Game 10

An excellent (and funny) summary Marshal, thanks  

Now excuse me, myself and Lord Melville need to prepare for Burns Night

Gentlemen of the Forum, I am a little confused( doesn't take much I admit, just put me in a barrel & tell me to wee in the corner)

The Problem is I have a query that is basically about in game diplomacy / Game mechanics which I think will have an impact on how some of us view or play the game.

If that is the case please bear with me as i feel it maybe important.

I gather in Game Ten, a few Factions alliances call them what you will have developed with over lapping layers of responsibilities, at one end of the scale we have the Historical Holy Roman Empire, with the Kaiser technically Lording it over the Electors & Princes of the Empire, which could be seen as a team position, I think we can all agree that historically this wasn't always the case & that Hapsburg interests weren't always Imperial interests. An attack on Austria didn't automatically mean an attack on The Empire or visa- versa although institutions were in place to allow for appeals for help. Kaiser has little real power
Moving onto a similar but not like for like position with England, Scotland & UDP, All share a king but all have separate ruling bodies, similar to the HRR, Once again an attack on one could mean the others for what ever reason don't see the need to come to the aid of the other despite shared head of state. All must by law put forward bills etc ot be signed by the king Stadtholder, which gives him an element of overall control should he feel the need
Lastly on France, where again there is a position divided, with a single head of state, but more than one active faction. with an absolute ruler whose word was law upon pain of death

The point I am trying to make without getting into too much in game diplomatic trouble ( may well be too late) is can all the above make treaties independently? Can they declare war/ carry out offensive action on their own ? In the case of the HRR so long as it didn't harm the Empire I think they probably could, in The Maritime position, its probably a bit more confusing, because the balance of power lies in London, but is answerable to the Court of the King.
leaving France, where everyone is answerable to the King & Only the King.

So, could the Kaiser Sign a treaty on behalf of the entire Empire with an outside power? Without the Princes agreement/ signature would they be bound by it?
Could King William sign a treaty for all part so of his domains without first conferring with his ministers? Without consultation & agreement would they be legally bound
Was it possible for King Louis to sign a treaty covering all factions operating out of France? Would he have needed to consult at all ?

My understanding is that treaties are only binding on players who sign them. But if a "superior" position like the Ottoman Sultan or the Holy Roman Emperor signs a treaty on behalf off and covering his vassels then it is up to him to enforce said treaty on his vassels.

This means that Sultan Ottoman for instance can sign non aggression treaty with the Russian's which covers the whole of the Ottoman Empire or just Ottoman Anatolia. The problem with the 2nd option is that the Russians are now free to invade the Khanate while the Sultan either breaks his word or honour or does nothing while his vassels get a kicking. Both of these are probably going to show you up as a rubblish diplomat and hurt your standing.

Option 1 means that the Sultan takes responsibility for his vassels and means that potentially he could be humiliated by them if they decide to totally ignore his treaty of burn down half of Russia.

Like trade companies in scrabble having vassel positions in Glori (esp player run ones) is a bit of a two edged sword and its probably best to get their agreement to any treaty you propose to sign for the whole empire.

England and Scots Governments with a player run William of Orange is a unique case and technically the government should arrange a treaty and then get Royal approval for it to be valid. Historically everything would normally have been agreed before the King signed it into law and its probably best to follow same practice in game to avoid general humiliation and upset.

Finally we have positions like England and the HEIC/HWIC, the Dutch and the VOIC and even the French and the Corsairs were minor positions are not vassels but a subject of that Government. This means that if the Dutch Government signs a treaty the VOIC has to honour it and if they do not its probably going to hurt both the VOIC and the Dutch Government.

Playing the Corsairs in G10 I expect to have honour treaties signed by the King of France or end up in the Bastille. The only thing I would
expect is for the French Government to give time and notice as privateer ships do you come equiped with a cystal ball.

J Flower wrote:The point I am trying to make without getting into too much in game diplomatic trouble is can all the above make treaties independently? Can they declare war/carry out offensive action on their own ? In the case of the HRR so long as it didn't harm the Empire I think they probably could, in The Maritime position, its probably a bit more confusing, because the balance of power lies in London, but is answerable to the Court of the King.
leaving France, where everyone is answerable to the King & Only the King.

So, could the Kaiser Sign a treaty on behalf of the entire Empire with an outside power? Without the Princes agreement/ signature would they be bound by it?
Could King William sign a treaty for all part so of his domains without first conferring with his ministers? Without consultation & agreement would they be legally bound?
Was it possible for King Louis to sign a treaty covering all factions operating out of France? Would he have needed to consult at all ?

This is very similar to something I raised on the forum some time ago relating to team positions. I pointed out some of the difficulties and how this impacts on existing game rules and can be confusing from a diplomatic perspective.

To an extent I agree with Stuart's comments that "My understanding is that treaties are only binding on players who sign them. But if a "superior" position like the Ottoman Sultan or the Holy Roman Emperor signs a treaty on behalf of and covering his vassals then it is up to him to enforce said treaty on his vassals." (the majority of vassals in each case are probably inactive and it will take a lot of effort to 'enforce' anything on them). and "Playing the Corsairs in G10 I expect to have honour treaties signed by the King of France or end up in the Bastille. The only thing I would expect is for the French Government to give time and notice as privateer ships do you come equipped with a crystal ball." (do we really want junior positions to be arrested by senior positions?)

But every 'team' position at the moment is unique (not just England/UDP/Scotland) in that it makes its own rules up and those rules are not always clear to others. In G7 Russia and Dept East work well as a team because of the players, but if Russia dropped would RDE continue to play under a new Tsar who may have very different ideas of what being in a team with him meant? I imagine he would find it rather difficult if Russia was played by me!

I think this is one area where it would be useful to get some clarification from Richard if for no other reason than players like to know if their interpretation of the limits of their position are different to his. The issues are far more complicated than players realise when they set factions or teams up. If (to use a hypothetical G7 example) someone wanted to play America (currently under Russian rule, but at some point likely to come back under English rule), would that American player be bound by treaties signed by Russia (in the short term), England (in the longer term); would he have the capacity to sign any treaties at all? To which ruler would he look for support or as his sponsor? What would happen if the senior position dropped or if the senior position was suddenly inactive whether the junior position would be able to take it over to keep the momentum of the game going? And if that happened who would be bound by treaties signed by whom? We could have the ridiculous situation where a new American player joined, Russia dropped, that player takes over Russia, then when the lease expires the new player for Russia refused to give America back to England, so England would have to declare war on Russia to get back America which would be somewhat against the spirit of the original lease agreement!

In the game the only sanction for breaking treaties is honour, which as we know from many discussions is somewhat opaque. If players are going to start playing in teams then there should be some clear rules about what is or is not permitted, and to guide players who seek to make agreements/treaties with them. In nearly every game I've played in players have tried to help each other out by signing trading agreements or trading bans, technology swaps, mercenary/unit transfers, etc - thinking about how messy it is to unravel the factions from G7 and all the support Spain and others gave to UDP, it is necessary to have some guidance on what is binding and what isn't. Perhaps G7 is an extreme example, but for those who are not aware, the situation with Gerona's Spaniards caused a great deal of trouble on all sides - should they have been withdrawn under the Treaty of Scotland, who actually hired them, for how long, were they simply disobeying Spanish orders or was Spain breaking the ToS, how could Spain get them back under her control when UDP was inactive, how did any player know what was really going on?

In G7 Spain/Austria signed peace, but transferred thousands of recruits and the troops they were fighting with to UDP along with millions of pounds to pay for their upkeep during the 3 years the ToS was valid. This was deliberately to undermine the treaty they had just signed (indeed that treaty prohibited what they had done). It is only now UDP has agreed peace that we can see just the extent of the support provided and how. I can see precisely the same problems occurring in G10: French forces seem to be split between France, the Corsairs and Savoy - we do not even know which of them is at war and why because formal declarations of war are not always made. If France makes peace, then is that not meaningless so long as the Corsairs or Savoy continue to fight on using French forces and French money?

I don't see how you can ban teams or ban factions without infringing the legitimate ways players have to help each other. After all, alliances and teams can form naturally within games as a response to threats. But there is a big difference between this and the deliberate setting up of factions to disguise what the sponsoring player is doing, to distance himself diplomatically and effectively play through others, letting them make the running and take the risks while he sits back and denies it is anything to do with him.

We will all have our own opinions about this, but the only opinion that counts is Richard's. So it would be rather useful for him to issue some guidelines so everyone knows what the consequences are of structuring teams in a certain way on each member of those teams.

Interesting question and comments, partly because it has made me realise that all my Glory positions are team positions.

In regards team positions and the "lead" player dropping out, there does seem a precedent in the subsidiary payer getting an instant promotion to playing the combined position (with a relocation to the home land at the same time).  This happened in G7 when Jason and I were playing Russia as a team for the first time, Jason dropped out and I was suddenly in charge of the whole empire and back in Russia (same character, that didn't change).  I also have a memory of the French position in G6 having a similar situation (lead dropped out, colonial automatically took over the whole position) and an even vaguer idea of it happening with the Dutch in G3 (same thing, colonial took over when the lead left).

While Papa is correct in that all teams are unique, Stuart is also correct in that the William situation in G10 is a unique situation for the British and Dutch positions.  It is (almost certainly) the first time that England, Scotland and the UDP have all been active at the same time, with King William still the British King and William played as an active character in a non-English position.  I believe there was one game where England and the UDP were played jointly by William but Scotland was separate.  
I suspect if William in-game decided to start signing treaties outwith talking to Scotland and England first but in their name, he could find himself facing some serious challenges with bits of the various post-1689 laws that limited his powers being quoted at him and some long speeches, in London and Edinburgh, on the rights of parliament and what happens when the King oversteps his limits.

Jason2 wrote:Interesting question and comments, partly because it has made me realise that all my Glory positions are team positions.

In regards team positions and the "lead" player dropping out, there does seem a precedent in the subsidiary payer getting an instant promotion to playing the combined position (with a relocation to the home land at the same time).  This happened in G7 when Jason and I were playing Russia as a team for the first time, Jason dropped out and I was suddenly in charge of the whole empire and back in Russia (same character, that didn't change).  I also have a memory of the French position in G6 having a similar situation (lead dropped out, colonial automatically took over the whole position) and an even vaguer idea of it happening with the Dutch in G3 (same thing, colonial took over when the lead left).

This would seem to illustrate one of the problems very well. I may have been aware, but honestly can't actually remember the changeover in G7 (perhaps it only happened for a few months and then JFlower rejoined?) However, it might explain some of the difficulties mid-campaign in Scotland? I was fairly sure there were some missed turns when letters weren't replied to, but I think this proves the difficulty of team play for those who are allied to a 'team' but not part of it.

I deliberately tried not to make my comments personal because different players play teams in different ways. I'm sure Jason2 has much insight into how his teams work, but will be the first to acknowledge that the Maritime Powers or even Russia/RDE are different to Lord Fong's 'team China' referred to on the G9 thread.

Jason2 wrote:While Papa is correct in that all teams are unique, Stuart is also correct in that the William situation in G10 is a unique situation for the British and Dutch positions.  It is (almost certainly) the first time that England, Scotland and the UDP have all been active at the same time, with King William still the British King and William played as an active character in a non-English position.  I believe there was one game where England and the UDP were played jointly by William but Scotland was separate.  
I suspect if William in-game decided to start signing treaties outwith talking to Scotland and England first but in their name, he could find himself facing some serious challenges with bits of the various post-1689 laws that limited his powers being quoted at him and some long speeches, in London and Edinburgh, on the rights of parliament and what happens when the King oversteps his limits.

I'm sure it is good practice for any ally (whether in a team or not) to discuss what their objectives are and find ways to achieve them (game mechanics allowing). Anyone who has played with me in games knows that I invest a huge amount of time writing long letters discussing options and plans with allies. Very few others do, but I imagine in teams it is essential to see things along similar lines to start with. I'm sure the Maritime Powers do this which is great for them, but just because they have found a way that works for them doesn't mean that other teams operate in the same way. The problem is not just with the internal operation of a team (those kinds of problems can generally be solved), but with how the team interacts with non team members - who signs treaties, who is bound by them, who is really running multiplayer positions and what constraints are needed to ensure other players are not disadvantaged.

I'm not against teams per se - I quite enjoy there being 3 active players in Italy (Genoa, Tuscany, Papacy), but we are not a team in the same way 'team France' (France, Corsairs, Savoy) or 'team Maritime Powers' (UDP, England, Scotland) are. We are simply similar sized nations, sharing borders, facing common enemies, and doing our best to survive and promote long term peace in Italy. The Papacy-Genoa relationship is closer because Naples is a Papal Fief and Genoa is running it as my Viceroy, initially because I thought Naples would develop better economically with his expertise rather than being focused on religion. I'm lucky that Kerensky is a natural team player but there are still a lot of things to be worked out in the longer term for which a detailed agreement is required as there would be if I assigned the other Papal Fiefs (Sardinia, Sicily) to 3rd parties to run. It is always difficult trying to balance what is best for the long term to allow both the Papacy and Naples/Genoa to develop so each player can achieve his objectives, and also putting something in place to protect either party if one of them drops. I think it is fair to say that we are muddling through quite well at the moment, but at some point in the near future we will need to formalise things out of fairness to both of us. There isn't much of a problem with treaties because Genoa is a sovereign country in its own right so can sign treaties as Genoa which are binding on Naples if specified and for as long as Genoa remains as my Viceroy. But of course historically the Doge of Genoa was not a hereditary position, but an elected one, so if the people of Genoa elect a protestant Doge no Pope could sanction his rule over a Papal Fief. I'm not prepared to go into any more detail on here as that might breach forum diplomacy rules.

Jason2 wrote:
In regards team positions and the "lead" player dropping out, there does seem a precedent in the subsidiary payer getting an instant promotion to playing the combined position (with a relocation to the home land at the same time).  This happened in G7 when Jason and I were playing Russia as a team for the first time, Jason dropped out and I was suddenly in charge of the whole empire and back in Russia (same character, that didn't change).  I also have a memory of the French position in G6 having a similar situation (lead dropped out, colonial automatically took over the whole position) and an even vaguer idea of it happening with the Dutch in G3 (same thing, colonial took over when the lead left).

So what went wrong in G2?  I am my beloved Sultan No2 in Rumelia when he drops out......does his loyal and faithfull Grand Vizier take over Ottoman Anatolia?  No he does not!  Whole bunch of NPC's and then shockingly briefed players take turns to stab Rumelia in the back!!

Ref situation with a active Government which has an active King somewhere else - Normally an active England but with William of Orange based in the UDP but the same could apply to an active Polish Government with the Elector of Saxony as King.  My feeling is that the Govt needs to draw up and sign the treaty and then get the Royal Seal.  Or if your are Poles it should be the other way around with the King doing the talking but it only becomes valid if the Polish Senators agree.

While this may seem a bit slow and clumbersome my feeling is that if you want to play this type of position you should respect how things are done and look to play in a co-operative manner.  If you want to play an Autocrat play the Czar, Shah, Great Moghul etc

The odd position seems to be the Holy Roman Emperor.......a total autocrat in own lands but also has to play ultra nice and polite in the Empire.  Probably explains why so many seem to lack a degree of trust in the HRE

Don't worry Papa, nothing personal in anything you said   I didn't last long as the sole Russian player, it was simply too large and complex for me to enjoy,  In fact I would go as far as saying that Russia in G7, what with the "homeland", Alaska and the Leased colonies (and other bits and pieces) could be the nearest we have to a mega-position in-game (possibly the united Spanish-Portuguese positions might also qualify) and it is too much for one player, it needs to be a team position.  We both rejoined at the same time, I don't think either of us would want to play it as a solo position

Yes, each team position is very different and G9 China is completely different to G7 Russia or G10 Williamite nations.  I would also say I think the team positions work when there is a similarity in personalities, attitudes to the games, etc, some sort of common ground that goes beyond the individual game itself.   Russia as a team position in G7 would never have come about if Jason and myself didn't have that similarity.  G10 is different, I would have taken Scotland regardless of who had England, it was just good luck it turned out that England, and later the UDP, were taken by players who again I felt I had a similarity with. 

I would also say the Williamite positions are in reality very similar to Genoa/Tuscany/Papal States in the games.  It is an alliance of three sovereign states with similar interests and objectives, the positions are set up that way and when William is not actively the player of a nation then he has no real power/control over the other positions.  I don't know what the game mechanics are in regards the Pope and Naples but it is possible the in-game mechanics give you more actual power and influence there than William has over the Scottish and English positions.

Stuart Bailey wrote:So what went wrong in G2?  I am my beloved Sultan No2 in Rumelia when he drops out......does his loyal and faithfull Grand Vizier take over Ottoman Anatolia?  No he does not!  Whole bunch of NPC's and then shockingly briefed players take turns to stab Rumelia in the back!!

Ref situation with a active Government which has an active King somewhere else - Normally an active England but with William of Orange based in the UDP but the same could apply to an active Polish Government with the Elector of Saxony as King.  My feeling is that the Govt needs to draw up and sign the treaty and then get the Royal Seal.  Or if your are Poles it should be the other way around with the King doing the talking but it only becomes valid if the Polish Senators agree.

While this may seem a bit slow and clumbersome my feeling is that if you want to play this type of position you should respect how things are done and look to play in a co-operative manner.  If you want to play an Autocrat play the Czar, Shah, Great Moghul etc

The odd position seems to be the Holy Roman Emperor.......a total autocrat in own lands but also has to play ultra nice and polite in the Empire.  Probably explains why so many seem to lack a degree of trust in the HRE

In regards G2, I think as all the Ottoman positions are distinct and always played separately, the stepping up doesn't apply, only in positions that can be single positions as well as team (does that make sense?).  So if Prince Yea drops out in G9, I don't "step up" to his role as well.

On the active government and active king elsewhere.  From my experience there isn't any requirement to get the King to approve anything I do.   Mind you, getting the Scottish parliament to agree and approve things, that's the trick    

The HRE I do find it odd having just taken on a position within it that there doesn't seem to be any automatic requirement or explanation of what my relationship with the Emperor is and what I do/don't need his approval for.

Having played as Holy Roman Emperor and as a non Imperial state in the Empire the only thing you really need the agreement of the Emperor on is if you want to Crown yourself as King in the Baltic or something like that.

Emperor's can also get upset and may come down hard if you try to annex other HRE states without a very good case as to why the title/territory is yours. Seems that this type of thing makes them look bad.

As Emperor there is very little the Emperor can do to you apart from saying you are a very naughty boy. But wearing some of his other hats he can come down very hard indeed.

In my experience most Emperor's are so used to being ignored and insulted by NPC members of the Empire that they are often kind to members of the HRE who actually bother to write to them and show some interest in the HRE.

Only going a bit white and pasty looking when reading accounts of Electors of Bavaria winding up the Ottomans with a barrage of insults or Ducal forces in Flanders getting all niggled about tresspassing French armies and taking pot shots with 12 pounders.

But I am sure that the League will do nothing to really spoil the Emperor's digestion and will be a good and co-operative member of the Empire which will not need Imperial protection from annoyed Dutch, English, Swedes, French, Danes etc.

Thanks Stuart, that's very useful

I am promoting Free Love and Free Trade with everyone so am sure no one will be annoyed at me...not even the Danes

Jason2 wrote:Don't worry Papa, nothing personal in anything you said  

Glad to hear it. It is rather difficult to discuss team positions without mentioning at least one you are involved with!

Jason2 wrote:
I didn't last long as the sole Russian player, it was simply too large and complex for me to enjoy,  In fact I would go as far as saying that Russia in G7, what with the "homeland", Alaska and the Leased colonies (and other bits and pieces) could be the nearest we have to a mega-position in-game (possibly the united Spanish-Portuguese positions might also qualify) and it is too much for one player, it needs to be a team position.  We both rejoined at the same time, I don't think either of us would want to play it as a solo position.

That's an interesting observation - in terms of land area the Russian Empire in G7 must be the largest position after Spain, so yes it must take a lot of looking after for any individual. And that it has expanded generally through peaceful means is a significant achievement.

Jason2 wrote:I would also say the Williamite positions are in reality very similar to Genoa/Tuscany/Papal States in the games.  It is an alliance of three sovereign states with similar interests and objectives, the positions are set up that way and when William is not actively the player of a nation then he has no real power/control over the other positions.  I don't know what the game mechanics are in regards the Pope and Naples but it is possible the in-game mechanics give you more actual power and influence there than William has over the Scottish and English positions.

I haven't really thought that deeply about it since the game mechanics of the Papacy are still being explored. You are probably right since William is obliged to run Scotland through Lord Melville and England through Lord Godolphin; if a player changes then I guess the minister changes so the position doesn't automatically revert to William's direct rule. And you have the parliaments to consider (unless you decide to demolish them and build a park on the site ... another way to kick start a Scottish enlightenment?) With the Papacy and the fiefs I can take them back under direct control (as was mentioned in the newspaper twice as what was going to happen before I joined), so I suppose there is no requirement to rule through nominated ministers or a council of nobles. The irony is, of course, that I did set up a Council of Nobles to run the secular side of the Papal States whilst I was busy discussing religion at Tivoli, so I might have hamstrung myself with a mini-Parliament of sorts. I haven't worked out how to use it yet or what to do with it - keep getting distracted by religion. It is one of the oddities of the position that it seems to be based on the 1550s rather than at 1700, so some of the Cardinals on my list are over 200 years old! The titles/offices are also somewhat archaic and not always appropriate - yes, I can change them, but trying to find out what they would have been in 1700 is a major research project in itself. If I was trying to nation build then it would be worth the effort, but since I am more interested in the religious side, do I really need to research which noble family the commander of the garrison of Rome was from? I sent my turn back yesterday so it will be a few more months before I will be addressing that particular problem!

Jason2 wrote:In regards G2, I think as all the Ottoman positions are distinct and always played separately, the stepping up doesn't apply, only in positions that can be single positions as well as team (does that make sense?). So if Prince Yea drops out in G9, I don't "step up" to his role as well.

I would imagine a double-sized China position would be so huge for a single person to run that you would really have to know the geography incredibly well to nation build it and invest a fortune in game turns.

Jason2 wrote:The HRE I do find it odd having just taken on a position within it that there doesn't seem to be any automatic requirement or explanation of what my relationship with the Emperor is and what I do/don't need his approval for.

I have noticed that there are bits about the powers of the Emperor split over different rulebooks along with some information on the Treaty of Westphalia which limited some of those powers, but it would be helpful in a future rulebook if they were all consolidated together. From previous discussions I guess there is even less information about the Emperor of China or Ottoman Emperor relating to the duties owed to the Emperor by his vassals/provinces?

I must admit Papa, in regards G7 Russia, it was not just the geography but the development work needed.  Siberia is quite empty as was Alaska...and the Leased Colonies presented their own issues.  For one person to try and sort them out, unless submitting turns the size of War and Peace each month, would have been an impossible task.  I am not sure even Spain has the development issues even if its empire is larger.

By sounds of it, you might be facing similar issues to myself in G10, I often find myself going back in time to find the "right" characters (and in G8, I find myself going forward for the Hanseatic League as well as back).
Possibly one advantage you have as Pope, over King William, is you do have that feudal control over Naples in-game.  King William, in-game, doesn't have that; as he is played by as a UDP character he has no influence or power in  England and Scotland.  You might be able to say "I am the Pope and your overlord and you will do as I say" and your viceroy will have to go "Yes my lord"...in-game if William tried that, England and Scotland could laugh in his face, his kingship (in game terms) is more honorary.  Its his personality that means he can influence the governments in London and Edinburgh.  It might be hard to fully understand but in-game there are no links between the three Williamite nations or anything requiring them to co-operate or take orders from each other.  In an alternative reality, you could have G10 where Scotland is backing the Austrian claim to the Spanish throne, England the French claim and the Dutch the Regency Council...and the game mechanics would mean that was 100% fine and wouldn't have a negative effective on any player

On China, possibly a double-position would possibly be ok.  Despite the geography, the basics of both positions would be the same (and not the case in say the main Russian position and Alaska and/or Siberia), however as all positions are equal I don't think they would ever be combined.  It's an interesting paradox.

With the HRE it's also what are my responsibilities to him?  Do I need his approval for treaties for example?  What are my contributions to the Reicharmee? That sort of thing.  
The Chinese Emperor, who it seems will always be an NPC/Agema, well that will always be a mystery...I just go with the line that he goes to me "Lord Fong, don't be a dick" and as long I'm not, I'm ok.  I'm happy with the vague, it gives me room to maneuver, which with exact rules I wouldn't have

Jason2 wrote:I must admit Papa, in regards G7 Russia, it was not just the geography but the development work needed.  Siberia is quite empty as was Alaska...and the Leased Colonies presented their own issues.  For one person to try and sort them out, unless submitting turns the size of War and Peace each month, would have been an impossible task.  I am not sure even Spain has the development issues even if its empire is larger.

I certainly agree leased America is full of problems! I suppose it depends on the amount of detail or development priorities. Spanish America will include California, Cuba, Mexico, Central America, Peru ... all of these have quite different geographies and native issues. But I suppose they might be slightly easier if you run them as suppliers of raw materials back to Spain. Unless you are going to build lots of towns in previously unpopulated areas and start trying to turn the likes of Siberia into England then perhaps the same kind of model could be adopted there?

Jason2 wrote:By sounds of it, you might be facing similar issues to myself in G10, I often find myself going back in time to find the "right" characters (and in G8, I find myself going forward for the Hanseatic League as well as back).

I always like to try and use historical characters when I can as they have their own twists and backgrounds which I can use. Some players are brilliant at inventing characters and but I'm really not very good at that. With England and to an extent Scotland the detail is readily available, so it then becomes more of a challenge to pick the right characters who would work together. Of course in G7 Scotland is Jacobite so I have much more flexibility than you do to introduce some highly motivated and wonderfully competent Jacobites who are painfully aware of the perils of exile.

Jason2 wrote:Possibly one advantage you have as Pope, over King William, is you do have that feudal control over Naples in-game.  King William, in-game, doesn't have that; as he is played by as a UDP character he has no influence or power in  England and Scotland.  You might be able to say "I am the Pope and your overlord and you will do as I say" and your viceroy will have to go "Yes my lord"...in-game if William tried that, England and Scotland could laugh in his face, his kingship (in game terms) is more honorary.  Its his personality that means he can influence the governments in London and Edinburgh.  It might be hard to fully understand but in-game there are no links between the three Williamite nations or anything requiring them to co-operate or take orders from each other.  In an alternative reality, you could have G10 where Scotland is backing the Austrian claim to the Spanish throne, England the French claim and the Dutch the Regency Council...and the game mechanics would mean that was 100% fine and wouldn't have a negative effective on any player

I'm not so sure. In G7 I have full control over England, Ireland and Scotland as King James, but never tried to assert control over UDP (it was certainly never a war aim that I would end up ruling UDP - in fact it would have been a major headache to try as you know from letters). It really is quite difficult for me to envisage how things would be the other way - when the only historical example we have is of William ruling UDP/Scotland/Ireland from England. I can see that with 3 active players and different national parliaments it makes control by any one of you more difficult, but if only 1 of you was active then theoretically he should be able to control the others by using the powers of his office. If not then is William really a king? After all we have situations like Saxony/Poland (perhaps a poor example to choose, but as we found in G10 it is rather difficult for Poland to dump Saxony; a talented Saxon player could surely gain greater control over Poland which reflects his powers as King?) Not that I am suggesting that should happen in G10! Perhaps the England/Scotland/UDP situation is tied to the power struggle between individual parliaments/kings before 1700. It wasn't so much that England wanted William, but they were stuck with him so tried to reduce his powers as much as they could - as far as Parliament was concerned they would have been perfectly happy with a performing monkey as King so long as he couldn't speak the language and stayed in his cage eating bananas.

The Papacy is really 2 positions in 1 and I am still trying to work it all out. On the religious side I would agree that the Pope has absolute power at the top of the hierarchy, all clergy report to their immediate religious superior who in turn reports up the chain and eventually to the Pope. That is the way it is all set up, and canon law enforces that. The only constraint on Papal power is that he is bound by those same canons and the teaching of the church so if he departs from that teaching without justifiable reason then there is trouble. That doesn't mean that the Pope is a reactionary and that there can be no change: there can be minor tinkering round the edges provided it is justified, and being 'universal' the church has a certain amount of inbuilt flexibility which a pope can choose to use. But if he starts trying to make up the faith then he is likely to find some resistance and discipline breaks down. That would then undermine the whole structure of the church - a disobedient bishop cannot expect his priests to obey him; disobedient priests can't expect the laity to follow what they say if they are themselves are ignoring their bishop. If clergy start criticizing or insulting the Pope then he is forced to act not to protect his own honour, but to protect the functioning of the church. It is a particular problem for Cardinals who happen to be ministers in foreign governments - indeed if players have the choice they probably shouldn't use Cardinals as ministers because of the inherent conflict of interest (see also comments below). The suggestion that it is OK for clergy to criticise the Pope on secular matters but not religious ones is to misunderstand the nature of the relationship between clergy. Any spiritual responsibility is higher than any secular appointment; and clergy are outside any national structure so must place loyalty to the church above any sympathy they have with the country of their birth. So in terms of religion the Pope is supreme, but he has rules to follow if you can understand that isn't as contradictory as it sounds.

The other side of the Papacy is the secular side which I think operates differently. The Pope has legal title to fiefs and to many other lands within Italy, but does he have to rule them himself or through a Council of Nobles who would act as a kind of Parliament? I think that on a secular level the Pope does not have the same kind of authority that he does on a religious level, probably less even than a hereditary monarch because he is elected by Cardinals. The Doge is at least elected by the people of Genoa so has a wider mandate, whereas the nobles of Italy have no such input into electing the Pope so philosophically it is quite a different dynamic. And this is one of the things I am exploring.

Now of course historically Popes tried to get round that by appointing Cardinals to all key positions in the Papal States so that they owed him a duty of obedience as Cardinals. Did this work? Yes and no. It solved the obedience problem, but it also compromised the Cardinals who inevitably were subject to secular temptations and this weakened their spiritual authority. It also meant that people were being asked to do functions for which they had no training or aptitude which is usually a recipe for disaster. I know there are plenty of examples of nobles in other countries being appointed because of their high social rank and being useless, but it is 10 times worse if you actually are good at something but end up being forced to do something you are not good at. Is it really appropriate for the Papal armies to be commanded by a Cardinal who is legally obliged to stop the army at various points of the day to pray, when command of the army should really go to a secular noble from a military background? Or should a Cardinal really be in charge of tax collecting when every day he wonders if he should really let the poor off their taxes because he is confronted by hardship cases? And this also had another unexpected consequence: the nobility of Italy gravitated towards the church which meant that they couldn't marry and on their death their property became Church property, so over time the Church ended up owning huge areas of Italy (not just in the Papal States but in other Italian States as well). In a sense the Italian nobility were crowded out, denied their traditional roles and opportunities to contribute in a positive way: how do you build a nation when the nation isn't national but international, and is supported by a structure from which you are excluded? That is the challenge of the secular side of the Papacy, and is why it is taking a long time to think what to do.

Jason2 wrote:On China, possibly a double-position would possibly be OK.  Despite the geography, the basics of both positions would be the same (and not the case in say the main Russian position and Alaska and/or Siberia), however as all positions are equal I don't think they would ever be combined.  It's an interesting paradox.

It is, but I'll leave you to comment on it! I don't know that much about Chinese geography, but there is a lot of variation even within provinces: deserts, mountains, rivers, rice fields - I suppose it depends how much detail you want to go into.

Jason2 wrote:With the HRE it's also what are my responsibilities to him?  Do I need his approval for treaties for example?  What are my contributions to the Reicharmee? That sort of thing.  

Yes, that's why I thought if you looked at the rules about the Emperor's powers (and those of Imperial institutions) you could establish that you didn't have those powers yourself and could then work out your responsibilities to help him exercise those powers? Not really something I've looked into personally, but it was just an idea about a possible approach. I think there is something about how many units each position contributes to the Reichsarmee somewhere.

Jason2 wrote:The Chinese Emperor, who it seems will always be an NPC/Agema, well that will always be a mystery...I just go with the line that he goes to me "Lord Fong, don't be a dick" and as long I'm not, I'm OK.  I'm happy with the vague, it gives me room to manoeuver, which with exact rules I wouldn't have.

Perhaps China is as always, the exception then. Must make it harder to serve a capricious Emperor than one whose powers are known. We might have discussed this before, but since Shanxi is the Emperor's province doesn't the player for Shanxi have control of the Emperor or at least a greater influence over him than any other Provincial governor, so is semi-active?

It is quite difficult in-game it seems for an active England/Scotland/UDP to influence inactive Williamite positions, based on experience from G6.  Early in that game I had a go at playing England, I was William and both Scotland and the UDP were inactive.  like you, I thought as King and Stadtholder I could build up influence and tried a diplomatic charm offensive with both.  The Dutch were very much "just be a good ceremonial Stadtholder and leave us to govern ourselves".  The Scots were at cautiously friendly but even after gifting them a colony, supporting them financially, generally being nice, all I got was a reduction on tax on trade.
Later when I played Scotland, the Dutch were (still?) inactive and a few turns after I started the English player (who I got on ok with) dropped out.  I did have a plan to use that to work on building up my influence in England and work towards a Union but one with greater Scottish power and influence.  Again, no luck, it became clear to me that me having any real influence and power over the inactive English position wasn't going to happen.
Perhaps the way to think about William is, unless you want to play him as a war-mad loon who invades Scotland and the UDP/England (depending which major position he is active in) to enforce his power, is it's a good position for someone who likes diplomacy and is willing to use a lot of charm over a prolonged period to try and build up influences in the inactive position.  Obviously it can work as we have had a peaceful union of England and Scotland in G8 but I am not sure even that was down to William (think Anne is Queen?)
I have no desire to depose William.  I must be honest though if I was ever in a game where I was Scotland and decided to, I would try and make the Duke of Hamilton's mad scheme of 1705/6 work and get him declared king rather than go with the Restored Stuart option.

The Papal position clearly has its own wonderful challenges! That dual nature of government (temporal and secular) in particular, as well as having to deal with the excluded nobles, a shame you don't have colonies you could keep them busy developing!  I don't think there is a contradiction in Papal Supreme power being limited by some rules-let's be honest given the behaviour of some popes in history, making sure there are some sort of checks and balances in place makes sense. 
Bit of an odd question, if you are considering (or are doing so) Cardinals in charge of military forces, is the old rule about clergy not being able to shed blood still enforced?  If so, I assume that means your military commanders aren't even allowed pistols for self-defence?  

On China, even when there has been an active player in Shanxi, they have never have had any control over the emperor or greater influence over him.  My take on it is Richard has set the positions up so they are all equal in just about every way.  maybe the way to think about it is the Emperor is more there to be an umpire to make sure the Chinese players behave in an appropriate manner and if you don't, he (or Agema) steps in.  The system works well, you know your limits and you play accordingly.  
Perhaps a different way to think about the Chinese Emperor in-game is the rule he fulfils.  In most positions you have think about how your actions will be received by your nobles; they act as a check on your actions.  If you behave in an "unacceptable" way they will react and let you know and most players will alter their behaviour...and if they don't their nobles will do things that affect their honour, interfere with their ability to rule, etc.  Now the Chinese nobles don't really feature in-game (unless you appoint them to a post) so the Emperor fulfils that role, as he did historically really. 
I think the Chinese positions attract a certain sort of player and this setup works.   It is also quite rare for the Emperor to intervene, again that could be due to the type who play Chinese positions.

In G7 Spain has had some criticism for being a bit parnoid and trigger happy when 70,000 French troops trample all over its territory and the local defenders just opened fire on the tresspassers.

Now I notice that in G10 the Tokugawa have claimed the Philippines and 50 battalions of Ashigaru and 20 Samurai Squardrons have landed in Manila without a shot fired.

The words "you can be parnoid and right" would seem to cover the situation!

Odd how in G10 the Pope called for special prayers for the Spanish Philippines and Manila Cathedral at same time as the Tokugawa made their move - Are the Tokugawa now going to start flying a Papal Banner like the Protestants burning eastern France or will a Crusade be called to liberate Manila from the Shinto yoke?

Is it only me who thinks G10 is getting down right anarchic compared to other games of Glori? Aside from that calm and gentle bubble of Whisky drinkers formed by the Maritime Alliance? Indeed if it continues at the current rate I expect Dr Fu-Manchu to be named as the first Tokugawa Gov of Manila and a determined effort to over take over scabble in the Anarchy stakes.

Clearly the League of Apollo needs some Vampire Nuns and to be involved with Opium.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Now I notice that in G10 the Tokugawa have claimed the Philippines and 50 battalions of Ashigaru and 20 Samurai Squardrons have landed in Manila without a shot fired.

The words "you can be paranoid and right" would seem to cover the situation!

Odd how in G10 the Pope called for special prayers for the Spanish Philippines and Manila Cathedral at same time as the Tokugawa made their move - Are the Tokugawa now going to start flying a Papal Banner like the Protestants burning eastern France or will a Crusade be called to liberate Manila from the Shinto yoke?

Although God moves in a mysterious way and uses the natural world (including the Japanese) to serve his ends, this is pure coincidence I assure you!

Stuart Bailey wrote:Is it only me who thinks G10 is getting down right anarchic compared to other games of Glori? Aside from that calm and gentle bubble of Whisky drinkers formed by the Maritime Alliance? Indeed if it continues at the current rate I expect Dr Fu-Manchu to be named as the first Tokugawa Gov of Manila and a determined effort to over take over scabble in the Anarchy stakes.

Clearly the League of Apollo needs some Vampire Nuns and to be involved with Opium.

I think G10 has been anarchic for years, just that perhaps the anarchy is spreading from Europe in seemingly random ways?

Jason2 wrote:It is quite difficult in-game it seems for an active England/Scotland/UDP to influence inactive Williamite positions, based on experience from G6.  Early in that game I had a go at playing England, I was William and both Scotland and the UDP were inactive.  like you, I thought as King and Stadtholder I could build up influence and tried a diplomatic charm offensive with both.  The Dutch were very much "just be a good ceremonial Stadtholder and leave us to govern ourselves".  The Scots were at cautiously friendly but even after gifting them a colony, supporting them financially, generally being nice, all I got was a reduction on tax on trade.
Later when I played Scotland, the Dutch were (still?) inactive and a few turns after I started the English player (who I got on ok with) dropped out.  I did have a plan to use that to work on building up my influence in England and work towards a Union but one with greater Scottish power and influence.  Again, no luck, it became clear to me that me having any real influence and power over the inactive English position wasn't going to happen.

That does surprise me, partly because you are normally successful with diplomacy!

I would have thought that for the union between England and Scotland to happen, it shouldn't just be an English initiative, but should be possible as a Scottish initiative. After all given Scotland's weaker economy the incentive should be greater from the Scottish perspective. England could hardly claim to be in danger of being swallowed up by Scotland? Resistance came mainly from Scotland rather than England so if you have a pro-Unionist Scotland that should make it easier?

Jason2 wrote:Perhaps the way to think about William is, unless you want to play him as a war-mad loon who invades Scotland and the UDP/England (depending which major position he is active in) to enforce his power, is it's a good position for someone who likes diplomacy and is willing to use a lot of charm over a prolonged period to try and build up influences in the inactive position.  Obviously it can work as we have had a peaceful union of England and Scotland in G8 but I am not sure even that was down to William (think Anne is Queen?)

Historically, though, William was a war mad loon who invaded Scotland and Ireland to enforce his power! Indeed it was his treatment of Scotland and Ireland that made the union harder?

Jason2 wrote:I have no desire to depose William.  I must be honest though if I was ever in a game where I was Scotland and decided to, I would try and make the Duke of Hamilton's mad scheme of 1705/6 work and get him declared king rather than go with the Restored Stuart option.

Hamilton is an odd one. I wasn't sure what to do with him in G7. He was, of course, related to the Stuarts so did have a weak claim to the crown in his own right. You probably researched his background more than I did, but I know his father (3rd Duke) was mistrusted by William for having Jacobite sympathies. The 4th Duke was anti-Union, but not much of a politician, perhaps he was a bit undecided or prone to being used by others to serve their ends?

Jason2 wrote:The Papal position clearly has its own wonderful challenges! That dual nature of government (temporal and secular) in particular, as well as having to deal with the excluded nobles, a shame you don't have colonies you could keep them busy developing!  I don't think there is a contradiction in Papal Supreme power being limited by some rules - let's be honest given the behaviour of some popes in history, making sure there are some sort of checks and balances in place makes sense. 

Bit of an odd question, if you are considering (or are doing so) Cardinals in charge of military forces, is the old rule about clergy not being able to shed blood still enforced?  If so, I assume that means your military commanders aren't even allowed pistols for self-defence?  

The Papacy is very misunderstood! Generally because people misunderstand the nature of religion - not just today, but throughout history. The paradox is that God is all powerful, etc, but mankind expects Him to do our bidding, and often acts as though God is accountable to us. Since it is pointless to throw tantrums at God, people tend to throw them at the Church instead. And when the Church responds, they first object and then deny - very rarely do they realise their own culpability.

On Cardinals in charge of military - that is one of many anomalies and you highlight just a few of the consequences. Yes, the old rule is still enforced, but of course it is possible to argue that as a general you are not actually killing anyone directly. Of course that doesn't lessen personal culpability. It is always licit to use force in self defence, though that force must be proportionate. So if the general was attacked he could defend himself (presumably with his baton of office) and if he was mugged and happened to strike his assailant and kill him then that would be proportionate.

Before anyone asks, clergy are also prohibited in canon law from fighting duels. There is a difference between being placed in danger as part of your role, and seeking to be in the position where you could kill someone.

Oddly the rule was in force even during the late Middle Ages. It was even not unheard of for Popes to take command of the army themselves, the obvious example being Pope Julius II, "the warrior pope". This is probably the extreme exception because of the strange situation facing the Papacy at the time. Italy was engulfed in war and Pope Julius (who hated the Borgias) was the favoured candidate of both sides. He was a product of his time in that he wanted to be a soldier, thought like a soldier, and lacked the temperament or character to be a member of the clergy. Historically he is depicted as either hero or villain depending on your viewpoint, manipulated by each side or the manipulator of each side, but the Cardinals elected him mainly because he had demonstrated his ability to keep people on side and had the strength of character to get things done (not least keeping the Borgias out). It is a feature of Church history that they tend to elect someone who is a diplomat (if there is a need for diplomacy), a lawyer (if there is the need for reform of discipline), a theologian (if there is the need for resolution of theological matters), and in this case a soldier (since there was a need for someone to save Italy). Popes didn't tend to reign long back then. Of course his weakness was that he didn't understand money. He was so determined to cleanse the church of the Borgia influence that he wouldn't sleep in the same room as they did (everything had to be redecorated, rebuilt, etc) which left us with some amazing paintings and buildings (Sistene Chapel, etc) but it was hardly financially wise to do this at the same time as fighting wars! It could be argued that he only fought when he had to, but I don't necessarily buy that. He did, towards the end, try to repair some of the damage he had done to the church by calling a Council. It is possible that he realised he had to do the tough things first and then clean up afterwards, but he didn't live long enough to complete that stage, so his reputation inevitably suffers. Not the kind of Pope I would base a game character on as it would be totally out of history for 1700 and not leading by example in religious terms.

Jason2 wrote:On China, even when there has been an active player in Shanxi, they have never have had any control over the emperor or greater influence over him.  My take on it is Richard has set the positions up so they are all equal in just about every way.  Maybe the way to think about it is the Emperor is more there to be an umpire to make sure the Chinese players behave in an appropriate manner and if you don't, he (or Agema) steps in.  The system works well, you know your limits and you play accordingly.  
Perhaps a different way to think about the Chinese Emperor in-game is the role he fulfills.  In most positions you have think about how your actions will be received by your nobles; they act as a check on your actions.  If you behave in an "unacceptable" way they will react and let you know and most players will alter their behaviour...and if they don't their nobles will do things that affect their honour, interfere with their ability to rule, etc.  Now the Chinese nobles don't really feature in-game (unless you appoint them to a post) so the Emperor fulfills that role, as he did historically really. 
I think the Chinese positions attract a certain sort of player and this setup works.   It is also quite rare for the Emperor to intervene, again that could be due to the type who play Chinese positions.

It is certainly a different way of looking at it. Strange how Chinese nobles don't feature - totally the opposite of England where nobles are expected to play a leading role in society. As a Chinese player, then, you just make up nobles or characters? There must be some information out there on what a Chinese noble did or was expected to do otherwise how do you roleplay them? Do they have the same contempt for money as western nobles? Are they religious? Or do they just while away the hours practicing martial arts? In every culture there is usually a template for what being a noble is in that culture?

Papa, when it comes to Hamilton I always feel his ambition exceeded his ability...and you've got to admit asking the French to recognise him as the alternative to William (instead of the Stuarts) shows quite a bit of ambition.  I also feel he's the sort you want to keep close, better to have him inside aiming out than outside aiming in shall we say.

I think with the Union, it's always worth remembering that England only really becomes interested and pushes for it when the risk of Scotland having a different king again.  The Union of the Crowns was enough to keep the English happy most of the time so when in 1705/6 it seemed that Scottish dissatisfaction with the Status Quo would make them chose a different heir for after William that the English decide to push for Union.  

As to Chinese nobles, they really aren't different to those elsewhere, just in-game they don't really feature.  I tend to create them as and when I need them, usually for government roles and then I tend to try and find a vaguely historical one to use.  I have to be honest, a Chinese position tends to have enough to do that not having nobles wandering around is quite a blessing.  

Thanks for the explanation of the clergy and military matters.  My own knowledge about it is from the 11th Century and characters like Bishop Odo. 

Stuart, I am glad you recognise the benefits of whisky, clearly all these Catholics drinking their wine is the source of all the trouble in G10.  I must admit i am a bit surprised we haven't had more of a discussion about the Japanese landing in the Philippines.

Jason2 wrote:Papa, when it comes to Hamilton I always feel his ambition exceeded his ability...and you've got to admit asking the French to recognise him as the alternative to William (instead of the Stuarts) shows quite a bit of ambition.  I also feel he's the sort you want to keep close, better to have him inside aiming out than outside aiming in shall we say.

I think with the Union, it's always worth remembering that England only really becomes interested and pushes for it when the risk of Scotland having a different king again.  The Union of the Crowns was enough to keep the English happy most of the time so when in 1705/6 it seemed that Scottish dissatisfaction with the Status Quo would make them chose a different heir for after William that the English decide to push for Union.  

Hmm ... ambition exceeded his ability - sounds ideal for a political career.

Trouble with keeping him close is that he would have to be given something to do which befits his high social rank. I'm really not very good at finding non-jobs. I suppose I could appoint him Royal Comptroller of Sheep and have him doing a survey of the number of sheep in Scotland and if he makes a success of that have him repeat the exercise in Wales, Ireland and England. Twice. If he gets 2 different answers he can keep repeating the exercise until they agree.

Was the Loch Ness Monster around in 1714 or is it a modern invention? I could have him engaged in a scientific expedition to find Nessie? Get him out onto the Loch in a row boat and hope for a storm? If he finds it I could adopt it as a Royal monster and he would gain the prestige of discovering it?

Perhaps the alternative is to send him to the colonies or as an ambassador to an inactive nation (or an active nation who doesn't get on with me?)

His heir was born in 1703 so is 11 in G7 years which would mean the title disappeared for a while.

Could I send him on a dangerous mission which would appeal to his vanity? Did he have any interests/hobbies I could use?

On the Union, was it really primarily driven by English paranoia and their desire to avoid crowning a Catholic? It is one of those strange issues that I haven't really researched because my own in-game reasons for doing it were more strategic. I always assumed the Scots were more rational and valued the economic case (free trade with England and colonies), whereas for the English they didn't want Scotland making an alliance with their enemy and providing a back door to another invasion?

Ahhh, how do you solve a problem-character like Hamilton...you know there could be a musical in that...

For myself, while I can understand the appeal of sending him off to be the ambassador to a nation I might not be keen on...think about his character and his historical track record to switch sides. If I were the lucky host of him, I would (knowing his history) court him, flatter him, make him my best bud...and in private encourage him to follow history and promote his own claim to the throne of Scotland...and before you know it, you have an ambassador trying to nick a good chunk of your throne while raising supporters back home in revolt against you...

Nessie is a bit of a difficult one.  After his/her encounter with St Columba in 6th Century, it's not really until 1933 that we get "reliable" sightings (for a given value of "reliable").  For myself I discount the Mackenzie sighting of the 1870s as that only gets reported in 1934.  There has been a bit of a tendency in recent times to promote claims of sightings between the 6th C and 1933 but, for myself, I'm not convinced and put them down to wishful thinking of faked records, misunderstandings of historical records, etc.
However there is the legends of the Selkie, perhaps he could be sent off to investigate those?  It might be a bit too obvious though?  Have you heard of the legend of St Bernard's Island?  Could send him off to find that? Or even send him off to find out if the Darien colony has survived?

My gut feeling is that his ambition was driven by his ego.  Given in G7 you have a United Kingdom, could you appoint him to the post of "Royal Advisor on Scotland" and have him come to London...he can offer "advice" on Scottish matters which you can then ignore?  Or alternatively recreate the Lordship of the Isles (Shetland, Orkney and the Isle of Man, maybe some Highlands) as some sort of ceremonial "County Sheriff" position and appoint him to it (perhaps with a military "Northern Isles Command" led by a loyal officer to command all military forces there).  Rebuild the Jarl's Palace in Orkney for him, etc, make him feel important but make sure he has no power...
Alternatively ask him to become your "Shadow Governor" of the leased colonies, with the promise that once the lease is up he becomes governor of New England...send him to NY and let the Sons of Whatever assassinate him...

On the Union, I think you always need to bear in mind that 1707 was simply the attempt at Union that worked (though I suppose you can argue Cromwell's attempt worked for a couple of years), there were a number of attempts at political union between the Union of the Crowns and 1707 and often initiated by the Scots.  The English generally saw the union of the crowns as giving them the security they needed, so the threat of Scotland as the backdoor to England had been negated.  Full union simply didn't appeal to the English anywhere as much as the Scots.  You've picked up on the two important points-the Scots want the economic benefits of union...and also Scotland was more hostile to union when it happened.  For the English it's not a priority, they don't really want it but aren't that fussed if it does happen.    Like all things, when union does happen there isn't a single reason for it.  You've got to bear in mind the Spanish War of Succession is in full flow, Scotland is fighting beside England but can't see who it will benefit them...but a union with England and access to all those lovely economic English colonial markets would...
The other thing to bear in mind is it's not actually a Catholic King thing.  We tend to view it in that way because of 1715 and 1745 but the threat to England isn't a Catholic king but not sharing a king any more.  There was a lot of demand in Scotland for a "Protestant" alternative and while we might both take the mickey out of Hamilton and his ideas on claiming the kingship, my personal take on it is in 1705/6/7 more in Scotland would have supported that than a Stuart Restoration.  Coming back to England, it's not a Catholic King, its going back to having different monarchs again, that was the threat to them, religion didn't define it.  Yes, the threat of a northern Stuart Restoration was good to rouse up the mob but any other king, that was the potential threat to England.

Thanks for this.

Jason2 wrote:On the Union, I think you always need to bear in mind that 1707 was simply the attempt at Union that worked (though I suppose you can argue Cromwell's attempt worked for a couple of years), there were a number of attempts at political union between the Union of the Crowns and 1707 and often initiated by the Scots. The English generally saw the union of the crowns as giving them the security they needed, so the threat of Scotland as the backdoor to England had been negated. Full union simply didn't appeal to the English anywhere as much as the Scots. You've picked up on the two important points-the Scots want the economic benefits of union...and also Scotland was more hostile to union when it happened. For the English it's not a priority, they don't really want it but aren't that fussed if it does happen. Like all things, when union does happen there isn't a single reason for it. You've got to bear in mind the Spanish War of Succession is in full flow, Scotland is fighting beside England but can't see how it will benefit them...but a union with England and access to all those lovely economic English colonial markets would...
The other thing to bear in mind is it's not actually a Catholic King thing. We tend to view it in that way because of 1715 and 1745 but the threat to England isn't a Catholic king but not sharing a king any more. There was a lot of demand in Scotland for a "Protestant" alternative and while we might both take the mickey out of Hamilton and his ideas on claiming the kingship, my personal take on it is in 1705/6/7 more in Scotland would have supported that than a Stuart Restoration. Coming back to England, it's not a Catholic King, its going back to having different monarchs again, that was the threat to them, religion didn't define it. Yes, the threat of a northern Stuart Restoration was good to rouse up the mob but any other king, that was the potential threat to England.

You're quite right I missed looking at it in the context of WSS - an obvious oversight, but yes it would have concentrated minds.

Not so convinced about the 'not sharing a king' bit - I can see the reasoning, but why could they not just agree on a King? Or was it because James1, Charles1, Charles2 and James2 were all accepted, but William wasn't so the union of crowns was broken by him? And it was that which needed healing. Was there really a lot of opposition to Queen Anne in Scotland? Or was it a case that she had no heir anyway, so people were positioning for what happened when she died?

I can sort of understand why the turbulence of the Civil Wars interrupted the progress towards Union, but it is surely a natural extension of having a single monarch?

Jason2 wrote:Ahhh, how do you solve a problem-character like Hamilton...you know there could be a musical in that...

For myself, while I can understand the appeal of sending him off to be the ambassador to a nation I might not be keen on...think about his character and his historical track record to switch sides. If I were the lucky host of him, I would (knowing his history) court him, flatter him, make him my best bud...and in private encourage him to follow history and promote his own claim to the throne of Scotland...and before you know it, you have an ambassador trying to nick a good chunk of your throne while raising supporters back home in revolt against you...

I wasn't thinking of the kind of nation I might end up at war with or who would have an interest in trying to turn him. How about Ambassador to Japan? He'd upset the Samurai and get bits chopped off him? Ambassador to an Emperor would require a high social rank? Don't know how he'd get on in China - perhaps the Chinese Emperor would look very unfavourably on disloyalty?

Jason2 wrote:My gut feeling is that his ambition was driven by his ego. Given in G7 you have a United Kingdom, could you appoint him to the post of "Royal Advisor on Scotland" and have him come to London...he can offer "advice" on Scottish matters which you can then ignore? Or alternatively recreate the Lordship of the Isles (Shetland, Orkney and the Isle of Man, maybe some Highlands) as some sort of ceremonial "County Sheriff" position and appoint him to it (perhaps with a military "Northern Isles Command" led by a loyal officer to command all military forces there). Rebuild the Jarl's Palace in Orkney for him, etc, make him feel important but make sure he has no power...
Alternatively ask him to become your "Shadow Governor" of the leased colonies, with the promise that once the lease is up he becomes governor of New England...send him to NY and let the Sons of Whatever assassinate him...

The last bit is perhaps even more dangerous - would I really trust him to be in charge of America?

The Lordship of the Isles is a difficult one since I had promised that to the MacDonalds and still have to sort them out. There are a lot of lose ends still to sort out in Scotland. And I still have to sort out some kind of longer term political settlement - the Scottish Parliament is a wreck after William's corruptions so at the moment I don't know how to recreate it or even if doing so is desirable. It may be simpler to have a single Parliament or rule through nominated Scottish privy council? I'm still looking at options, but what works for Scotland could also work for Ireland, and bind the 3 Kingdoms together. Should there also be representations for the colonies and/or America? Lots of issues rub up against each other.

Jason2 wrote:Nessie is a bit of a difficult one.  After his/her encounter with St Columba in 6th Century, it's not really until 1933 that we get "reliable" sightings (for a given value of "reliable").  For myself I discount the Mackenzie sighting of the 1870s as that only gets reported in 1934.  There has been a bit of a tendency in recent times to promote claims of sightings between the 6th C and 1933 but, for myself, I'm not convinced and put them down to wishful thinking of faked records, misunderstandings of historical records, etc.
However there is the legends of the Selkie, perhaps he could be sent off to investigate those?  It might be a bit too obvious though?  Have you heard of the legend of St Bernard's Island?  Could send him off to find that? Or even send him off to find out if the Darien colony has survived?

Never heard of the Selkie or legend of St.Bernard's Island, so you'll have to educate me on them. I think if I tried to send him to the Darien colony he'd refuse to go - he might be ego driven and of limited ability, but that doesn't mean he was completely stupid!

On Nessie I thought there would have been lots of hidden Scottish myths you'd have come across, the missing history type of thing. Relying on tales from the 6th century might be pushing it as the writings were supposed to be inspirational rather than historically accurate. I don't necessarily believe the dinosaur theory, but a giant eel or large fish like a shark or sturgeon could be more plausible? There would have been a fishing industry in Loch Ness and you know how big fish get when fishermen talk about them; I imagine a 'monster' could be any fish large enough to be blamed for them not catching many fish. How else could a legend persist for 1500 years without fresh sightings?

I've had a few troublesome nobles in Game 8.

I've 'rewarded' them by making them governor generals of distant colonies.

Deacon wrote:I've had a few troublesome nobles in Game 8.

I've 'rewarded' them by making them governor generals of distant colonies.

I normally get problems from clerical types rather than nobles - Grand Mufti's, Popes, Vampire Nuns, Thuggee cultists they all seem to have it in for me. Do you have any solutions for getting ride of troublesome Priests?

Deacon-I've tried the same, it does tend to work but the problem can be it is clearly a punishment and for Papa he needs to find a suitable "reward" that's also a punishment

Stuart-just find yourself a couple of drunken knights

Papa-your comments need quite a long reply, esp on dear old Nessie...too much for a Friday night  will reply over the weekend