Game 10

Stuart Bailey wrote:Ref the tricky problem of a positions "honour score" the rules do say that this reflects the expectations of society (or at least the better part of it) and how closely you are sticking too this expectation.  Since different societies have different expectations this means that there is no single way of running a position which will work for all positions.

It does seem to be a perennial problem.  One of the problems the Corsairs might have is that their society has very different expectations to French society?  So if the Corsairs go around being corsairs it may cause problems for King Louis who is deemed to be responsible.  

Stuart Bailey wrote:The other honour problem often found with larger positions is when "Society" expects you to take action which is going to get you into trouble in the larger world.

Precisely, the better the corsairs are played, the lower French honour sinks?  French society will expect King Louis to take action to curb the activities of the Corsairs, but he doesn't which either makes him look weak or that he condones their actions - neither impression is very honourable.

Stuart Bailey wrote:I would suggest that the honour score problems of France in G10 was down to Louis XIV trying to be too nice rather than backing his Grandson claim too much.  Honour scores of other Major powers like Austria, Spain and Russia also seem to suffer in the same way.....basically their society expects bold action from their leaders which can then cause problems in other ways.  

Suspect one reason that Spanish honour is higher in G7 than G10 is that while no real decision on the Spanish succession has been taken in G10...... in G7 in a "Get the succession done moment" for Spain.....King Carlos II passed away and the next turn his fully grown legitimate heir was crowned and all of the diets, army, navy etc took the oath.  This did expose Spain to the danger of war with upset rival heirs but sometimes its better from an honour point of view to just bite the bullet.

In G7 you had the luck to be dealing with a reasonable and understanding King Louis and the common sense to engage in a long correspondence to ensure there were no misunderstandings and your "Get the succession done" moment went smoothly.  Far from French honour suffering when the G7 King Louis was "nice rather than backing his Grandson's claim that much", it rose.  So I don't see how you can claim that is a reason for the difficulties of France in G10.  

Stuart Bailey wrote:Other problem positions from an honour point of view is were you are trying to keep different conflicting parts of "society" happy.  A Catholic Jacobite Govt in England would seem to have this problem in spades.  Oddly on a much smaller scale its also a problem for the French Privateers trying to keep both their crews and their Noble Investors at Court happy.  But at least non of Forbin's crews have deserted and many have "high morale" plus his honour is respectable so while it may be a bit of a high wire act its not tipped too far.

Some of that might explain the difficulties of Corsair honour, but not France's.  Crews get high morale relatively easily by taking enemy ships and being paid prize money - of course the problem with this is that they can get over confident and there is a tendency to pick fights to keep crews happy.

Interesting that you frame it as a trade-off between your crews and "Noble investors at court" - if Versailles is full of sponsors of pirates then that might explain a lot.  To increase French honour will King Louis have to kick out the "Noble investors at court"?

Curiously, my Catholic Jacobite Govt in England has found that honour hits a ceiling it is hard to get past, bit like your corsairs.  There may be hidden modifiers which limit the honour of some positions just like other hidden modifiers support the honour of other positions.

I doubt I will remain at the top of the honour board for more than a turn or two.  I strongly expect the Doge to recover his position while Jason has done a remarkable job of moving the Stadtholder of the UDP up the table despite coming into the game after it had been running for a couple of years, perhaps King William II will replace his loyal servant at the top in a couple of turns?

I did find Stuart's comments on his time as Pfalz interesting.  I sometimes feel in a smaller position, where you can have less to do (due to less recruits, less income, etc) you can have more time to indulge in those in-game activities that can boost your honour.  It has been fun working out what boosts Lord Melville's honour and I am pleased that playing him as a combination of the policies and attitudes of several Scottish ministers of the time seems to have paid off

Stuart Bailey wrote:
I would suggest that the honour score problems of France in G10 was down to Louis XIV trying to be too nice rather than backing his Grandson claim too much.  Honour scores of other Major powers like Austria, Spain and Russia also seem to suffer in the same way.....basically their society expects bold action from their leaders which can then cause problems in other ways.  

I seem to remember France in G6 having a similar problem, when Louis and William of England (I think) were trying to be nice to each other and both's honour suffered as a result.  I suspect if you're a French noble you want France to be the dominant power, throwing its weight around and smashing seven bells out of anyone who dares look at it in a funny way...not trying to be nice and not rape and pillage everyone else

Jason2 wrote:

Stuart Bailey wrote:
I would suggest that the honour score problems of France in G10 was down to Louis XIV trying to be too nice rather than backing his Grandson claim too much.  Honour scores of other Major powers like Austria, Spain and Russia also seem to suffer in the same way.....basically their society expects bold action from their leaders which can then cause problems in other ways.  

I seem to remember France in G6 having a similar problem, when Louis and William of England (I think) were trying to be nice to each other and both's honour suffered as a result.  I suspect if you're a French noble you want France to be the dominant power, throwing its weight around and smashing seven bells out of anyone who dares look at it in a funny way...not trying to be nice and not rape and pillage everyone else

Being nice to historic foes can be a bit of a problem, when the Papal States exchanged envoys with and signed a fairly normal trade treaty with Rumelia in G2 its position on the honour table did seem to fall fairly sharply.

But I suspect that for certain what I would term "leadership" positions such as - The King of France, The Holy Roman Emperor, King William, The Sultan, The Czar and perhaps the King of Poland its not so much a case of smashing seven bells out of anyone who dares look at you in a funny way or even attacking your historic foes at every opportiunity.

Rather what matters to your nobility is an ability to show leadership, shape the agenda and show that you have the backing and support of your ministers, vassels & electors etc.

Jason Flower has as Holy Roman Emperor and again as William of Orange and shown himself a master of this skill which help's his own honour score and that of his loyalists.

Conversely when the Holy Roman Emperor in a game said he was taking a low profile until his honour score recovered (but it was very slow) by reply was: "Ref your low honour score, this keeping a low profile could well be part of the problem. Basically you are the Holy Roman Emperor of the German Nation and head of the House of Hapsburg. As such you should have a very very high profile! Not a low one!!"

My gut feeling is that is that with honour scores its not what you actually do - but how they are percieved and perhaps the perception of the French Nobility in G10 is that France has been too pacific just waiting on events and hanging round waiting for the Regency Council to make its mind up or being strung along by the Emperor rather than leading events. A view which has perhaps been reinforced by hostile propaganda which would show the French dog being waged either by its Savoyard tail or even its Corsair tail.

In retrospect perhaps Louis XIV needed to throw the odd corsair into the Bastille on trumped up charges (or even real ones) just to show who is boss. Then pardoned him after suitable toading and pleading by the Countess of Artois and let a repentant and loyal out of his nice corner cell with the south facing window onto the flower gardens.

The good news however, is that with France under attack and in a fight for its survival as a major power the honour of both France and the plucky privateering branch of the French Navy is on the up and all good men and true rally round the Lilly Banner. In such circumstances I wonder if Agema uses the view of player character run junior positions as a reflection of what NPC's think.

So if King Williams Ministers in Scotland and England are not keen on something that will be a guide to what his Irish and Dutch nobles think? While the view of the Comte de Forbin can be taken as the common view of the French Nobility.

Stuart Bailey wrote:My gut feeling is that is that with honour scores its not what you actually do - but how they are perceived and perhaps the perception of the French Nobility in G10 is that France has been too pacific just waiting on events and hanging round waiting for the Regency Council to make its mind up or being strung along by the Emperor rather than leading events. A view which has perhaps been reinforced by hostile propaganda which would show the French dog being waged either by its Savoyard tail or even its Corsair tail.

I used to think that propaganda had an influence, but now much less so. In G7 there were so many anti-Jacobite propaganda efforts over a long period and although at times they might have made it easier for Spanish-backed rebels to appear, it was an exercise that showed diminishing returns the longer it went on. If you put propaganda out before your army marches through a territory then it might have some marginal effect, but propaganda without that reinforcement doesn't seem to do much. In G10 we also had the rebellion in the Cevennes - this seems to have been purely propaganda until a few thousand rebels actually appeared and drove off the French forces sent to investigate. That said, they seem to have disappeared now France has moved troops in to put the rebellion down. I think propaganda can be seen for what it is - something to amuse those who want to believe it anyway, perhaps fortifying their morale, but otherwise pointless.

Stuart Bailey wrote:In retrospect perhaps Louis XIV needed to throw the odd corsair into the Bastille on trumped up charges (or even real ones) just to show who is boss. Then pardoned him after suitable toading and pleading by the Countess of Artois and let a repentant and loyal out of his nice corner cell with the south facing window onto the flower gardens.

It would at least demonstrate leadership, though to be believed shooting a corsair may be necessary. In G7 everyone knows that King James means what he says and then does it, so if his subjects are tempted to rebel they know the consequences. I don't think any amount of propaganda claiming that King James is a softie would change that.

Stuart Bailey wrote:The good news however, is that with France under attack and in a fight for its survival as a major power the honour of both France and the plucky privateering branch of the French Navy is on the up and all good men and true rally round the Lilly Banner. In such circumstances I wonder if Agema uses the view of player character run junior positions as a reflection of what NPC's think.

So if King William's Ministers in Scotland and England are not keen on something that will be a guide to what his Irish and Dutch nobles think? While the view of the Comte de Forbin can be taken as the common view of the French Nobility.

In G10, Forbin might like to think he represents the views of the French nobility, but unless the French nobility are keen to associate with those who openly back pirates, I can't see this actually being so, even in the absence of more positive leadership from King Louis. If he was just an ordinary noble without corsair activities then possibly?

Honour in team positions (or where there is a senior position and junior positions dependent upon it) should be treated differently to honour for other positions otherwise team members could simply say nice things about each other to try and keep their honour up. If a team is divided (e.g. Scotland/England under William object to the stance taken by UDP) then I would expect this to hit UDP's honour unless there is a very good reason which is well explained. It doesn't necessarily follow that the Irish and Dutch nobles would go along with the junior positions, though. If Calvinist Scotland wanted to send missionaries to South America I can imagine UDP nobles would be in favour, but English and certainly Catholic Irish nobles would not be. Similarly if UDP signed a free trade deal which hit Scottish/Irish exports to UDP, then I imagine those nobles would be a bit upset. Or if UDP signed an agreement with Norway (Sweden) which recognised their claim over the Faroe Islands, renouncing any claim by Scotland, that might not go down well with Scottish nobles who want to take them back?

Thinking of the Spanish situation in G7, did what the Jesuits/HWIC/Flanders do/say (when they were active) really represent what Spanish nobles thought? They may have had some influence, but more generally I don't see how they could represent them. HWIC was a bunch of pirates with very different objectives to the Jesuits. Since when have Spanish nobles shared any common interest with merchants of HWIC, who surely they hold in contempt?

Where it may have more of an impact is in steering hidden character traits of ambassadors who may then say strange things. If UDP/Scotland did have an identifiable difference (e.g. on the wisdom of going to war against France), then the Scottish ambassador to Spain may champion one line while the UDP ambassador to Sweden may contradict him. This may not cause any major problems initially, but it may create some confusion if Sweden was inactive and the UDP ambassador to Sweden was aggrieved that his Scottish colleague was not demonstrating what he considered to be loyalty to William.

I've certainly detected an increasing tendency for ambassadors to inactive nations to interpret what they see as their ruler's views in sometimes original (and not always helpful) ways. I'm more familiar with examples in G7 than elsewhere, but the obvious example is the deterioration in Russian-Ottoman relations where despite simply asking for a basic trade treaty, Ottoman paranoia resulted in the Russian ambassador being expelled, despite English attempts to smooth things over between them.

Papa Clement wrote:

Honour in team positions (or where there is a senior position and junior positions dependent upon it) should be treated differently to honour for other positions otherwise team members could simply say nice things about each other to try and keep their honour up.  

In may experience this is intend the case.......in team positions if everyone says nice things about each other, supports and backs each other up you can indeed keep everyone honour score going in a upward direction.

The problem is this is easier said than done! I have lost track of the number of Holy Roman Emperors and their Electors or Ottoman Sultans and their vassels who have fallen out. Often helped by a little push from Agema which is liable to report a small cross word as a call for revolution!

Looking at G7 since this was the game mentioned by Papa Clement we do currently have the Czar and his little helper in the east who seem to have worked closely and well to mutual benefit. But against this relations between the Emperor and the Electors of Saxony and Prussia were so bad that at one stage the Emperor laid siege to Dresden.

Plus at one stage we had no less than x4 English positions active inc London Government, Jacobites, Hon West Indies Company and Sons of Liberty in the colonies (widely considered to be a front for Blackbeard). I am not sure if any of these players co-operated for a single month to push up their mutual honour. Some turns were more like a four way slanging match.

G10 Spain is looking a bit like this as well as we now have a player run Spain and player run Viceroy's of Flanders, Naples and Milan.
If the G10 Spanish Govt in Madrid can get this lot to line up and agree to say nice things about King ? of Spain. I think no one will mind at all if Cardinal Portocarrero ends up top of the honour list.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Looking at G7 since this was the game mentioned by Papa Clement we do currently have the Czar and his little helper in the east who seem to have worked closely and well to mutual benefit. But against this relations between the Emperor and the Electors of Saxony and Prussia were so bad that at one stage the Emperor laid siege to Dresden. Plus at one stage we had no less than x4 English positions active inc London Government, Jacobites, Hon West Indies Company and Sons of Liberty in the colonies (widely considered to be a front for Blackbeard). I am not sure if any of these players co-operated for a single month to push up their mutual honour. Some turns were more like a four way slanging match.

G10 Spain is looking a bit like this as well as we now have a player run Spain and player run Viceroy's of Flanders, Naples and Milan.
If the G10 Spanish Govt in Madrid can get this lot to line up and agree to say nice things about King ? of Spain. I think no one will mind at all if Cardinal Portocarrero ends up top of the honour list.

The parallel between G7 England and G10 Spain was bound to come up at some point.
There were also 'Orangists' and 'Defenders of England' who could be counted as English factions active around that time, so that makes 6. I don't think this really compares to Spain in G10 in a meaningful way since the English factions were much smaller (even micro) positions who survived after they became inactive because of 3rd party sponsorship. The 'London Government' was really a government in exile after 1706, but remained a plausible alternative due to UDP backing William (Son of William) as the alternative claimant. The situation was therefore much clearer than stated: only 2 sides with a tried and tested path to resolve the dispute. HWIC, Sons of Liberty, Orangists, Defenders of England may have had some local influence (mainly in the colonies), but they were never really a threat by themselves to King James - they were akin to land-based pirates interested more in plunder and spoils than taking over England. It is not the number of enemies, but their size and quality.

G10 Spain is in a much worse situation because the opposition is more organised. We have:

1. The King in exile (King Karl), unable to rule due to his imprisonment, but championed by the Austrian coalition, fighting to defend the Papal Judgement. Dangerous in terms of quantity, very dangerous in terms of quality, backed by superb leadership.
2. The ex-Duke of Savoy, who is probably closest to one of the G7 factions in that nobody considers he has a claim to the crown of Spain, so is just fighting his own war over part of Italy (which unluckily for him puts him into conflict with both Austria and the Madrid government as well (if the Madrid government is to be believed in its determination to restore the lands of Spain to the situation in 1699). Quite what Savoy would do if the French did a deal with the Madrid government is unclear - presumably they would still expect to be given Milan and various other bits of Italy. That seems to be a rather unlikely dream, but stranger things have happened. Moderately dangerous in terms of quantity since they are known to control many French forces, potentially dangerous in terms of quality, but suffer severe handicaps in terms of leadership.
3. The rejected Bourbon claimant (not sure if this is the same lot as Forbin's corsairs) who the French refer to as Viceroy of Flanders, but since Flanders is Austrian (a point agreed by King Karl), then that title would appear to be dependent upon the defeat of King Karl and the Austrians. Any Bourbon claimant who has the backing of France (or is being used as a front for French arms) is likely to be somewhat more powerful than the likes of HWIC in G7. Unknown quantity, quality, but again cursed by somewhat poor leadership (at least if the Brotherhood of Apollo is to be believed).
4. Forbin's French corsairs - very much out for themselves, probably the closest in terms of size to the likes of HWIC, but of better quality and potentially more powerful depending on the extent of French backing. It remains to be seen if captured Spanish colonies/ships are to be handed over to either the Bourbon claimant or France, or kept to build some kind of pirate republic. Leadership is above average for those allied to France, but is handicapped by allies.
5. France - nobody really knows what French intentions are since they do not explain, write letters or make declarations of war, simply attack anyone they feel like either directly or indirectly, whilst watching provinces defect to their more organised enemies. Dangerous in terms of quantity, potentially dangerous in terms of quality, but a joke in terms of leadership.
6. The Doge of Genoa - as temporary Papal Viceroy of Naples and under attack by France/Savoy he may be considered part of the Austrian coalition therefore loyal to King Karl, but rather bizarrely also claims to be the Spanish Viceroy of Naples (which does seem to be a meaningless title). Quality of forces is good, but lacks quantity and is obliged to rely on others which inevitably reduces potential leadership score to a similar level as the corsairs.
7. The Madrid government, possibly active, but somewhat hostage to circumstances and having set itself unrealistic goals which involve taking on all of the above 6 factions, the 2 main ones (Team France and Team Austria) being far more powerful than Spain. Believed to still have sizeable armed forces, but not necessarily the means to pay them; quality is unknown since I can't remember them doing anything other than defecting or surrendering, possibly because leadership is disunited with different nobles being prepared to stand by King Karl while the majority (perhaps wisely) have disappeared off to the beach to bury their heads in the sand until it is all over. It would be unkind to rate leadership as anything other than n/a.

And I haven't even considered other nations who may be waiting on the sidelines to join in once they can see who will win.

The equivalent for G7 England would have been if King James picked a fight with Spain, Russia and France whilst held hostage by UDP. If G10 Spain is being played then I have every sympathy for the player, but I only see one way forward for him.

This is not a simple 2-way fight (France vs Austria with the winner taking Spain). It is complicated by Savoy and the Madrid government among others.

If Austria defeats France then France could still fight on through the Corsairs, the rejected Bourbon claimant and Savoy (at least as long as France continues to provide the means for them to do so), and having defeated them, Austria must convince the Madrid government to accept King Karl (again). Depending on the situation at the time, this could be as easy as firing the ministers who are not loyal to King Karl and replacing them with those who are. So although Austria faces a difficult military challenge, politically the path is relatively easy.

The situation is harder for team France, for if France defeats Austria she faces the problem that Karl (if he is still alive) is still King of Spain and a significant proportion of the population of Spain will not give him up. Napoleon may have been able to place a puppet king on the throne of Spain, but the Spanish people never let him rule and he was driven out. A further problem for France is that if France did conquer Spain, it is likely to encourage many other nations to join in against France to stop the crowns being united. Not even France can fight everyone and the longer her fight against Austria takes the weaker she will be. If England in G7 had not been at war for a decade, she would have been much stronger now and not have as much catching up to do compared to other large nations. Strategically France may well be trapped in a war she cannot win, which will sap her strength and leave her so vulnerable that we may not be discussing the future of Spain in G10, but the future of France.

At least Abyssinia will not pose a threat to Spain.

Anyway my commitment is to finish a Treaty and make more allies, expand my trading empire using my Merchant Factors and build up my treasury while finding ways to feed and provide for my nations people.

Papa Clement.

I enjoy reading your long blogs. If only they were right.

Spain is not taking on France and Austria as you put it. All France and Austria are interested in is taking parts of the Spanish Empire for themselves. The same as you have tried to do by coming up with a ruling that gives yourself three parts of the Spanish Empire.

Italy is more a war between France and Austria for Spanish possessions than Spain being at war with the above two.

In my experience. France and Austria are not bothered who is Spanish King. They are interested in which parts of Italy they can nab.The only outsider who is interested who is Spain’s King is yourself.Because you have came up with a ruling that gives three Spanish possessions to yourself.

jamesbond007 wrote:Papa Clement, I enjoy reading your long blogs.

I'm glad you enjoy my posts.

The situation for Spain in G10 is complicated as I mentioned above, and I have every sympathy with someone brave enough to take the position on. However they can no more ignore a ruling they dislike than they can reverse the death of King Carlos II and pretend neither event happened. The game moves on and players join knowing the situation at the time they join. Many nations have gone to war in part to uphold or try to overturn the judgement. It is possible they do not 'care' who the King of Spain is, but they certainly do care that their claims are respected and with much of the fighting taking place in territory Spain seeks to regain, it would appear to be a problem any Spanish player cannot easily ignore, let alone blame on the Pope. In real history and in other games King Carlos died and wars happened. It may be that in G10 the players would have decided to go to war irrespective of any judgement I made, indeed Team France had already attacked several positions including some Spanish lands/colonies and taken hundreds of Spanish trading ships. My judgement did not cause this, but did provide the basis for peace which was both requested by and accepted by most players. It is a shame that a general peace was not the result, but players were able to use the judgement to come together and form a coalition to oppose French expansion.

I'm sure I am not alone in struggling to understand how any player for Spain can ignore this background or set himself game objectives which inevitably pit himself against so many other nations who could otherwise be supportive of Spain. Whether Spain sees those nations as to some degree self-serving is irrelevant: the situation is as it is and every player plays the hand he is dealt.

I have made these points in a game letter to Spain and it is there where any reply should be made.

I am sure the big nations of France, Austria and Spain will be run by their respective players who pay their large turns fee each month. Not by a pope who pays for his small position each month. I think our dear pope will have little to do once the succession is over and decided. I hope you don’t take it personally if your rulings are ignored.
  One can always leave the church.

jamesbond007 wrote:I am sure the big nations of France, Austria and Spain will be run by their respective players who pay their large turns fee each month. Not by a pope who pays for his small position each month. I think our dear pope will have little to do once the succession is over and decided. I hope you don’t take it personally if your rulings are ignored. One can always leave the church.

Players can do anything they like, irrespective of how much they pay each month. I'm sure you are not suggesting that the GM is influenced by financial considerations.

Rest assured I have plenty to do discussing matters of religion at Tivoli, including how to reunite those nations who for whatever reason were foolish enough to leave the church or (like the ex-Duke of Savoy) bring excommunication upon themselves. Not that I take such things personally, of course - the church is eternal and we appreciate that it may take decades or even centuries for some rifts to be healed. But healed they will be.

Game 10 has arrived and the following is for players and non-players alike – previous disclaimers still stand. I have made the following list and checked it twice.

1. Investigations are being made into the coded messages that have been repeated in the newspaper recently. It is possible they point to the location of none other than King Karl of Spain! If you look carefully at the picture leading both October and November’s editions X marks the spot and the incorrect date is a code which we have got our best cryptographers working on. Remember you read it here first!

2. The Lord President has recently shot to number one in the Mercurius Politicus’ top ten most honourable members of society. Inside sources inform us that a well-known legal firm demanded a recount from last month. Is this a blip or is there something dogey going on – find out in the next thrilling edition.

3. In another top 4 change His Most Sacred Majesty has swapped places with King William. One wonders if that is anything to do with the assassination attempt on the former King James from last month and the subsequent political fallout, or the fact that the Austrian sally (yes, we double checked after last month) failed to breach the besieging big guns?

4. Dissention and cracks are appearing in the Franco-Savoyard approach to war with a difference of opinion over how to prosecute the siege of Genoa. Maybe France wants her troops to return to defend Versailles? Rumours last month and missives in an open forum to yours truly alongside further reports of war reaching France appear to confirm that France has indeed been invaded. Perhaps the French strategy did not include a defence of the homeland. Or then again maybe the plan was to rely on Austrian allies like Wurtemberg’s troops to rally the French cause?

5. The rest of the war appears to be around the passing of grand old warriors and a careful watching of each other’s and neutral third-party force’s movements as each side tries to out manoeuvre the other. Oh and the scorched earth policy in France. Oh yes and the fall of Verdun to Sweden, it looks like Christmas is coming early for King Charles.

6. In an attempt to fortify French resolve, the beautiful Duchess Artois sought a way to brighten the French palette by passing on some old sailors tricks on how to improve military rations with old fish. Spice and Rum will do wonders for anything edible, and just as well given Flanders has now acquired Spanish fishing rights!

7. For the travellers amongst you there is an in-depth article on the history of the modern Saxon milestone and how it will improve your journey preparations. It is possible that this is Royal propaganda in the countryside from the Elector’s supporters as it demonstrates the Saxon and Polish-Lithuanian unity in stone. It would appear the way to deal with issue of a second King is to ignore it, or perhaps the stone masons chose to recognise both kings in the hope of getting paid?

8. Exciting times were reported from Vienna, with a rare glimpse inside the Archduchess’ courtship by the Tsar. Oh what it is to be young and in love. Their enthusiasm does not stop with making a house a home they want to make a city for themselves too.  It might take until 1713 to acquire the land for a city on the Baltic if the Tsar doesn’t stop his pursuit of science and love!

9. The Savoyard government made it’s position clear on the Spanish Succession issue. Spain in the meantime have taken a leaf out of the Polish Commonwealth’s book and are considering whether to go against convention by locking voters in a room until they come to an acceptable decision.

10. Another Prince has gone missing on their way to the Iberian Peninsula.  The Russian Foreign Ministry has issued a travel warning for dignitaries not to travel there due to the heightened security risk. Perhaps Count Trofim didn’t get the memo before he left for Spain.

11. A leading Spanish Economist for once agrees with the politicians of the Regency Council.  This all sounded good until talk turned to an IOU and a missing King.

12. A Government spokesman in Turin got the closest to a declaration of War I have ever heard of when accusing the Dutch Ambassador and therefore the Dutch Stadtholder of being a threat to the internal security of Savoy.  I wonder if they have been taking advice on international custom and law from Punt, Hunt and wosname.

13. The Doge has made a passionate yet sombre speech to His Holiness, requesting that His Most Christian Majesty be investigated for Heresy and Satanism.  What will the Papal response be? I suppose it depends on how effectively our dashing hero has swung his Holy Sword!

14. Austrian preparations for a Christmas feast in Spezia were in full swing this month. In their enthusiasm they may however have forgotten to send out an invite list.

15. Some less exciting analysis from the Court in Moscow going on about topics discussed for months. 8 out of 10 Russians think Something’s actually happening.

16. Meanwhile in Africa eminent leaders have been accused of talking to their god/s and been asked where all the foreigners were. The Russian Foreign office is considering another travel warning. The Russian War department is interested in reports from Maung of Cattle mounted cavalry as a potential way to raise stronger cavalry units. We however are currently looking for new translators in our African office,

17. Language barriers were also a problem in Edo when the Dutch said don’t sail onto that sandbank. Still no long term harm done, which is more than can be said for Swedish merchant shipping.  Perhaps the French military needed some quality Baltic timber to cook their newly donated meat and fish.  Was selling firewood the real reason for the Duchess’ earlier cookery lesson?

Thanks Marshal, an excellent and humorous summary

As always there is a risk that topics in the forum risk being actual diplomacy and Richard does not approve. So the following point is past tense and also matters which have been easy to read in the game newspaper. So the following is clarification as there appears to be an endeavour to misinterpret for game self interest.
1. France is not at war with Spain.
2. The French Corsair faction may have engaged against Spanish assets but this is not the actions of the Kingdom of France.
3. Savoy, an ally of France, did secure Milan, but as the Papal peace proposal and Austria claim this territory for Austria, then France is supporting her ally to protect it from Austrian aggression. ( If Savoy would agree to Milan’s return to Spain then France would have no objection to this. )
4. The Duke of Anjou did secure French Flanders and Sicily for the French Bourbon faction. At the time there was no active Spanish position.
5. Austria is claiming Spanish territory as is the Papacy who acted in a so even handed manner as a peace negotiator awarding as much as possible to himself. That was sarcasm just in case those for whom the sarcasm is intended are too thick skinned to understand.
6. Genoa sponsored rebellion in France and was insulting in the game so finding French forces moving against the Republic was the result of it is own failed positioning and diplomacy.
7. France has written on a number of occasions to Spain in game offering support and help but I believe that this correspondence has all been intercepted by Genoan or similar agents.

So to clarify the main point. France and Spain are not at war. France is at war with Austria, Sweden and Wurtemburg and supporting Savoy against Genoa. The Austrians, Sweden and Wurtemburg declared war on France rather than France acting aggressively against them.
PS Papa Francis, I thought you made a big thing about dropping out of this game? Your comments indicate you are playing the role of the Papacy again? Your previous comments in the forum stated you liked plain statements, however your comments don’t make it clear if you are playing or not?

Basileus wrote:As always there is a risk that topics in the forum risk being actual diplomacy and Richard does not approve. So the following point is past tense and also matters which have been easy to read in the game newspaper. So the following is clarification ...

This should be good ... there are ten times as many words in this post as in any letter I have ever received from France in G10.

Basileus wrote:1. France is not at war with Spain.

According to Wikipedia, "War is a state of armed conflict between states, governments, societies and informal paramilitary groups, such as mercenaries, insurgents and militias. It is generally characterized by extreme violence, aggression, destruction, and mortality, using regular or irregular military forces. Warfare refers to the common activities and characteristics of types of war, or of wars in general. Of course they may be wrong, but I seem to recall France has engaged in every characteristic of war either directly or through third parties (including those mentioned in points 2-4).

Basileus wrote:2. The French Corsair faction may have engaged against Spanish assets but this is not the actions of the Kingdom of France.

Did the French Corsair faction have any assets which were not originally provided by France? If not then France is simply hiding behind the ably-led Corsairs. I think the considered response is "pull the other one, it has a pirate hanging from it"

Basileus wrote:3. Savoy, an ally of France, did secure Milan, but as the Papal peace proposal and Austria claim this territory for Austria, then France is supporting her ally to protect it from Austrian aggression. ( If Savoy would agree to Milan’s return to Spain then France would have no objection to this. )

The point suggesting Milan is returned to Spain sounds like diplomacy over the forum to me, but of course I may be wrong. If that happened then presumably Spain would be at war with Austria, but Savoy will have already stripped Milan of its treasury, troops, etc, and won't be making reparations for the damage done?

Basileus wrote:4. The Duke of Anjou did secure French Flanders and Sicily for the French Bourbon faction. At the time there was no active Spanish position.

So is the French Bourbon faction the same as France or the same as the Corsairs? Either way they are French. At the time there may or may not have been an active Spanish position, but that doesn't seem to matter to the Madrid Government. Unless the (French) Bourbon faction is going to hand back Flanders to Spain, it looks like they are de facto at war with Spain despite the denial in (1).

Basileus wrote:5. Austria is claiming Spanish territory as is the Papacy who acted in a so even handed manner as a peace negotiator awarding as much as possible to himself. That was sarcasm just in case those for whom the sarcasm is intended are too thick skinned to understand.

I understand that few have mastered the art of sulking better than the French, although Ted Heath came awfully close. No doubt the French will be able to perfect their skills as more and more French towns fall to Austria and possibly more provinces defect.

Basileus wrote:6. Genoa sponsored rebellion in France and was insulting in the game so finding French forces moving against the Republic was the result of it is own failed positioning and diplomacy.

And the proof against Genoa is ... ? Was one piece of evidence found and reported in the newspaper or was it simply a case that Savoy wanted to attack Genoa as punishment for being appointed Papal Viceroy of territory they wanted. You both mounted a cowardly attack with overwhelming numbers against a small position in the game hoping to crush him. After all, we know from Jamesbond007's post that he views small positions as unworthy, an irritation which matter not one bit in the eyes of a GM who is only bothered by how much the larger positions spend on their game turn fees. There has been no apology for that particular slander, which is an insult to every player. In my experience all have an equal chance in the game irrespective of how much they pay in turn fees, and those who play more powerful positions and choose to use that power to bully smaller nations soon find it much harder than they expect.

Basileus wrote:7. France has written on a number of occasions to Spain in game offering support and help but I believe that this correspondence has all been intercepted by Genoan or similar agents.

I believe you! France may well have written a couple of sentences in each letter, sentences which may even be coherent (which is more than I ever received in letters from France). I would be very surprised if Genoa is interested in the contents of such letters, but if anyone has intercepted letters do please publish them in the newspaper - I'm sure the players could do with a laugh.

G7 isn't due back until the 3rd January, so I guess players in this game have a little longer to wait to find out who else France isn't at war with.

Basileus wrote:As always there is a risk that topics in the forum risk being actual diplomacy and Richard does not approve. So the following point is past tense and also matters which have been easy to read in the game newspaper. So the following is clarification as there appears to be an endeavour to misinterpret for game self interest.
1. France is not at war with Spain.
2. The French Corsair faction may have engaged against Spanish assets but this is not the actions of the Kingdom of France.
3. Savoy, an ally of France, did secure Milan, but as the Papal peace proposal and Austria claim this territory for Austria, then France is supporting her ally to protect it from Austrian aggression. ( If Savoy would agree to Milan’s return to Spain then France would have no objection to this. )
4. The Duke of Anjou did secure French Flanders and  Sicily for the French Bourbon faction. At the time there was no active Spanish position.
5. Austria is claiming Spanish territory as is the Papacy who acted in a so even handed manner as a peace negotiator awarding as much as possible to himself. That was sarcasm just in case those for whom the sarcasm is intended are too thick skinned to understand.
6. Genoa sponsored rebellion in France and was insulting in the game so finding French forces moving against the Republic was the result of it is own failed positioning and diplomacy.
7. France has written on a number of occasions to Spain in game offering support and help but I believe that this correspondence has all been intercepted by Genoan or similar agents.

So to clarify the main point. France and Spain are not at war. France is at war with Austria, Sweden and Wurtemburg and supporting Savoy against Genoa. The Austrians, Sweden and Wurtemburg declared war on France rather than France acting aggressively against them.
PS Papa Francis, I thought you made a big thing about dropping out of this game? Your comments indicate you are playing the role of the Papacy again? Your previous comments in the forum stated you liked plain statements, however your comments don’t make it clear if you are playing or not?

I'm out of the game, but this whole post is more or less forum diplomacy to me. You're asserting political positions and stating your political intentions regarding other nations here, including assertions about in-game offers.

@ Marshal Bombast - I second Jason2, another amusing and enjoyable write up.

@ Papa C & Stuart B. Agree. G10 politics is Byzantine & complex. I imagine even Richard, with access to everything, has lost track.

@ Basileus. You are welcome to a forum opinion, but frame it as an opinion. I am yet to see you produce any ‘in game’ evidence for your conspiracy theories about Genoa. And I have insulted Louis et al plenty (in game), but after the invasion, I do believe.

@ Deacon. Seconded. It’s exactly what I see, from my perspective.

@ Stuart B. Any news on the China Mega Game? Would be happy to hear over PM.

Diplomacy on the forum even if not in the name of diplomacy remains diplomacy(!). Please be careful, guys, the rules are as they are for a good reason, and overstepping the mark here can incur in-game disadvantages, as previously stated.

Yep, big brother is watching you!!!

I note that Punt, Shunt and Hunt have asked for an apology from that renowned legal expert, John Stirling, Principal of the University of Glasgow.

Mr Stirling has sent me a draft of his reply and it is an apology...if by apology we mean he says sorry a lot...however what he is saying sorry for may not be what PS&H want him to say sorry for...

Going back to one of the things Papa said,

"The situation for Spain in G10 is complicated as I mentioned above, and I have every sympathy with someone brave enough to take the position on. However they can no more ignore a ruling they dislike than they can reverse the death of King Carlos II and pretend neither event happened. "

I have to say I disagree. Nations can and did regularly ignore the Pope. They perhaps should make the case why the Pope is mistaken, or more likely overstepping his authority, but the Pope assertion that he gets to decide disputed royal inheritances is questionable.

I can think of a number of ways as a ruler I would mute the effect of the Pope's ruling so that I could just ignore it if that was my inclination.

Deacon wrote:
Going back to one of the things Papa said,

"The situation for Spain in G10 is complicated as I mentioned above, and I have every sympathy with someone brave enough to take the position on. However they can no more ignore a ruling they dislike than they can reverse the death of King Carlos II and pretend neither event happened. "

I have to say I disagree. Nations can and did regularly ignore the Pope. They perhaps should make the case why the Pope is mistaken, or more likely overstepping his authority, but the Pope assertion that he gets to decide disputed royal inheritances is questionable.

I can think of a number of ways as a ruler I would mute the effect of the Pope's ruling so that I could just ignore it if that was my inclination.

With respect, Deacon, you're ignoring the next 2 sentences which put the passage you quoted in context: "The game moves on and players join knowing the situation at the time they join. Many nations have gone to war in part to uphold or try to overturn the judgement."

This was the broader point I was making. It is not a question of Papal powers or whether the judgement was asked for and respected by many other players - all of which have been discussed at length before. And given Richard's comment I do not intend to spend the next month going over old ground.

If I quit England in G7 where Russia has a lease on America, and a new player for England joined, then that new player is obliged to honour the Russian lease on America because he knew that was the situation when he joined. He may, of course, decide not to. He may decide to try to turn the clock back to the state England was in 1700 rather than play England as it is in 1714, but if he does then he has to expect Russia to feel somewhat cheated and give a very good case for action against him, and it makes rather a mess of the history of G7.

G10 also has its own history - a history of failed attempts to resolve the Succession - some steps forward (like the judgement) others steps backwards. Of course new players can come in and try to change things. But any change has to take account of what has happened before and what the expectations of other players are. When you have 2 teams fighting it out with Spain in the middle, plus many others also fighting their own wars to take advantage of the situation Spain is in, any player coming in to this kind of chaos knows that whatever he tries to do is going to upset many other players. Some of those players will have put a great deal of time and effort over nearly 5 years of gameplay and can be expected to fight very hard to achieve their own game objectives which they have committed themselves and their allies to. If there is a new player for Spain (and I am not entirely convinced this is the case), then it is unrealistic to expect all other players to abandon their own game objectives. I suspect if you had still been playing Poland and having successfully crowned your preferred King, you would be a bit puzzled if a new player for Saxony decided that everything you had done since Jan-1700 didn't count and you were expected to reverse them. If games don't follow their own history (as developed by the players) and players don't respect that history then in my opinion nothing works - treaties wouldn't be upheld, diplomacy would become meaningless, etc. The death of King Carlos II and the Papal judgement are both parts of the history of G10 and form the basis around which many players are playing their positions. For game continuity and game sense they cannot be ignored. All players have to work within them. I don't see why that should be at all a contentious viewpoint since I don't see how any game that ignores its own history can work.

I think it hinges upon what you think 'ignore' in this context means.

You certainly need to be aware of game history, and if you pay no attention to it, you're going to end up wrecked on it. So you can't be unaware of it and prosper.

But my point was that you can choose to sail around game history, as it were, hence "ignoring" it. You don't need to accept the judgment, or the status quo. That may or may not be a wise course, but then the game is often much more interesting when people don't take the wise course...

I think we're agreeing here generally though.

Deacon wrote:
I think it hinges upon what you think 'ignore' in this context means.

You certainly need to be aware of game history, and if you pay no attention to it, you're going to end up wrecked on it. So you can't be unaware of it and prosper.

But my point was that you can choose to sail around game history, as it were, hence "ignoring" it. You don't need to accept the judgment, or the status quo. That may or may not be a wise course, but then the game is often much more interesting when people don't take the wise course...

I think we're agreeing here generally though.

Personally I am expecting to end up with my G10 character's excommunicated & under an Imperial Ban. Other possibles include being declared a pirate by the feared Scots Courts and even declared a rebel by Spanish Courts. Which is clearly not a wise or a healthy course of action! And I am probably going to end up wrecked!!

But I before Forbin, Bart etc go down to Davey Jones Locker does anyone have any idea about the highest in game score for prizes taken by a non Government position?

Look Stuart, I went to all the aggro of having a nice new gallows constructed in the Haymarket, just for you and I would hate to see it go to waste...I mean have you any idea how much Scottish gallowmakers charge?

But don't worry, I have a whole battalion of judges ready to try you so it will be a nice quick trial...