Game 10

jamesbond007 wrote:reading the game newspaper and looking at the terms for peace Austria sent to France. There is no way any player could agree to those terms. those are the kind of demands you send to a player once you have defeated them and they have no choice but to comply.

The war for Paris and France is still very much even. I see no reason or sense in sending France such a demeaning set of treaty demands. IMHO.

Do other players think the Austrian demands reasonable. Or extreme. From neutral points of view of course.

As a player I'd probably start with more seems to be historical and then negotiate from there, from reading the paper there doesn't seem to be any negotiation coming back.

When Peter was trying to end the War with Sweden he kept putting terms forward that Sweden wouldn't agree to, but Sweden initially had the backing of England who were trying to limit the fast rise in Russian power so they didn't feel they had to give in.

In game terms it probably goes down to how the player feels their chances are and if it went to the Agema Peace Court, Richard's always suggested/said that smaller demands are viewed more favourably than larger.

Emperor Leopold “the peacemaker” so cruelly mocked lol

Sat in Vienna listening for the postman, but nobody from France writes, even when they have stopped laughing lol I remain optimistic, although I am having a drink and the sun is shining.

Of course, I could highlight that not a single Austrian merchant ship has been captured at sea for three years, then one pops up full of lamp oil, with a bill of sale from Vienna  

When players lose trade ships they have no idea what the cargo is unless it is reported in the newspaper; so it may be just be simple Corsair propaganda implying the destination was England….. and not perhaps Calais? All merchants of flammable liquids in France will be rounded up…..the lights will go out and vodka will be banned, sorry Marshal!

As demonstrated again in this month’s newspaper; there are always witnesses to a large number of cavalry attempting to start fires (just to keep warm in winter of course!), yet there were no such witnesses when the fire in the business district raged.

Last month the Swedes were the guilty party, this month Austria and next month…………..the court jester..….. who is surely needed more in Paris to cheer everyone up than in Vienna  

While I’m here which is rare – elite units (undrilled) or standard units (well drilled), which is the better option? Seems to be an issue with Imperial Free Cities, which exist in the rules.

Cheers

Seems to me that both Louis XIV and the Emperor Leopold are starting to show influence of a classical education or perhaps Rome in Burning game:

- Leopold "He makes a wasteland and calls it peace" Hapsburg

- While I believe Louis XIV has adopted the classic Roman responce to invaders like Hannibal and Pyrrhus of saying no peace talks while invaders are on Roman (sorry French) soil.

Just have to hope with all this ancient period influence floating around the King of Spain is not too directly influenced by "Rome is burning!" And calls from his council to get all 1529? (was that the date of last Hapsburg sack of Rome?) Unless Spain gets its run away traitor bishop back. But at least the Spanish want him properly de-frocked by the true Pope rather than the Emperor's Roman Lawyer before they get to work with the red hot pokers.

As for Austrian Arsonist's - since the agents set fire to Versailles and now their Navy is getting involved. I am happy to concede that the Austrian & Swedish cavalry may not be responsible for all fires since it could be their agents . Likewise target of Austrian Naval Arsonists not currently known.....and may have to wait for the Corsairs to get to work with red hot pokers.

Will have to look up punishment for fire raising in a Naval Dockyard or artillery park...........its probably not nice.

Is it fair to say that Player as opposed to Agema negotiated peace settlements are harder to settle. Possibly due to the fact that players don't want to give the opponent the pleasure of saying "I won, you Lost!" To the point that positions fight to the death. Whereby Historically it was often the case that the exchange of a boarder city or a Province ( Singular) could be all that was required for peace. It was not the period of total war, where whole Nations were toppled. Not saying it is impossible just not an easy prospect

The current situation has had its attempts at player chaired peace talks & settlements. Seems that they haven't worked so far. Although the game has progressed from the point where these talks were relevant, the new in Game situation being much different . Which could allow a new attempt to be made. The question would be is there a desire for it to happen?

It is made more complicated as there are more than one party( player) involved on each side so there are multiple requests that need to be met in an attempt to keep everyone happy A probably impossible task.
Add in the factor that Most of the territories that are being discussed belong(ed)/ were Controlled by a country( Spain) that isn't actually at war with either of the warring parties.& it becomes at least a three headed consultation for peace.

Not going to comment on the proposals as that is an in game diplomatic matter. Possibly better to describe it as an initial negotiating position rather than Peace demands though.


As to the question on Undrilled Elite vs Excellently drilled non Elite. Personal preference I would put my money on the Non Elite. A bullet is a bullet no matter who pulls the trigger, the well drilled unit may have poorer morale, but probably better firepower & Cohesion.

J Flower wrote:
The current situation has had its attempts at player chaired peace talks & settlements. Seems that they haven't worked so far. Although the game has progressed from the point where these talks were relevant, the new in Game situation being much different . Which could allow a new attempt to be made. The question would be is there a desire for it to happen?  

What desire? Talk about peace talks sounds like a nasty plot to put poor hard working corsairs out of work

"What desire? Talk about peace talks sounds like a nasty plot to put poor hard working corsairs out of work "




That's exactly the point

(Impressive you don't see the words "Hard working" & "Corsair" in the same sentence very often, I think they usually cancel each other out )

J Flower wrote:Is it fair to say that Player as opposed to Agema negotiated peace settlements are harder to settle. Possibly due to the fact that players don't want to give the opponent the pleasure of saying "I won, you Lost!" To the point that positions fight to the death. Whereby Historically it was often the case that the exchange of a boarder city or  a Province ( Singular)  could be all that was required for peace. It was not the period of total war, where whole Nations were toppled. Not saying it is impossible just not an easy prospect

The current situation has had its attempts at player chaired peace talks & settlements. Seems that they haven't worked so far. Although the game has progressed from the point where these talks were relevant, the new in Game situation being much different . Which could allow a new attempt to be made. The question would be is there a desire for it to happen?  

It is made more complicated as there are more than one party( player) involved on each side so there are multiple requests that need to be met in an attempt to keep everyone happy A probably impossible task.
Add in the factor  that Most of the territories that are being discussed belong(ed)/ were Controlled by a country( Spain)  that isn't actually at war with either of the warring parties.&  it becomes at least a three headed consultation for peace.  

Not going to comment on the proposals as that is an in game diplomatic matter.

This is arguably the most common sense post to appear on this topic for some time, so well done to JFlower for at least making an attempt to restore some sanity.

It is indeed an in-game diplomatic matter for players to discuss peace proposals, although it is gratifying that comments I made months ago now seem to have been proved correct.  It is always more difficult to agree peace when there are multiple players on each side; it becomes even more so when nations are covertly backing one side or the other (or both), or have taken diplomatic positions which are contradictory or simply cannot be resolved, e.g. in the case where both sides want territory that belongs to a 3rd party.

The reason that the rules mention that this was not a period of 'total war' is that unlike the 30-years War, the conflicts of the 1660s onwards were territorial, not religious wars.  It was the bitterness of the 30YW (which can be seen as merely a continuation of the conflicts in many countries brought about by rulers choosing to become protestant and forcibly convert their populations) that made rulers so determined not to fight wars of religion again.  However, in G10 because of the actions of Roderigo, France, Savoy, etc, by taking on the Catholic Church (and pretending they are not at war with the Papacy), they are fighting a war of religion and therefore 'total war' is the natural result and nobody should be surprised.  Consequently any peace is unlikely to end with the transfer of a strategically insignificant minor village and everyone goes back to the way things were.

Today people assume that religion is a personal matter and that people do not declare war for religious reasons, but if you read the rules then it is quite clear that it is legitimate to declare war to protect co-religionists.  It is not the only reason, but for Catholic nations fighting those who have been excommunicated, it is not merely an obligation, but a solemn duty should the Pope make his position clear, as I have.  For protestant nations (where by definition the head of state is the head of the 'church') the interests of 'church' and state are aligned, but this is not automatically the case for Catholic rulers who are obliged to take the views of the Church (and consequently a more international perspective) into account.  Consequently Sweden, we understand, is at war out of duty to his Emperor and to defend the right of King Karl Hapsburg, the true and lawful King of Spain.  King Charles (of Sweden) has the right (as a protestant) to place the interests of his nation above those of his religion, and fair play to him for doing so.  Far from turning his back on history (as many other players have done), the player for Sweden is playing historically and proving that Swedish troops are very tough indeed!

The Catholic viewpoint put very simply is "outside the Church there is no salvation", which has consequences.  Should the Pope declare a ruler excommunicated and anathema, Catholics have a duty to destroy those who through military means have placed Catholics under a protestant (or unrecognised) power.  This is certainly the case in G10 for Roderigo's Spain, France and Savoy.  This is not a minor matter: Emperor Leopold is not merely upholding his duty as the 'sword of the church', but the religious dimension is the core reason for fighting well beyond any territorial/monetary gains which might be given in any peace.  Thus should the religious clauses in the published peace not be honoured then Emperor Leopold would suffer a huge honour loss irrespective of any other gains he may make.  In terms of justification for fighting he has a full house: to free his son, to uphold the Papal judgement and ensure King Karl sits on the throne of Spain, and to restore to the Church those lands currently under protestant occupation.  Austrian armies should start with a huge morale advantage, united in purpose and belief that their cause is just.  As someone who has spent a long time fighting with inbuilt handicaps in G7, I know more than most how important these advantages are.

In reality, there is no way that Catholics in Spain, France and Savoy would fight with any conviction for an excommunicated ruler who is trying to set up a rival 'church'.  They would have believed all their lives that by placing themselves outside the church their souls are damned.  At the same time they know that by taking up arms against the Pope, they have a high probability of dying in battle.  So they are literally putting their souls on the line: their personal choice (if indeed it was a personal choice, not one forced upon them when they were conscripted) would put them at odds with their families and community; far from being heroes fighting for what their rulers believe are just causes, they are damning themselves and by standing in line of battle know that if they are killed they will go to hell. This may mean nothing to those players who choose to be ignorant of religion (or hold to a non-Catholic interpretation), but for Catholics in 1700 it meant everything.

It will be interesting to see what happens if 'team France' continues to hold out on the battlefield without too many desertions or mutinies (for religious reasons), long enough to either reject the current peace terms or ask for an Agema-moderated peace instead.  And if there is an Agema-moderated peace to try and sort things out, what level of penalties will be applied to those who have treated Pope Clement and the Catholic church with such disrespect.

Papa Clement

I think you need to remember it’s only a game.

You talk about historic play and following history. Yet you as pope want to abolish slavery immediately. That is at least 100 years too early. So you are not playing historically, although you are talking historically and expect every other player to play historically. You support the proposals put forward by Austria to France. Yet in it Sweden asks for a French Caribbean Island. Again, how is that historic.?

As the Pope player. Your turn fees are smallish, yet you expect to dictate to some of the biggest positions and turn fees in the game how they should play and what they must do. You then expect Agema to enforce this. Would not be much of a game if Agema allowed you to dictate what most of the biggest nations in the game had to do and when to do it. If this course of action was allowed, then what would be the point of playing the game, unless you played the papacy.?

I think if the game was played as you would want it, under your direction then it wouldn’t last very long and players would not want to play the game again. The papacy cannot be over strong in LGDR or it would kill the fun and freedom players have.

You are a good knowledgeable player but dare I say, the Papal  States is not the position for you. Your expectations could never be realistically applied in games.

Interesting theory on "Catholic Morale" from Papa Clement which is historic. In that it is an accurate description of how the world should operate from the viewpoint of Papal Lawyers.

But to say the world should operate this way is not the same as how it does operate in real history let alone a game. For example:

1) Civitate 1053 - outraged by Norman (French) plundering Pope Leo IX excommunicates them and leads a 6,000 strong Papal Army including 700 Merc Swabian Infantry against the Normans who number 3,000 with another 500 local infantry Guarding the camp. Result Papal Army smashed by Norman Cavalry with only the Swabians putting up a hard fight. Pope is captured but is treated with respect by Normans who gain control of Naples, have their excommunication lifted and Papal blessing to take Sicily from Moors.

2) 1066 Campaign in England. Harold II of England excomminicated for Oath breaking and Duke William of Normandy gets Papal banner and blessing which does help with the recruiting. Harold II killed in battle and his Army defeated but only after it had marched length of England to smash a invasion from Norway then march back to fight a very long and brutal all day battle against superior numbers which is hardly evidence of crippled morale.

3) Bouvines campaign 1214 - Philip II Augustus who deeds include abandoning a Crusade, attacking the lands of a Crusader while he was on Crusade, having his agents treat a Pope so badly that he died and then locking a bunch of elderly Cardinals in a room with no food and water and lighting all the fires in the middle of a Roman summer untill the elected someone as Pope who was willing to agree to the Kings demands. Finally ends up facing an alliance of the Holy Roman Emperor, King John of England (who was a Papal Vassal at one stage), and the Counts of Flanders and Boulogne out to put a end to the evil deeds of this total B*****D (who the French still view as one of their best Monarchs).

King John who had problems of his own defeated by French Royal Troops near Angers while Philip II with 15,000 take on the Emperor and allies including William Longsword the Earl of Salisbury with 25,000 and smashes them.

4) Bannockburn 1314 - An excommunicated Robert the Bruce (for murder of a rival in a Church) leads Scots to their greatest ever victory.

5) Fornovo 1495 - Forces of the League of Venice organized by the Papacy against Charles VIII of France take on Franco-Swiss Army and get mangled in combat with the Swiss and French Gendarmes. Their greatest success was due to Greek-Albanian (non Catholic) Straidots who took the French baggage including all of their loot from Naples.

6) Ravenna 1512 - Papal Holy League against the French, a famously hard battle with very heavy losses on both sides including the French Commander while the Holy League lost 9,000 out of 16,000 and all its artillery.

7) Sack of Rome 1527 - Pope Clement forms the League of Cognac to oppose the domination of Italy by the Emperor Charles V (after his great victory over the French in 1525). Unpaid Spanish-Imperial Army looking for its wages and plunder march on Rome under fairly nominal command of a renegade Frenchman who gets killed in storm of Rome. Germans and Spanish then sack Rome while Pope Clement just gets into the Castel Sant'Anglo.

Charles V finally gets some cash to his Spanish Officers who bring Army back under control. Allowing Pope to surrender, agreeing to pay a huge ransom and cede substantial territory to Charles Kingdom of Naples. Charles probably was rather embassed by brutal conduct of his troops who included many Protestants in the German formations but actually the very Catholic Spanish were as bad if not worse than the German Landsknecht forces. But Charles happy to take advantage.

Thirty Year war - everyone seems to have totally ignored the Papal Bulls when making peace etc while French Cardinal Ministers spent a fortune backing the Swedes and other Protestant foes of their Catholic rivals and the Catholic League of German Princes which had tried to remain seperate from the Imperial Cause (with Papal support) was finally ground down by French attacks and diplomacy which aimed to seperate it from the Emperor.

Plenty of other historic examples of conflicts were "what should of happened according to Roman theoy" failed to happen in exactly that way. Even though plenty of other examples can be found of were the theory works. Much the same with Crusades against heretics and unbelievers, since while many great victories were won which you can say were inspired by Catholic religious zeal. How do you explain a almost equal number of defeats?

Also in the long period in the C14 & C15 were the Church and Europe was split between a Pope based in Avignon and one based in Rome I can find zero evidence of which Pope you backed having an effect on troop or country morale. Certainly nothing in the 100 years war or in Anglo-Scots battles of this period would seem to show this as a major influence.

Current split in G10 seems to be split between Spain, France, Flanders, Savoy, Milan, Papal Territory of Avignon & Gonoa who back Pope Leo XII while Pope Clement has backing of Austria, Poland, Portugal, Venice, Tuscany, Papal States and the German Catholic Princes. While Sardinia and Sicily would seem to be in process of being flipped over to backing Pope Leo XII.

Expect which Pope you back to have zero influence in game on the battlefield but rulers may think they are under pressure to try to end the split one way or another and their honour score may deflect their success or otherwise. So if the Emperor defeats France & Spain and re-unites Catholic Europe under a single Pope based in Rome I expect his people will even forgive the fact that he is a proven arsonist who tells total fibs about it and gets caught out, and he will be once again the most "honourable" leader in G10.

While if the King of Spain gets on his white horse, wraps himself in the banner of Saint James and picks up the sword of the Cid to restore good Pope Leo XII, free Rome and Naples from Austrian Captivity and save poor suffering French Catholics from rapine and plunder at the hands of the anti-Pope heretic mercenary troops. Well the Spanish population may even forget about his somewhat irregular claims to the throne of Spain.

After famine number four wonder if Portugal will decide that they are backing the wrong Pope? Also wonder if the Bishop-Princes of Italy and Germany will provide to have the same rock hard moral fibre and be as keen to be martyred for Pope Clement as his Swedes when the pressure comes on?

In G7 no one believes threats of King Carlos the Good concerning a gelding knife since Agema NPCs know they can call his bluff safe in the knowledge that his wife will never allow it and force him to pay them bribes. But are Princes of the Church going to be so keen to call the bluff of Forbin when soaked in top quality Austrian Lamp Oil (for that cleaner flame) and his first mate is getting the matches out? Or answer (red hot poker) pointed questions from the Spanish about do you know were out traitor bishop is? And have you ever employed or supplied Swedish Heretic Mercenary troops?

My basic theory of morale in Agema games is - do not worry about complex theological questions on the battle field! Just keep it simple, direct and brutal and keep hitting! Basically morale is to the physical as 3 is to 1 so even if not feeling very sure about things it is important to swash that buckle and show confidence. Since if German Princes think France or any other power for that matter is cowed by the Emperor all they are marching towards is a nice victory parade through the streets of Paris and to get to sign a nice treaty they will keep coming. But if they know they are marching into a blood bath and as soon as they cross that frontier their name goes on a black list of Jackels to be hunted down a nailed to the burning gates of their own Palace even if takes a decade they may get cold feet.

Although I cannot speak for all players, it seems a reasonable assumption that game orders are written by human beings, submitted by human beings and paid for by human beings who are ethically responsible for their thoughts and actions.  For the avoidance of doubt I have too much respect for most players to engage here or in the game with those whose ethical standards smell worse than a rancid blancmange.

Stuart Bailey wrote: ... Plenty of other historic examples of conflicts where "what should of happened according to Roman theory" failed to happen in exactly that way.  Even though plenty of other examples can be found of where the theory works.

Precisely, although Stuart does omit the most important aspect: irrespective of who claimed to have won battles, any diplomatic solution ultimately required the consent of the Pope.  In some cases the excommunicated ruler died without being reconciled to the church, but his successor knew he could not hope to rule a stable country without recognizing the errors of his predecessor and making his peace with Rome.  Battles may be won and lost, kings come and go, but the Papacy remains.

Stuart Bailey wrote:My basic theory of morale in Agema games is - do not worry about complex theological questions on the battle field!  Just keep it simple, direct and brutal and keep hitting!  Basically morale is to the physical as 3 is to 1 so even if not feeling very sure about things it is important to swash that buckle and show confidence.  

This does surprise me, Stuart.  I understand that both you and JFlower have military backgrounds.  Surely you do not believe that successful commanders should be ignorant of the beliefs and motivations of the men under their command?  I doubt you could name one great commander in history who did not see that the needs of his men (not just material, but spiritual and motivational) received considerable attention - it is (from my limited reading on the subject) what separates the great commanders from the rest?

Of course I could be wrong in real life and in the game, but I suspect not.

Two very interesting points raised in Papa Clement last post:

1) The question of "morale" in battle has been one considered by many of the worlds top thinkers for thousands of years. Keegan's "The face of Battle" is an interesting modern work on the subject while "The Art of War" by Machiavelli" is also a interesting read.

Machiavelli argued that troops fighting for a cause they believed in or a State they had a stake such as Republican Roman Troops (what modern Americans call having skin in the game) were superior to the detached mercenary troops of Carthage, Greek Kingdoms and the Mercenary Troops of his own Italy who fought only for money. But to work round Roman Defeats then has to spend a lot of time on order, and Generalship etc. But does not say very much about the effects of religious belief.

It should perhaps be noted that when Machiavelli had chance to put theory into practice with the forces of Florence its Citizen Soldiers fighting to defend their own got smashed by very detached but professional mercenary forces.

General conclusion would tend to be "Its complicated" and can vary over time, different societies and even according to situations. So raw troops will attack bravely in situations were veterans will hold back, while veteran experienced troops will be less likely to panic and run knowing its safer to retreat in good order.

Own view is that in combat fighters are only interested in themselves and their mates and everything else goes out of the window. But it should be noted that soldiers actually spend very little time in combat and if allowed to sit round camp fires talking politics and religion that is when things start to go wrong & in game you start seeing cooking pots turned upside down (sign that you have another sodding Jannissary revolt to deal with). It was partly to avoid this type of thing that the whole routine of "Soldiering" was developed to keep soldiers drilling, polishing and generally too busy to have time to consider Jacobin texts, Das Capital or even their current theological position.

Generally when armies fall to bits and suffer a total failure of morale it due to either a) Total failure of logistics leading to mass desertions as troops wonder off looking for something to eat.......English commanders of the Tudor period and later seem convinced that English morale is directly linked to Beer supply or b) A failure of morale at the top! A classic example of this is James II Army in 1688 in Scotland and the Monmouth Revolt its rank and file had been perfectly willing to fight, nothing was wrong with its logistics, it was on its own soil facing mostly "foreigners" and it suffered no disadvantage in weapons or numbers. But in the event James II morale and willingness to fight seems to have been broken by the desertion of his daughters and people he considered friends and he fled. Resulting in his abandoned Army making the best terms it could.

If the Black Prince or Henry V had abandoned trapped, outnumbered and diseased English Armies in the 100 years war it is to be assumed that they would also have broken. Instead they decide to fight a way clear for themselves and their plunder.

2) The other interesting claim that Papa Clement makes is that the Papacy is a unique and almost unchanging organization. While no one doubts the huge influence of the Church over the last 1700 years or so it is pushing it a bit to claim that since the Christian Church including the Bishop of Rome was set up as the official religion of the Roman Emperor by Constantine the Great its organization it has not seen massive changes including in its leadership and in its scope, claims and objectives. Plus major failures in its claims which it has had to adapt too.

- For its first 600 years while focus in the West is converting the Pagan's and trying to teach a basic Christian belief to Saxon, Frank, Gothic, Lombard warlords the Pope is still part off the Imperial Church of the Empire set up by Constantine the Great. And while the Pope claimed a primacy based on the claim that St Peter first Bishop of Rome was made head of the Church it is clear that Rome is only one of several major centres of the Christian faith with most of the theological drive is from Constantinople and earlier Egypt. Plus the Pope is still a subject of the Emperor and can get arrested and replaced if he upsets the Emperor.

- But as the East adopts religious policies like the smashing of icons is reply to Islamic criticism which do not find favour in Rome.... You can almost feel the annoyance coming off the page at the thought of trying to get missionaries (who are struggling to explain why murder and marrying your mother is wrong) to try and explain the latest complex theory concerning the nature of God.....and weakens in the face of Islam. The semi abandoned Bishop of Rome has to adapt to survive & its good bye Universal Church & State lead by a Emperor "advised" by Church Leaders who may or may not be the Bishop of Rome.

- The end of the Universal Church and its split into Eastern and Western parts "The Great Schism" does not seem to have been the object of the Bishop's of Rome and is a hugely complex story which developed over many centuries but what is clear is that the destruction of Imperial Power in Italy by the Normans helped make the split a lot more solid. The Empire lost its last stronghold in Italy (Bari) in the 1080's but basically the Civitate campaign marked the last time the Rome acted as part of the Empire in Italy and a massive re-think by the captive Pope as his Army was trampled into the dust by Norman Cavalry with Imperial Troops noticeable by not being there!

- With the slow ending of the Original partnership of Church and Roman Empire designed by Constantine the Church in the West first tries to find a new Western Emperor to partner leading to the creation of the Holy Roman Empire. Which has its moments esp when it defeats Pagan Magyar Raiders and turns them into Christain Hungarians but falls victim of Frankish Inheritence laws as soon as Charles the Great dies and his Empire splits into the lands which will become France, will become Germany and the soggy bit in the middle inc the Rhineland and Northern Italy.

- Then you have the concept of the "Imperial Church" which basically replaces the Emperor with the Pope and would see the Pagan warlords of the West (now turning into Kings) as his vassels and the Pope being in sole charge of making Bishops and in legal control of the Church. An idea which in G10 seems to be back on the Agenda. This high point in Papal Prestige and influence in the C13 & C14 helped turn the Holy Roman Empire into seperate states but basically hit a brick wall with the Kingdoms of Europe and was very badly weakened by the Avignon Schism in the Church which witnessed Western Europe spilit into backers of two and then three different Popes. Also back on the G10 Agenda.

- Resistance to Papal claims at its most extreme resulted in further parts of the Church splitting off such as Bohemia under the Hussite movement and then the later Protestant Churches........very hard to claim as Papa Clement does that the successor's of Henry XIII or the Kings of Sweden, Denmark, etc who split off recognized their errors and made peace with Rome. Rather Kings and Queens like Mary Tudor, James II, Mary Queen of Scots who tried to take their countries back into the Roman Communion faced the very opposite of stability.

But its also very interesting to look at the policy of the French & Spanish Kings and their lawyers from 1200's up to days of Louis XIV to block Papal Claims and gain all the advantages of being a Protestant without actually being a Protestant.

But it probably should be stressed that Catholic Kings and the Papacy were not in none stop dispute over Bishops or even divorces. Most of the time things got fudged and could vary hugely with different personalities. Stop Popes seem to have been very keen to defend their rights over National Churches while others like the Medici and Borgia Popes basically acted as Italian Princes happy to allow Kings in France, Spain, England etc to pretty much do what they want in exchange for help in Italy and benefits for their family.

Indeed the fact that the vast majority of Popes were from a small group of Italian Noble families and were elected by the same families lead to a lot of complaints that the interest of the wider Church was secondary to family benefit for many Popes. The Emperor Charles X who was also King of Spain so had a wider view than most seems to have spent most of his reign worried about the focus of the Papacy on Italy and the Papal States rather say the Protestant Reformation.




-

Stuart Bailey wrote:Two very interesting points raised in Papa Clement last post:

1) The question of "morale" in battle has been one considered by many of the worlds top thinkers for thousands of years.  Keegan's "The face of Battle" is an interesting modern work on the subject while "The Art of War" by Machiavelli" is also a interesting read.

Machiavelli argued that troops fighting for a cause they believed in or a State they had a stake such as Republican Roman Troops (what modern Americans call having skin in the game) were superior to the detached mercenary troops of Carthage, Greek Kingdoms and the Mercenary Troops of his own Italy who fought only for money.  But to work round Roman Defeats then has to spend a lot of time on order, and Generalship etc.  But does not say very much about the effects of religious belief.  

It should perhaps be noted that when Machiavelli had chance to put theory into practice with the forces of Florence its Citizen Soldiers fighting to defend their own got smashed by very detached but professional mercenary forces.

General conclusion would tend to be "Its complicated" and can vary over time, different societies and even according to situations.  So raw troops will attack bravely in situations were veterans will hold back, while veteran experienced troops will be less likely to panic and run knowing its safer to retreat in good order.

Own view is that in combat fighters are only interested in themselves and their mates and everything else goes out of the window.  But it should be noted that soldiers actually spend very little time in combat and if allowed to sit round camp fires talking politics and religion that is when things start to go wrong & in game you start seeing cooking pots turned upside down (sign that you have another sodding Jannissary revolt to deal with).  It was partly to avoid this type of thing that the whole routine of "Soldiering" was developed to keep soldiers drilling, polishing and generally too busy to have time to consider Jacobin texts, Das Capital or even their current theological position.

Generally when armies fall to bits and suffer a total failure of morale it due to either a) Total failure of logistics leading to mass desertions as troops wonder off looking for something to eat.......English commanders of the Tudor period and later seem convinced that English morale is directly linked to Beer supply or b) A failure of morale at the top!  A classic example of this is James II Army in 1688 in Scotland and the Monmouth Revolt its rank and file had been perfectly willing to fight, nothing was wrong with its logistics, it was on its own soil facing mostly "foreigners" and it suffered no disadvantage in weapons or numbers.  But in the event James II morale and willingness to fight seems to have been broken by the desertion of his daughters and people he considered friends and he fled.  Resulting in his abandoned Army making the best terms it could.

If the Black Prince or Henry V had abandoned trapped, outnumbered and diseased English Armies in the 100 years war it is to be assumed that they would also have broken.  Instead they decide to fight a way clear for themselves and their plunder.  

Interesting response, Stuart, although slightly avoiding the point I was making.

It is difficult for those who are either not particularly religious or do not understand the catholic mind, to understand the prism through which catholics see life and death.  From their childhood, catholics appreciate the importance of their soul, the role of the church and its teaching in preserving that soul in a state of grace which is the purpose of the sacraments provided by the church.  That teaching is comprehensive and impacts on every aspect of life; it provides the kind of certainty which is rarely found in today's confused world.  It is very different from a protestant understanding which by definition breaks the relationship with the Catholic church and holds a different view of the sacraments.  Should a catholic not die in a state of grace having been reconciled to God through the sacraments administered by a priest, he knows he is in deep trouble, which is one reason why Catholic chaplains are obliged to go out onto the battlefield under fire to hear the confessions of the dying, and are held in great respect by soldiers of all faiths today.

Although it is not always easy to keep the teaching of the church, it is nevertheless the objective to do so.  For a Catholic to waver in his faith or reject some church teaching brings confusion, and confusion is certainly a negative for morale on the battlefield.  For a catholic to be excommunicated (a formal recognition that by his actions, he has left the church), that confusion means he has lost all the anchors of belief he has held throughout his life and is shunned by his family and community.  In 1700 when life was much more local than it is today, it would usually lead to loss of job, shops would refuse to serve you, etc, and until you repented you were largely excluded from life.  Not surprisingly excommunication was a rare event and used only when other avenues had failed to help the individual.

Stuart writes that military routine was in part designed to stop soldiers sitting around thinking about theology, etc, but there is in a sense a parallel to catholic life - the daily cycle of prayer, saints days, festivals and feasts, liturgical seasons, etc, all played a much greater part in the life of catholic laity in 1700 than they do for most today.  It does form a routine, not to stop people thinking about theology, but the opposite - it is designed to stimulate spiritual growth and deepen the catholic's relationship with Christ and the church, which don't forget in the catholic mind are inseparable.  So while military routine and discipline may substitute for the routine of catholic life up to a point, one is unlikely to be a substitute for the other.  And I do not think it realistic to claim that when a person's worldview and beliefs have been shattered through being excommunicated (or taking up arms against the church), this has no impact on his morale, reasons for fighting or even on his ability to function as a man.

There is a supplementary (and very interesting) avenue left to explore on this.  Do Catholics or protestants make the better soldiers?  Not being a soldier I can't really answer this one, although my instinct is that overall protestants probably make better soldiers because having already rejected much of the catholic worldview, it is but a small step to reject anything else which distracts them from their military duties.  Although it may also depend upon the enemy: for Catholics fighting with the backing of the church against a religious enemy (or those who are trying to harm the church), the conflict is about as personal as you can get and fits into Machiavelli's view.  Similarly protestants would probably make the best mercenaries.  But there is a huge difference between committed protestant fanatics who have been indoctrinated with fear of catholics, and what would otherwise be an army of catholics under the direction of an excommunicated leader, fighting against the church.  Like it or not, religion is going to have an impact on morale on the battlefield.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Two very interesting points raised in Papa Clement last post:

2) The other interesting claim that Papa Clement makes is that the Papacy is a unique and almost unchanging organization.  While no one doubts the huge influence of the Church over the last 1700 years or so it is pushing it a bit to claim that since the Christian Church including the Bishop of Rome was set up as the official religion of the Roman Emperor by Constantine the Great its organization it has not seen massive changes including in its leadership and in its scope, claims and objectives.  Plus major failures in its claims which it has had to adapt too.

- For its first 600 years while focus in the West is converting the Pagan's and trying to teach a basic Christian belief to Saxon, Frank, Gothic, Lombard warlords the Pope is still part off the Imperial Church of the Empire set up by Constantine the Great.  And while the Pope claimed a primacy based on the claim that St Peter first Bishop of Rome was made head of the Church it is clear that Rome is only one of several major centres of the Christian faith with most of the theological drive is from Constantinople and earlier Egypt.  Plus the Pope is still a subject of the Emperor and can get arrested and replaced if he upsets the Emperor.

- But as the East adopts religious policies like the smashing of icons is reply to Islamic criticism which do not find favour in Rome....  You can almost feel the annoyance coming off the page at the thought of trying to get missionaries (who are struggling to explain why murder and  marrying your mother is wrong) to try and explain the latest complex theory concerning the nature of God.....and weakens in the face of Islam.  The semi abandoned Bishop of Rome has to adapt to survive & its good bye Universal Church & State lead by a Emperor "advised" by Church Leaders who may or may not be the Bishop of Rome.

- The end of the Universal Church and its split into Eastern and Western parts "The Great Schism" does not seem to have been the object of the Bishop's of Rome and is a hugely complex story which developed over many centuries but what is clear is that the destruction of Imperial Power in Italy by the Normans helped make the split a lot more solid.  The Empire lost its last stronghold in Italy (Bari) in the 1080's but basically the Civitate campaign marked the last time the Rome acted as part of the Empire in Italy and a massive re-think by the captive Pope as his Army was trampled into the dust by Norman Cavalry with Imperial Troops noticeable by not being there!

- With the slow ending of the Original partnership of Church and Roman Empire designed by Constantine the Church in the West first tries to find a new Western Emperor to partner leading to the creation of the Holy Roman Empire.  Which has its moments esp when it defeats Pagan Magyar Raiders and turns them into Christain Hungarians but falls victim of Frankish Inheritence laws as soon as Charles the Great dies and his Empire splits into the lands which will become France, will become Germany and the soggy bit in the middle inc the Rhineland and Northern Italy.

- Then you have the concept of the "Imperial Church" which basically replaces the Emperor with the Pope and would see the Pagan warlords of the West (now turning into Kings) as his vassels and the Pope being in sole charge of making Bishops and in legal control of the Church.  An idea which in G10 seems to be back on the Agenda.  This high point in Papal Prestige and influence in the C13 & C14 helped turn the Holy Roman Empire into seperate states but basically hit a brick wall with the Kingdoms of Europe and was very badly weakened by the Avignon Schism in the Church which witnessed Western Europe spilit into backers of two and then three different Popes.  Also back on the G10 Agenda.

- Resistance to Papal claims at its most extreme resulted in further parts of the Church splitting off such as Bohemia under the Hussite movement and then the later Protestant Churches........very hard to claim as Papa Clement does that the successor's of Henry XIII or the Kings of Sweden, Denmark, etc who split off recognized their errors and made peace with Rome.  Rather Kings and Queens like Mary Tudor, James II, Mary Queen of Scots who tried to take their countries back into the Roman Communion faced the very opposite of stability.

But its also very interesting to look at the policy of the French & Spanish Kings and their lawyers from 1200's up to days of Louis XIV to block Papal Claims and gain all the advantages of being a Protestant without actually being a Protestant.  

But it probably should be stressed that Catholic Kings and the Papacy were not in none stop dispute over Bishops or even divorces.  Most of the time things got fudged and could vary hugely with different personalities.  Stop Popes seem to have been very keen to defend their rights over National Churches while others like the Medici and Borgia Popes basically acted as Italian Princes happy to allow Kings in France, Spain, England etc to pretty much do what they want in exchange for help in Italy and benefits for their family.

Indeed the fact that the vast majority of Popes were from a small group of Italian Noble families and were elected by the same families lead to a lot of complaints that the interest of the wider Church was secondary to family benefit for many Popes.  The Emperor Charles X who was also King of Spain so had a wider view than most seems to have spent most of his reign worried about the focus of the Papacy on Italy and the Papal States rather say the Protestant Reformation.

Again, you are slightly (though probably not deliberately) misunderstanding the point.

The Papacy as an institution, founded not by Constantine, but Christ, is eternal and has remained steadfast, performing the same functions it always did for 2,000 years. The last King of France was removed in the 1800s; the last Holy Roman Emperors perished some time before that; but the Papacy remains.

The focus of its mission evolves, of course, and it is true that Papal prestige (in the political sense) fluctuates as does its influence, but not its position nor authority. At times it did go through more worldly phases, although when the pendulum swings too far towards the world, it tends to generate a spiritual renaissance which pulls it back to its spiritual mission. After the divisions of the 14th century and the protestant disruptions of the 15th and 16th century, the Cardinals and bishops of the Catholic church came together in the Council of Trent to produce documents which are clear and robust statements of Catholic doctrine which form the foundation of Catholic teaching today. The 16th century was also the time of such great saints as St.John of the Cross. Such renewal is a natural part of the church. Reading Stuart's highly selective and somewhat anti-Catholic summary, if the church was really in such a poor state as he claims, then how did such remarkable spiritual transformations come about? There are only 2 options: either there were enough people of outstanding faith and character at the top of the church who were able to rescue it; and/or Christ really does reside within the Catholic Church until the end of time (as Catholics believe). It may be difficult for those brought up in protestant countries to look beyond their anti-catholic schoolboy histories, but it is worth the effort.

The one point that I can broadly agree with Stuart on is that the vast majority of Popes were from a relatively small group of Italian noble families, but that can be explained in part because proportionately so many Italian nobles joined the church and the high number of Italian bishoprics compared to other countries. The Italians do have a certain way of approaching religion that is sometimes uncomfortable to those from other nations, and in addition to being head of the Catholic Church, the Pope is also bishop of Rome so it does help to have the confidence of the congregation and appreciate their ways. Some of the worst popes have been non-Italian, whereas some of the greatest popes have been Italian. In terms of numbers of Popes, there were only 5 from France (excluding the Avignon 'popes') and 5 from the HRE, most of which were 800-1200 years ago, so the notion that Emperors (or Kings of France) nominated popes is somewhat wide of the mark. The nationality of popes is often of far less importance than those Cardinals or religious who were entrusted by the various popes to restore Papal authority in rebellious territories. Indeed there are many examples of religious who tamed some of the more worldly interests of some popes and suggested reforms to either canon law or spirituality.

It is wrong to judge the papacy by secular standards, since that is not its only concern.

Would just like to say I started with the organization of the Christain Church as the official religion of the Roman Empire rather than anything earlier so as not to risk offending anyone who views Jesus as their Lord and Saviour and his teaching and that of the early church fathers as the basis of their personal faith.

But it seems to me that while early Christians were some of the most brave humans ever to exist and totally fearless of death their pacifist belief would have made them terrible soldiers. Bit like the devout Jews who allowed the Selucids to slaughter them rather than break the Sabbath. So you can not consider the effect of Christian belief on military morale in the early years of the Church because no true Christian would be a soldier. Guess in Rome is Burning you could ruin the combat effectivness of a Legion by converting it to Christainity & pacifism.

Later on influence of religious faith just seems to be one factor alongside supply, confidence in commanders, belief in victory or defeat due to numbers or equipment, past victories or defeats at hands of same foe etc, etc, etc all of which could vary in importance with the period and society and which are almost impossible to factor into a game in anyway but the most abstract ways such as a dice roll. For example you might decide that being trapped in foreign territory with no escape option is really bad for morale and a Army trapped against the sea may surrender or otherwise suffer bad effects.

But some Chinese Generals believed that troops would fight better if they were deployed in "death ground" with no option but to fight or die a tactic also used by commanders like Cortez who burnt his ships. But what happens if some of the troops think they can see a way out and run? Also some armies seem to have fallen to bits on the death or wounding of a commander while others fight harder.

As for religious faith or lack of it this seems to have been a bit of a two edged sword as Troops like the early Islamic Armies seem to have been inspired that God was on their side. But troops who believe that High morale based on religious faith would seem to be very brittle as a defeat can be seen as a sign that God is against you. Some early Agema rules actually had some troops with reputation as being religious fanatics as morale C* or D* who had all the advantages of A class when they were winning but would react like C or D class if things went against them.

Looking at the number of times devout Catholic forces either ignored an excommunication (for example 1204 4th Crusaders who stormed Constantinople of all places while excommunicated over Zara) or beat the hell out of Papal forces including some lead by the Pope himself. Including the total humiliation of the Historic Pope Clement in the WSS by Austrian forces in Italy, I think it is fair to conclude that historically devout Catholics from the Normans up to the Austrians in 1708 have been very good at seperateing the man and the office of the Papacy from their faith when it comes to the military duties.

Indeed the historic Pope Clement seems to have a pretty dire WSS since after starting off pro French and trying to create a Holy League in Italy against the Emperor he got abandoned by all the Italian States, his bulls of excommunication get annulled by Imperial decree and he is then strongarmed by the Emperor and the Emperor Protestant allies into backing Charles von Hapsburg as King of Spain. Only for this to be totally ignored by the majority of the Spanish who backed the Bourbon as their King.

Barca and some other port area's did back Charles but this seems to have had more to do with influence of English/Dutch fleets and opposition to Madrid.

All in all influence of Papacy and Papal rulings on the historic war of the War of the Spanish Succession and the morale of the armies involved seems pretty minor. If in game players want to pay more attention to the Papacy than their historic characters that is up to them.

Personally, I am waiting for King Rodrigo of Spain to get true religion, mount a white horse, wrap himself in the banner of St James and draw the sword of the Cid. Before starting a Crusade to re-unite the Church by the restoration the true Pope Leo XII and saving Rome from its Hapsburg captivity and the yoke of their anti-Pope Clement. While at the same time trying to save the poor suffering Catholics of France from plunder and rapine at the hands of heretic Swedes and ex-Ottoman Hussars.

Mind you when Rumelian Orthodox troops waged a campaign to liberate Hellas from Venetian and Austrian Papists and my Sufi influenced Sunni character waged a Jihad to save the Ottoman Empire from skirk and evil Shia influence. While it went down really well as home a lot of foreign types were rather doubtfull of the pure and holy motives of the "Army of the will of God"!!!!

Personally I think my character was just misunderstood but hopefully the Kings of France and Spain will do better and will not need to sack Rome and behead more than say 85% of the Solidi Council of Naples in other to convince Agema NPC's to see the Light.
Wonder if Spain and Freance in G10 could

It is clear that we are unlikely to agree on even the basis for a discussion, Stuart, but there are a couple of points worth commenting upon:

Stuart Bailey wrote:As for religious faith or lack of it this seems to have been a bit of a two edged sword as Troops like the early Islamic Armies seem to have been inspired that God was on their side.  But troops who believe that High morale based on religious faith would seem to be very brittle as a defeat can be seen as a sign that God is against you.  Some early Agema rules actually had some troops with reputation as being religious fanatics as morale C* or D* who had all the advantages of A class when they were winning but would react like C or D class if things went against them.

For a while now I have thought that the division of morale into 'normal', 'high' and 'low' is incredibly simplistic and somewhat unhelpful to players.  'Normal' morale, for example, does not reflect levels of drill, how well supplied or commanded the formation is, or various upgrades.  I can understand how 'High' morale could appear after winning a battle, but does a minor skirmish (or a cruiser capturing an unarmed merchant ship) really give such a long lasting boost to morale as a formation crushing an enemy army or heroically defending a town against assault?  Similarly 'low' morale could be caused by adverse weather, an unpopular commander or losing a battle.  Logically 'low morale' should be removed when the weather improves, commander is changed (or wins an engagement), but in some instances 'low morale' tends to persist long after the cause.

Giving units a morale rating such as A-J could reflect far more factors.  Newly raised units could start off as J, which rises to I if well drilled or H if excellently drilled as they gain confidence in their training; additional modifiers for equipment could raise it to G or F.  Ratings above that would have to be earned from combat or by serving under a famous commander, and of course such factors as religion could be included in the morale of troops, as would diplomatic utterings (or their absence) by rulers.  Armies who know why they are fighting and have the clear support of their king (and allies) should have higher morale than those who can't be bothered to explain themselves and seem oblivious to the efforts made by others on their behalf.  It would remove the somewhat arbitrary and confusing terminology of 'normal', 'high' or 'low' morale and allow players a series of things they could do to improve morale.  There could also be modifiers linked to SL (since I imagine even 'high' morale troops who are exhausted would have their limits if asked to continually campaign).  That way over the course of a campaigning season even a victorious army would see its morale rating fluctuate.  Morale isn't everything, of course, but neither are fancy equipment and excessive numbers.  But having a wider range of morale increments and being more transparent on morale ratings would give those players who are concerned, ways to do something about it.

Taking this one stage further it could even allow Richard another means of prompting players to sort things out.  If, for example, there was a war being fought which had reached stalemate and the many parties on different sides refused to consider some kind of peace (or risk an Agema peace conference), then I suspect the morale of armies on both sides would drift lower to the point where it would be increasingly risky for them to be used in battle for if they did then casualties (or desertions) from armies with a lower morale rating would be huge.  Similarly where one side's case for war simply doesn't stand up then as the war drags on without resolution, armies on both sides would just lose interest (and gain lower morale ratings) until the case for war could be restated in a way which makes sense.  This would also be more realistic when it comes to fighting wars against inactive nations - if (as is usually the case), inactive nations are defending themselves against a player aggressor, their armies would have a morale bonus whereas if the attacking forces are just using some contrived excuse for war, they would face morale penalties.  This is reflected up to a point in the rules already (larger nations who annex smaller nations without excuse tend to find they rise in revolt), but actually applying the penalty in real time to the performance of armies would give smaller and medium sized nations other options to wear down more powerful enemies.  Larger armies could simply find their morale drift lower in campaigns that are poorly executed and fought for dubious reasons.

Stuart Bailey wrote:...Personally I think my character was just misunderstood but hopefully the Kings of France and Spain will do better and will not need to sack Rome and behead more than say 85% of the Solidi Council of Naples in other to convince Agema NPC's to see the Light.

Are any of your characters understood?

In G10 we have the constant refrain that the 'corsairs' are not pirates, but really just highly professional sailors who are so disciplined that they won't plunder Papal merchantmen (despite the pleadings of their officers), and would never do anything horrible to Swedish sailors.

In G7 we have Roger Martel who (according to Spain) is not a pirate, but really just an honest trader who through pure bad luck bankrupts everything he touches, and of course has never had any dealings with anyone even slightly disreputable.

While in earlier games your otherwise well role-played Ottoman characters were simply would be barbers who cut necks instead of hair.  Clearly a badly worded standing order?

I'm sure there are others I have forgotten.  After all the time you spend in games and on the forum trying to explain things, it is baffling why you think there is still a perception problem!

I prefer my characters to be very well understood, and if that means I can't get away with sneaky things, then that's just what I have to live with.  At least everyone knows where they stand with any position I play.

Do I have characters who are "understood" and others who are "misunderstood?"

Some players just play a position to its best advantage and do not bother much with the character of their PC lead position and the other leading NPC's in their position. Or like some even top actors just play themselves in any role.

While there is nothing wrong with either approach what I like to do is start with a general outline and slowly develop character traits as I go along. A trait which can sometimes mean playing with one hand tied behind my back but does give me a great deal of amusement.

One interesting side effect of this style of play is where you have a mental view of your character which no one else including the GM and other players seems to share! This may be because: a) I am a really poor role player b) I suffer from self delusion or c) my favourite - that other players and the GM are misunderstanding my character on purpose in order to have a laugh.

QU - would other players who use this style of play say they find the same thing happening to them? And also does it just happen to a few or many of your characters if you have had more then one in Agema games?

Going through my various characters I would say:

- Lord Hardinge and his merry men in scabble are very well understood on their own terms. Just some people actually object to them wanting to cover the map in railways and cricket pitches.

- French Corsairs are also accepted in G10 on pretty much their own terms, loyal subjects of his majesty Louis XIV but not always nice.

- Jahan Keli Beg in LAK was also pretty much accepted on own terms but that might have been due to virtually playing on his own map.

The two postal campaign characters who come close to my generally accepted as self delusional Elf in my fantasy role playing campaign would seem to be:

a) Mustafa Kruppa in G2 who I had pictured as a hard working, underpaid Ottoman civil servant. No one at all seemed to agree so finally when my character was assassinated I replaced him with a son who was closer to what the public expected a Ottoman GV to be and declared blood feud. Not easy when you do not have a clue who ordered the hit.

b) Charles the Good King of Spain in G7......in my view the loyal Hapsburg son and younger brother who gets manipulated by his wife and his Church. Of my characters he is the non aggressive one who would not dream of pushing Spanish claims to Portugal or trying to annex Venice just to link up with the Hapsburg homeland. But oddly anything goes wrong in G7 who's name is close to the top of the lists of suspects? Too the point were I have to nurse maid English Bishops in hope that they do not get shot and Spain blamed.

Has anyone else got characters who's self image and in game public image seem widely different?

How on earth can there ever be a peace treaty between France and Austria in g10.?

Austria wants lands like Milan and Flanders. Which are not even France’s to give. They belong to Spain and the Duc of Flanders. Austria wants Sardinia, Naples and Sicily to be given to the papacy. Sardinia and parts of Sicily are owned by Spain. The wrong nations are bargaining anyway. Most of what Austria wants is Spanish.

How can even an Agema council make a ruling when disputed territory is now in Spanish hands. Neither of the countries in the peace meeting hold the territory that is in dispute.

It’s very hard to see how any peace can be secured.

An Agema arbitration process sets its own terms of reference which then become binding on the players concerned.  It also overrides any previous agreements made or signed, and unlike any player-negotiated peace settlement, has the power of the GM behind it.

The whole point is that it takes the decisions out of the hands of players (and in a sense allows them to save face and reset the game to a point where it can move on).  Consequently it is quite possible that such a process could result in Austria's terms being accepted which places an obligation upon France to break whatever contradictory treaties she has signed by order of the GM without any impact on honour.  The same applies to Austria.  Indeed, this seems to be the most plausible outcome of any route to peace.

It has been the Papacy's consistent view (which is reflected in the Austrian peace proposals) that Roderigo is a usurper who has no legal title to any lands, so although some may disagree, it is perfectly possible for France and Austria (on King Karl Hapsburg's behalf) to agree to a division of lands which are legally ruled by King Karl, subject of course to respecting the position of the Papacy to appoint the ruler of the Papal Fiefs, as is necessary according to the game rulebooks.

In case anyone starts objecting that this is 'diplomacy over the forum', it is not.  I am merely restating what has always been the Papal position as per the Judgement, extensively commented upon in the newspaper and accepted by 'team Austria' in the published peace proposals.

It should not be at all controversial if I point out that the GM can change whichever game rules or conventions he likes, irrespective of how much it might upset individual players.  In G7 the 1705-06 peace was largely imposed by the GM to sort out a war that had got out of hand and led to a few players dropping when things did not quite go to plan for them.  It was somewhat unpopular in some quarters and one player even tried to blow up the participants and sabotage the whole thing.  But the GM finally sorted it, although of course war broke out again (in G7) shortly after the peace was imposed.  It was much easier to sort that out than the mess that is G10, although it is much clearer why France and Austria are at war in G10 so it should be straight forward to explain the reasons to the GM.

Like most people I can see why a certain individual would do his best to sabotage the chances of any peace, not least because Roderigo claims not to be at war and so would naturally be disqualified from taking part in any peace.  It is hard to see how Roderigo could declare war on either France or Austria without breaking his own treaties with them (thereby making him eligible to influence the peace process).  But I guess that's what happens when you join a game and refuse to take on the character of the accepted King of Spain (King Karl Hapsburg) and instead make up a new character and cause a civil war, then a religious war, while what could broadly be considered a succession war (between France and Austria) is going on.  No wonder the vast majority of players are trying to stay as far away from this as they can, waiting for it all to be sorted out somehow.

I think the "Onion Skin" approach may be a solution( Including the tears due to peeling)

The Franco- Imperialist conflict in game has its roots in the initial Spanish succession true, however it has developed & grown to such an extent that it is no longer about the Spanish inheritance.

[u]Personal view[/u] is that it could be seen &  peeled apart as follows.

1) The War between France & Imperial Coalition. The Invasion of France by the Coalition is blamed on the Spanish question, but is it really that simple ? Could it be that the Spanish Inheritance question was used as an excuse to try & secure Overseas territory from the Spanish Empire by France/ Corsairs? With Savoy using it as an excuse to invade Genoa, with the goal of eventually taking Genoa( Neither a Habsburg or Bourbon territory I believe) as the initial step on a road to claim the Iron Crown of Lombardy & carve out  an Italian Kingdom headed by Savoy. Having nothing at all to really do with Spain.
   If the war is treated as not being part of the Spanish Question but as a war between France & the Empire then it may, possibly simplify matters. Making it possible to find a solution. The only part of the pre 1700 Hapsburg territory held by France is I think Flanders.

2) The Spanish question of the Inheritance of Carlos remains. Attempts to try & resolve it by players have floundered to date. For various reasons. So is it then now a family dispute between the Hapsburgs? Separate from the Conflict in France?

 It gets complicated due to Excommunications & Papal Fiefdoms & all kinds of legal buggering about. Do the Papal Fiefdoms belong to Pope Clement or Pope Leo? (Yes I can hear you both shouting at me at this point ) If the fiefdoms & other Hapsburg territories are occupied by "King Philippe de Bourbon, Duke of Anjou, Duke of Flanders, Lord of the Netherlands, King of Sicily." Then it seems there is a French connection. However Spain & France have agreements in place so has an agreement already been reached? .Is Sicily  then still occupied by French forces or are they locally raised troops? Will Phillipe leave of his own free will( Doubtful.) Or will it mean the Hapsburg Family will have to evict him before they sort out the rest( probable) .  Spain & Austria are at peace, with treaties in place to maintain it . So there is no conflict to resolve, that said there are obviously is a difference of opinion between Madrid & Vienna ( & Phillipe?). That needs to be discussed in a sensible manner.  

3) The Pope(s)  & Tithe(s) &  Fiefdom(s) & Excommunication(s).  I think the only solution to this one is Handbags  at dawn on the pub carpark.

4) Agema peace .......?


Apologise if I have dabbled too much in game diplomacy with this post, I hope I haven't done it too much. I am trying to clarify the in game situation rather than solve it. Or comment on player actions & try & tell people what to do. Just see a very complex situation. Which I am glad to sit on the side lines for & eat copious amounts of Popcorn its a real nail biter & I feel on a personal level I must congratulate all concerned certainly not a dull moment so far.

J Flower wrote:I think the "Onion Skin" approach may be a solution (including the tears due to peeling)

The Franco- Imperialist conflict in game has its roots in the initial Spanish succession true, however it has developed & grown to such an extent that it is no longer about the Spanish inheritance.

Personal view is that it could be seen & peeled apart as follows.

1) The War between France & Imperial Coalition. The Invasion of France by the Coalition is blamed on the Spanish question, but is it really that simple ? Could it be that the Spanish Inheritance question was used as an excuse to try & secure Overseas territory from the Spanish Empire by France/ Corsairs? With Savoy using it as an excuse to invade Genoa, with the goal of eventually taking Genoa( Neither a Habsburg or Bourbon territory I believe) as the initial step on a road to claim the Iron Crown of Lombardy & carve out  an Italian Kingdom headed by Savoy. Having nothing at all to really do with Spain.
   If the war is treated as not being part of the Spanish Question but as a war between France & the Empire then it may, possibly simplify matters. Making it possible to find a solution. The only part of the pre 1700 Hapsburg territory held by France is I think Flanders.

I think JFlower is correct that Savoy's invasion of Genoa (using French troops) was basically an undeclared war by France to increase her influence in Italy through her ally Savoy, and therefore that part of the conflict has a separate cause in itself.  The excommunication of Victor Stultorum, however, does now make this part of the religious war being waged by Roderigo and 'team France', so I don't see how it can be settled independently.  Savoy basically put itself on the block and like any rebellious HRE state it will be obliged to answer to the Emperor (and in this case to the Papacy as well).  Austria would be quite justified to annex Savoy if Victor Stultorum continues to oppose the church, or since by the Treaty of Westphalia a ruler who changes his religion loses his right to rule, the Emperor would be quite justified legally in appointing a new ruler ... Prince Eugene of Savoy, for example, in recognition of the successes he has gained fighting for Austria and in defence of the church?  The only thing stopping this happening would appear to be French troops still in Savoy, but if/when those troops are obliged to return to France, this phase of the conflict may be resolved separately.  However, as JFlower points out, it would not resolve the wider issues of the other conflicts.  

Where I slightly disagree with JFlower's assessment is that the other conflicts have their roots in the Spanish Succession.  How can it when France has at various times and to various players renounced the Bourbon claim on the throne of Spain?  Thus the succession question has been resolved in favour of King Karl Hapsburg without the need for any fighting at all.  That various players are continuing to fight (using French troops) for their non-Hapsburg candidate is really down to their desire for war and the willingness of France to provide the means for them to do so.  With Paris under partial occupation by the heroic Swedish-Austrian forces and King Louis asking various nobles to let him sleep on the sofa, I suspect it will not be long before those same nobles either balk at the wine bill and hand him over to Prince Eugene or require him to get those troops back from his chums to defend France.  A few posts ago we were discussing the morale of troops and that clarity of purpose is important when fighting.  To be fair the Corsairs seem to realise this which is why they are desperately trying to create the impression of resistance, but propaganda alone is no substitute for action, and action without a rational consideration of the situation on the ground is likely to make things worse.  I certainly don't envy the situation France is now in, but it is one largely created by her own actions and those of her allies, who have ever been out for themselves and content to use what France has provided to achieve their ends.  I'm sure if Austria had given control of his armies and navy to the Papacy, and sat back to watch what I did, I'd have ended the war months ago, but that's not really the way the game is set up to work.  While the Papacy may have input into the overall strategy and advise 'team Austria' on diplomacy, the direction of the military side is rightly down to those who have committed their own troops and have the resources to pay for large game turn fees.  Not everyone is going to get what they expect or want, and some may even lose what they have come to believe is theirs as the reality and complexity of any peace appears.

My view is that for a court of agema to make a ruling, then all parties involved or impacted need to agree for a court ruling.

How can it be fair that towns are taken away from Spain by a court of agema when the Spanish player has not asked or require the court of agema to get involved and make a ruling.

How can it be fair that treaties signed by Spain with France and Austria are declared null and void when the Spanish player has not asked the court of agema for a ruling and the Spanish player has paid turn fees for these treaties.

If agema is going to null and void work and fees a player has paid to agema. Then agema must reimburse this fee otherwise agema has taken money by deception. No player has signed a terms and conditions policy.

Just my view.

jamesbond007 wrote:If agema is going to null and void work and fees a player has paid to agema. Then agema must reimburse this fee otherwise agema has taken money by deception. No player has signed a terms and conditions policy.  Just my view.

I'm sure you'll be able to discuss this at length with Richard if you are unhappy.

However, in reality the work a player puts into his position is always capable of being undone by the GM, e.g.

1.  A sudden storm sinks a fleet which took 6 months to raise and 12 months to drill.  
2.  A famine occurs which wipes out 3 years of economic growth.
3.  A player drops having transferred money/recruits/men to his chums to stitch up other players (as it says in the rules, such behaviour will be overridden by the GM)
4. Part (or all) of a peace agreement goes against the wishes of a particular player ...

the list is almost endless.

All players are impacted by the seemingly random 'Agema' factor, but we don't go around accusing Agema of theft.

Just my view!

If you do decide to sue Agema because a game develops in a way you do not like then you may well be the first such player to try it and I doubt you will either succeed or find other players appreciate a game closing as a consequence. Attempting to put pressure on the GM in this way is a new low, but it is not up to me to do anything about it.

Papa Clement wrote:

jamesbond007 wrote:If agema is going to null and void work and fees a player has paid to agema. Then agema must reimburse this fee otherwise agema has taken money by deception. No player has signed a terms and conditions policy.  Just my view.

I'm sure you'll be able to discuss this at length with Richard if you are unhappy.

However, in reality the work a player puts into his position is always capable of being undone by the GM, e.g.

1.  A sudden storm sinks a fleet which took 6 months to raise and 12 months to drill.  
2.  A famine occurs which wipes out 3 years of economic growth.
3.  Part (or all) of a peace agreement goes against the wishes of a particular player ...

the list is almost endless.

All players are impacted by the seemingly random 'Agema' factor, but we don't go around accusing Agema of theft.

Just my view!

LOL. It must be remembered of course that all your views on the subject are biased. As you want Spanish Italian possessions for yourself. You also want your selection as Spanish King to be leader of the nation.

Are we looking at it all wrong.

Like it or not Rodrigo has been crowned in Spain accepted by his people as king. So there is no succession crisis in Spain. Yes I know there are players who have other views, but that is all part & parcel of the game. It was a decision made in the GAME & now the GAME moves forward with that added to its history & background information file.

The Partition treaty has been torn up by its signatories it failed to get the desired result.

SO we move onto the next chapter of the Game The Imperial -Franco war of 1704. It has nothing to do with the previous chapter of the Spanish Succession.
It was started by Savoy with French backing invading Genoa & the war has progressed from there.

The confusion comes because the two events ran parallel for a while. However maybe it helps if they are seen in separate context. Savoy would probably invaded Genoa regardless of the situation in Spain.

J Flower wrote:Are we looking at it all wrong.

Like it or not Rodrigo has been crowned in Spain accepted by his people as king. So there is no succession crisis in Spain. Yes I know there are players who  have other views, but that is all part & parcel of the game. It was a decision made in the GAME & now the GAME moves forward with that added to its history & background information file.

Not the case at all.

Not so long ago you wrote that a player could crown himself king of the moon, but it would be meaningless and he would just appear foolish.

The most you can say is that there are 2 people who claim to be King of Spain: King Karl Hapsburg (who as far as everyone knows is still alive), and Roderigo.

You know full well that in G7 King James was crowned and the official 'player' for England was 'king' William.  It took years of war and treaties for this to be resolved.  I do not therefore see that with 2 sides backing opposing candidates you can claim that "the GAME" has moved on and that this is settled in favour of Roderigo.

By the actions he has taken in game, Roderigo has made it impossible for him ever to be recognised by the church.  This may be irrelevant to you, but it remains a factor in the game.

Indeed, if Roy is going to sue Agema if he doesn't get his own way, then I suggest that the odds on Roderigo (the character) surviving have changed substantially.