrealistic, but perhaps there is a case for introducing a slowly sliding honour for inactive nations just to make room for active players. And corpses definitely should be removed from it!

Papa Clement wrote: Strange how some ideas have stuck in the mind over the years. Just wish I could find where it was.  I did come slightly unstuck last turn when I shut down a magazine expecting to get 5,000 tons of grain, but apparently that is an old rule no longer in use (the magazine was shut down but I didn't get any grain).

I loved that rule then as Scotland got hardened grain as a result I admit to thinking of old rules and find myself asking Richard, like are the numbers of missions that can be raised limited still - apparently not so kid in a candy store ensued until I got a grip lol.

Yes - sometimes it is hard to tell which rules have changed or have been dropped and we only find out by accident.

I suppose we all have our own playing styles and favourite things we like to do in every position, and having found them we don't change/think about that aspect. I'm trying to review everything I do and ask whether it actually has the effect I think (or thought) it did.

To be honest, I would hope/expect the Pope to speak up if there were Catholics being imprisoned and abused based on their beliefs though off the top of my head I can't think of any in G10.  The only one that comes anywhere near was a Frenchman who was under arrest in the UDP but he was a spy, and even then he was being coerced into it and was treated very fairly by the Dutch.
I would say also in all fairness in G10 I don't criticise anyone based simply on their religion but it does seem to gain support in Scotland if, say, when challenging a statement by a Catholic monarch, I add in a slight dig along the lines of "these Catholics, they all crazy".  Mind you, I have noticed on the rare occasion I have made an in-game speech having a dig at England that also boosts my position... basically for Scotland it seems being bolshy to other nations pays off,  I guess it's simply a case of me pointing out their multiple failings by virtue of not having the common sense and luck to be Scottish   On a purely personal level, the idea of making it all about religion is something I would find distasteful.
G9 is very different and my attitudes to foreigners are very much based on the historical ones of the Chinese government and I think my newish fellow member of Team China might outdo me
I think criticism by the "other" can benefit your honour and not just limited to religion so King Louis criticising King William on a secular basis might boost King William's standing.  I also suspect there is a degree of relative standing in that, for example while Lord Melville criticising King Louis might boost Melville's standing. a criticism from a minor nation like Scotland might be too insignificant to boost King Louis' standing?

Like both Marshal and Papa say, rules change and we all lose track of them when they do (I still struggle to remember the changes in regards warships or armed liners and what they can carry and still use their cannon).  More I think about it though the idea of the honour of an inactive position slowly dropping over time does make sense.

Jason2 wrote:To be honest, I would hope/expect the Pope to speak up if there were Catholics being imprisoned and abused based on their beliefs though off the top of my head I can't think of any in G10.  The only one that comes anywhere near was a Frenchman who was under arrest in the UDP but he was a spy, and even then he was being coerced into it and was treated very fairly by the Dutch.

Yes - I would do that, but of course it is always necessary to be careful. As you point out it is legitimate to imprison a spy (or any other criminal), irrespective of his religion and I don't think players would expect the Pope to make out that every Catholic was only ever arrested because of his faith instead of being naughty.

Jason2 wrote:I would say also in all fairness in G10 I don't criticise anyone based simply on their religion but it does seem to gain support in Scotland if, say, when challenging a statement by a Catholic monarch, I add in a slight dig along the lines of "these Catholics, they all crazy".  Mind you, I have noticed on the rare occasion I have made an in-game speech having a dig at England that also boosts my position... basically for Scotland it seems being bolshy to other nations pays off,  I guess it's simply a case of me pointing out their multiple failings by virtue of not having the common sense and luck to be Scottish   On a purely personal level, the idea of making it all about religion is something I would find distasteful.

At least you try to keep things balanced, whereas I doubt everyone takes this approach.

It is a challenge because I agree with you that the game isn't all about religion, though for the Pope it generally is, or at least religious concerns will always exceed temporal concerns. That's his job.

Jason2 wrote:G9 is very different and my attitudes to foreigners are very much based on the historical ones of the Chinese government and I think my newish fellow member of Team China might outdo me.

I think criticism by the "other" can benefit your honour and not just limited to religion so King Louis criticising King William on a secular basis might boost King William's standing.  I also suspect there is a degree of relative standing in that, for example while Lord Melville criticising King Louis might boost Melville's standing. a criticism from a minor nation like Scotland might be too insignificant to boost King Louis' standing?

Relative power or social standing may well have an impact, a bit like nobles not being required to fight duels with their social inferiors?

And also perhaps geographic distance, thinking about Lord Fong?

Again, it is difficult to apply to a position like the Papacy where on the one hand I have to defend Catholic teaching, but also extend the hand of friendship to those who reject it. Would the people of China really be that impressed if Lord Fong condemns Catholics or Europeans as 'barbarians', and would the people of China be that concerned if the Pope called them names back? I doubt it somehow. If that is what is takes to boost honour then it isn't very honourable. Perhaps the honour list should be renamed the crawler's list or something not quite so attractive?

Jason2 wrote:Like both Marshal and Papa say, rules change and we all lose track of them when they do (I still struggle to remember the changes in regards warships or armed liners and what they can carry and still use their cannon).  More I think about it though the idea of the honour of an inactive position slowly dropping over time does make sense.

Strange you should mention liners - Richard pulled me up again this month for getting the base cost of a liner wrong (for some reason I have it in my head that it is £2,000 to raise not £3,500 (£2,000 is the upkeep).

Jason2 wrote:To be honest, I would hope/expect the Pope to speak up if there were Catholics being imprisoned and abused based on their beliefs though off the top of my head I can't think of any in G10.

What about the abuse of honest hard working French Catholic Merchant-adventurer's who the Scots abused and wanted to hang in the grass market for their beliefs?  And who have now had their barges burnt and crews slaughtered by the HRE ex Ottoman Horsemen and their Swedish Protestant allies??????!!!!!!!!

Ref the old rule about non active position suffering a slow decline in honour (1 point a turn?) until the position was either picked up or hit its base level.  I assume Richard either decided to save himself the Admin time and scrapped the rule or decided that positions like Moldavia in G7 might be more attractive and likely to be picked up by possible players if they can see its high on the honour board.  Which is normally a fairly safe sign that the position has been well run for a period of time.

For info if anyone who wants to become the most honourable man in G7:

- To your west you have Hungary which looks like an explosion waiting to happen.  The Hydra of the House of Austria lies beaten and bruised by the French & its greatest ever hero has been murdered in Scotland.  But cool life giving Spanish silver is pumping in the body of the beast and it will probably bite if your boss continues to poke it or try and cut chunks off it.

- To your south you have the boss or to be more exact (according to your inlaws) the boss pet monkey - The Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire.  Gets on with Jacobites, does not get on with Russians, Hapsburgs (both types) or Persians.

- Unlike the Grand Vizier you get on fine with everyone and your daughter is due to be the next Empress of Russia.  Which means that the Cossacks have to keep their paws of your fine White Cattle and a lot of north south trade gets put through Moldavia.  The problem is that the GV and his Janissary chums have you down as a possible traitor.

So basically all you need to do to keep at the top of the honour list is keep up the trade, peace and prosperty of Moldavia and avoid taking any sides wich could upset half of your Nobility.  What could possibly go wrong?

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Jason2 wrote:To be honest, I would hope/expect the Pope to speak up if there were Catholics being imprisoned and abused based on their beliefs though off the top of my head I can't think of any in G10.

What about the abuse of honest hard working French Catholic Merchant-adventurer's who the Scots abused and wanted to hang in the grass market for their beliefs?  And who have now had their barges burnt and crews slaughtered by the HRE ex Ottoman Horsemen and their Swedish Protestant allies??????!!!!!!!!

I must have missed that. Why didn't the French Catholic Merchant-adventurers raise this with the Pope?

Stuart Bailey wrote:So basically all you need to do to keep at the top of the honour list is keep up the trade, peace and prosperity of Moldavia and avoid taking any sides which could upset half of your Nobility.  What could possibly go wrong?

Sounds like whatever any new Moldavia player does will result in loss of honour?

Papa Clement wrote:

I must have missed that.  Why didn't the French Catholic Merchant-adventurers raise this with the Pope?

Sounds like whatever any new Moldavia player does will result in loss of honour?

According to the rules of the French Catholic Church all appeals to Rome need Royal approval - currently the French Chanceller seems to have three boxes of paper on his deak marked urgent, very urgent and waste paper plus small pile on floor marked appeals to Rome being used to by his Cat. Plus if they could get Royal approval to take a case to Rome the French Catholic Merchant-adventurers being poor men can not afford the fees of Roman Lawyers used by the Emperor.

So it looks like damages plus interest will need to be taken by more traditional means.

Ref anyone thinking of taking on Moldavia in G7 - What can I say its tough at the top!

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Papa Clement wrote:

I must have missed that.  Why didn't the French Catholic Merchant-adventurers raise this with the Pope?

Sounds like whatever any new Moldavia player does will result in loss of honour?

According to the rules of the French Catholic Church all appeals to Rome need Royal approval - currently the French Chanceller seems to have three boxes of paper on his deak marked urgent, very urgent and waste paper plus small pile on floor marked appeals to Rome being used to by his Cat. Plus if they could get Royal approval to take a case to Rome the French Catholic Merchant-adventurers being poor men can not afford the fees of Roman Lawyers used by the Emperor.

So it looks like damages plus interest will need to be taken by more traditional means.

Ref anyone thinking of taking on Moldavia in G7 - What can I say its tough at the top!

Well if you won't use the legal means available to you?

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Papa Clement wrote:

I must have missed that.  Why didn't the French Catholic Merchant-adventurers raise this with the Pope?

Sounds like whatever any new Moldavia player does will result in loss of honour?

According to the rules of the French Catholic Church all appeals to Rome need Royal approval - currently the French Chanceller seems to have three boxes of paper on his deak marked urgent, very urgent and waste paper plus small pile on floor marked appeals to Rome being used to by his Cat.  Plus if they could get Royal approval to take a case to Rome the French Catholic Merchant-adventurers being poor men can not afford the fees of Roman Lawyers used by the Emperor.

So it looks like damages plus interest will need to be taken by more traditional means.

Ref anyone thinking of taking on Moldavia in G7 - What can I say its tough at the top!

That's certainly one point of view. But it borders on game diplomacy to suggest that the french court view of the church in france is the only legitimate view in the church and the faithful, at least to my eyes.

Only one French admiral has been lost to lightning. In the first instance it was death, in the second it was a cremation at sea. As far as the French court is concerned this is proof the God is a Frenchman as the admiral in question was a severe political embarrassment, as would his funeral have been.
France has a whole series of treaties with the Papacy which guarantees the independence of the Gallic Church. Should the Papacy wish to follow the path of breaking treaties and making its word worthless then fine by Versailles. As this is a history game you would have thought those in question would have checked the history first.

Basileus wrote:France has a whole series of treaties with the Papacy which guarantees the independence of the Gallic Church. Should the Papacy wish to follow the path of breaking treaties and making its word worthless then fine by Versailles. As this is a history game you would have thought those in question would have checked the history first.

Then you can hardly refuse to allow French cardinals to travel to Tivoli and defend your actions in February?

This is not diplomacy because as this month's newspaper states: "I propose to discuss France and the Gallician Church in February. This will allow time for any French Cardinals who wish to attend to do so and describe the difficulties they face, although if prevented from doing so the discussion will take place without them."

Not my understanding of history.

See: French Gallic Church

The French throne got the French Clergy to say something, but it was never agreed, or subject to treaty as you suggest.

So France can certainly assert whatever it wants, but it isn't some objective generally agreed view.

Papa Clement wrote:

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Jason2 wrote:To be honest, I would hope/expect the Pope to speak up if there were Catholics being imprisoned and abused based on their beliefs though off the top of my head I can't think of any in G10.

What about the abuse of honest hard working French Catholic Merchant-adventurer's who the Scots abused and wanted to hang in the grass market for their beliefs?  And who have now had their barges burnt and crews slaughtered by the HRE ex Ottoman Horsemen and their Swedish Protestant allies??????!!!!!!!!

I must have missed that.  Why didn't the French Catholic Merchant-adventurers raise this with the Pope?

I might be going out on a limb here but it might be because the merchant-adventurers (aka Corsairs) were a tad concerned that telling such outrageous porky pies to the Priest in Rome might see their eternal souls quickly sent to a very hot place where strange creatures poke you a lot with large forks?

Though if the Pope would like to launch a tirade against Lord Melville for protecting innocent Spanish Catholic merchants in Scottish waters from the horrors of French Corsair attack, please feel free...should double my honour in a single turn and give everyone a good laugh...

“The Pope was obliged to sign the treaty of Bologna in 1516, confirming the kings rights over the French church. “page 130, Cambridge Illustrated History of France, Colin Jones, Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Basileus wrote:“The Pope was obliged to sign the treaty of Bologna in 1516, confirming the kings rights over the French church. “page 130, Cambridge Illustrated History of France, Colin Jones, Cambridge University Press, 1994.

That agreement and what France's King asserts as its rights are very different.

concordat of Bologna

Jason2 wrote:I might be going out on a limb here but it might be because the merchant-adventurers (aka Corsairs) were a tad concerned that telling such outrageous porky pies to the Priest in Rome might see their eternal souls quickly sent to a very hot place where strange creatures poke you a lot with large forks?

Though if the Pope would like to launch a tirade against Lord Melville for protecting innocent Spanish Catholic merchants in Scottish waters from the horrors of French Corsair attack, please feel free...should double my honour in a single turn and give everyone a good laugh...

As I wrote earlier, I don't think it is right for the Pope to assume all Catholics are innocent just because they are Catholics. If the merchant-adventurers were actually Corsairs engaged in illegal activities then no doubt Lord Melville was correct to arrest them. He did not do so because of their religion, but because they were being very naughty boys!

Rest assured, Jason2, I'm finding the latest twists and turns very amusing. I'm not going to comment on the Deacon/Basileus ping pong, but I will say that I'm really looking forward to the next few turns.

Game 10 has arrived and the following is for players and non-players alike, though some references may be better understood if you’re playing in game 10, – jump in and join the fun.

We send our condolences to the family, friends and loved ones of the French Admiral Astor Evreux, who sadly passed away in an Act of God.  The Admiral’s demise follows that of Vice-Admiral Francois-Louis Rousselet, Marquis de Chateaurenault last month who is thought to have died of a heart attack.

Lord Godolphin was in fine form as he recounted some highlights of the past year, including the actions of a rogue French Admiral.  He also sent a gift to Lord Melville so that he should not lack for giving the loyal toast for the next year.

Having researched the Russian Admiralty, we can assure our brave sailors they are safe from harm as no Admirals of French currently serve in the Russian fleet.

The Most Honourable Lord Melville also took time to recount recent diplomatic actions, especially those around the expulsion of the Dutch Ambassador to Savoy for being a security threat. The honourable Lord put it down to said Ambassador stumbling onto a Savoyard secret weapon. We put this assertion down to His Grace not making his present last a year.

A spokesman for the Russian Collegium of Defence said that Russia is not interested in rumours about foreign secret weapons. After the press conference he excused himself saying he was late for a lecture about the average air speed velocity of a laden Hessian Fly.

Christmas was celebrated in other courts, and like most banquets talk turned to business for the coming year with many trade negotiations beginning over trade taxes.
In an unusual turn of events Gallacian Clergy commented on the war, rather than the celebration of Christ’s birth.  In their opinion it is the Imperial forces who are burning the French countryside including Claude de Forbin’s barges.  We believe Forbin, who is roaming the French landscape, to technically be a French Admiral and therein lies the problem.

Prince John of Brazil safely returned to Lisbon much to the delight of his Father King Pedro II of Portugal.  A trade, science and cultural mission from Abyssinia also arrived safely to promote good relations.

Meanwhile next door in Madrid a new heir to the late King Carlos II has been uncovered. Pedro Hernandez the widely respected economic thinker made his thoughts known that removing slavery from Spain would bankrupt the country. Under cover of all the excitement caused by these revelations, the Holy See slipped numerous recruiting posts into Spain, which we suppose would be to rally loyal Catholic subjects to the Papal banner. Forecasting a Spanish Civil War the Russian Foreign Ministry has decided to leave its travel advice for nationals and shipping to the Iberian Peninsula unchanged – steer well clear!

The siege of Genoa was finally lifted as Franco-Savoyard forces marched away and allowing a French Merchantman to ferry Genoese parolees back home.  As His Holiness said “we do not yet know whether God sent a storm to scatter the French fleet off Genoa or whether by withdrawing her fleet France is seeking an honourable way to distance herself from her excommunicated ally.” A further message was delivered stating that Genoese trade ships would be targeted and that Genoa should dismiss the Doge from his position.  Could this be the start of the end of the war?

In further economic news merchants accounting for approximately 10% of Spain’s America’s trade have made the pragmatic decision to pay their taxes to Flanders. Nine out of ten Russians surveyed believe possession is the law.

Apologies as our newest African translator appears to have mixed up the names of some African towns.  We understand that the Great Asante Nation is offering a choice to one of her neighbours of unity or war. This negotiating position might be in part bolstered by the Asante enquiries about purchasing Dutch gunpowder weapons.

In Japan Takatsukasa Kanehiro has returned to the Emperor’s favour and is now 1st Great Lord of the Fujiwara Clan. Apparently Imperial Prince Kyogokuno-miya Ayahito a noted Samurai, has declared that he will be leading the new marine corps on the Dutch supplied frigates in the new Imperial Navy of Japan. Let’s hope the Samurai marines are more effective than their counterparts in Okinawa, or have the cream of the Emperor’s forces proved themselves by landing at Manilla?

Don’t miss the ongoing serialisation of the Great Wizzard in the next thrilling instalment of FRATRES ET SOTORES APOLLO, a comedic drama about political intrigue in eighteenth century France. We would also recommend an up and coming legal drama from across the channel if that suits you better!