Game 10

I've enjoyed reading everyone's comments and think I've agreed with everything everyone has said

Thanks to Hapsburg for reminding me about Louis removing the walls-I am pretty sure I used to know that but (suspect some of you are the same) after the last few years there are lots of things I used to know that I need reminding about!

I found the good Marshal's comments on fighting styles thought provoking as were 007's observations. I also do agree with the Marshal, I simply didn't expect a situation like this to occur.
Not wanting to break any rules but fair to say I am intrigued to what will happen next in France.

And now for something completely different...slightly surprised that the Scots Parliament agreed to recognise King William's young son as heir so easily, was expecting more opposition given the diverse range of political views of Scots MPs.

With regards to the comments on paying lots of money for the orders for some positions, it can be a bit misleading. Like the game itself there are no fixed objectives we all set our own. Similarly with turn fees we can(if we so wish it) put a ceiling on the amount we pay up & above the Basic Fee.
Speaking from personal experience getting involved in the diplomatic & letter writing side of the game(Letters don't cost anything other than the time you invest in them) Can make for a very enjoyable game without throwing large turn fees at the game.
It is up to the individual players just how much time & money they are willing/able to invest. Large positions can be played on basic fees. How that is reflected in game results depends on the player & how their fellow players react. Not saying it is recommended simply that it is possible

J Flower wrote:With regards to the comments on paying lots of money for the orders for some positions, it can be a bit misleading. Like the game itself there are no fixed objectives we all set our own. Similarly with turn fees we can(if we so wish it) put a ceiling on the amount we pay up & above the Basic Fee.
   Speaking from personal experience getting involved in the diplomatic & letter writing side of the game(Letters don't cost anything other than the time you invest in them) Can make for a very enjoyable game without throwing large turn fees at the game.
   It is up to the individual players just how much time & money they are willing/able to invest. Large positions can be played on basic fees. How that is reflected in game results depends on the player & how their fellow players react. Not saying it is recommended simply that it is possible

You have hit the nail on the head probably. If you play a very large position on the minimal turn fees you are reliant on how other players in the game wish to play their positions. If you have fellow large positions sending in large turn fees then you are at their mercy to a degree.

I have always played one Lgdr game with a very large turn fee and at least one more with a very small turn fee. I always felt it more comfortable and enjoyable to play a smaller position with a small turn fee. You can often get bigger positions helping you out more if you play a smaller position with a smaller turn fee rather than a very big position with a very small turn fee.

Always a shame that most smaller positions seem to be the ones that pack in playing much earlier. In this day and age waiting for a month to make two or three orders then waiting for another month to see the results can be a bit disheartening. I think we need to find a way to get more enjoyment for smaller positions on smaller turn fees. Keep those players more interested.

Think in many ways what adds to cost is your style of play - do you like fluffy stuff so rather than just order "Try and influence X" you add a load of un-required detail about how you are going to do it?

Yes I hold may hand up to this!

Other main issue is not the size but the complexity of the position. So its possible to spend a lot of money on a small position like a Trade Company which has lots of different colonies and bases while a larger landlocked position with no colonies or ships can be run more easily and more cheaply.

In this respect Spain, France, UDP and England are the worst as in most expensive positions to run as they have got a Army, Navy, Colonies and probably a lot of dealing with NPC's. Speaking as Spain you can burn through a lot of orders trying to get stuff to Manila and landlocked Milan for instance. Sweden and Prussia are also a bit "bity".

While positions like Austria, Saxony, Bavaria and even Russia can ignore all of that Colonial and Naval stuff and come in one nice lump which saves a lot of messing around and real world costs.

Oddly the cheapest position I ever played (Pfalz) was the one which got my highest ever honour score (60+) and best EH scores in Glori.

In theory should be able to repeat this in by RIB position (Baetica) which does remain a land of Olives, Milk, Honey, Philosophers and Poets (Bit like F10 Saxony but with extra sun). Unfortunately for bank balance have been lured into Roman Politics which is really not going well with Fire, Plague and Political assassination. Think Government going bust and military disaster also possible.

Probably should have stuck with the road building and the odd games.

I've enjoyed reading everyone's comments and think I've agreed with everything everyone has said Smile

Thanks to Hapsburg for reminding me about Louis removing the walls-I am pretty sure I used to know that but (suspect some of you are the same) after the last few years there are lots of things I used to know that I need reminding about!

I found the good Marshal's comments on fighting styles thought provoking as were 007's observations. I also do agree with the Marshal, I simply didn't expect a situation like this to occur.
Not wanting to break any rules but fair to say I am intrigued to what will happen next in France.

And now for something completely different...slightly surprised that the Scots Parliament agreed to recognise King William's young son as heir so easily, was expecting more opposition given the diverse range of political views of Scots MPs.

Good to see the game 10 thread is much busier than usual, and as Jason 2 mentioned, I enjoy reading all contributions.

Large positions do take a lot of time, effort, research, and planning, and perhaps I benefit in that I only play in game 10 and no other Agema games – although tempted.

Of course, gaining territory such as Naples does add to the complexity and can increase turn costs, as will allies transferring their armies to your control.

I wish I could claim Austria’s fleeting success was all down to me. Strategy yes, but in the early game years of Glory Austria can only succeed with reliable allies (players and NPCs) who provide military and diplomatic support.

The assault on Messina a few months ago was a forerunner for Paris, but on a smaller scale with different defensive strategies. Both lack city walls and have a citadel.

What happens next, who knows – a French relief army could arrive next month. If you attempt to predict even a couple of turns ahead and rely on that, it will come back to bite you  

The game turn arrived today with the Doge of Venice leapfrogging over the Grand Duke of Tuscany on the honour table.

1. Paris saw the French army retake the Capital, but for how long. Interesting to see grapeshot being used by the Saxon army and later reference being made to Dutch breechloading light cannon.

Verdun saw a French army start moving towards Paris but was subjected to nighttime raiding, eventually causing mass desertions.

Strassburg was blockaded by Austria and Savoy captured Cluny.

2. England and Scotland both voted with their King’s preferences and declared war on France. I wonder where the Dutch fleet sailing from China is heading.

3. A draft treaty was published in the paper. Not sure why countries like Sweden would allow another ruler to sign a treaty on their behalf but we’ll see what happens. Assuming it’s not a fake newspaper only treaty.

4. Venice looks set to be taking a more active political life while showing determination in stamping out banditry.

5. Holland saw the safe arrival of the Asante Delegation, who were treated to a great banquet and celebration.

6. Leipzig saw more demonstrations of Saxony’s cultural affluence, alongside the publication of volume 1 of The Fruitbearing Society’s proceedings.

7. Danzig saw a 2nd King arrive as King Frederick I presented Iron Crosses to men of conspicuous bravery. Unfortunately, this made him late returning for the banquet in Berlin. Still His majesty is probably happy that Prussian forces captured Elbing and Marienburg without any difficulty.

8. Spain’s Court Circular promises help to France in protecting her flock if needed when treaties expire.

It’s noted that the Emperor was referred to as a friend. Not sure what the former governor of Quito thought of that given he declared himself an independent prince ruling Quito.

We can assume the Spanish fleet in Ndar has been restocked with gunpowder now.

9. Genoa highlighted the political goodwill they’re building with Tuscany.

10. Thomas Wood and the Asante were reportedly shocked by earlier news of cannibalism near Accra where a thorough investigation into who was responsible for this ghastly practice was launched.

Luckily increased actions and payments to farmers have removed the immediate threat of rinderpest to the Greater Akan Union, but for how long?

How will the Akanthene deal with gem raiding Akwamu tribesmen, given the area is run as an independent administration area?

11. Japan saw the 3rd Lord of Mito remove his lands from under the Shogun stating centralised control had gone too far as had the giving of Japan’s wealth to foreigners. How far has this sentiment gone as some Great Lords didn’t attend the Shogun’s summons?

Thank you Mr Bombast, another good summary.

Interesting Times it seems. Game is approaching an interesting potential tipping point with a few important treaties coming to an end in a few months, will those treaties be replaced or extended? Or will we see a Newspaper full of Skirmishes & Battle reports? Well admittedly we currently have a Newspaper full of Skirmishes & Battle Reports. But maybe the Names of the participants will change,

Can confirm the Treaty printed in the Paper isn't Fake News its real. Will it mean the war ends? Well you will have to read next months thrilling instalment to find out.

Where are the AA? aka Apollo Association, has anyone seen them lately? Or have they moved to pastures green?

The AA Apollo Association. Is only one of a number of names a certain player, or ex player in the game used. You will know if that player is still active or moved to pastures greener. Simply look for the articles from players and you will know if that particular player is active.

jamesbond007 wrote:The AA Apollo Association. Is only one of a number of names a certain player, or ex player in the game used. You will know if that player is still active or moved to pastures greener. Simply look for the articles from players and you will know if that particular player is active.

Or alternatively if someone is trying to frame another player for dastardly and underhand actions and target finally manages to merge positions and drop out.  What would be the point of writing new AA articles?

Unless say a third party wanted to really confuse matters and perhaps point the finger elsewhere?  Enough AA articles exist for a third party to knock up something close.  

Other action which would could be used is give it a year - publish a new AA article and see if anyone decides 2 + 2 = a player has returned.

Stuart Bailey wrote:

jamesbond007 wrote:The AA Apollo Association. Is only one of a number of names a certain player, or ex player in the game used. You will know if that player is still active or moved to pastures greener. Simply look for the articles from players and you will know if that particular player is active.

Or alternatively if someone is trying to frame another player for dastardly and underhand actions and target finally manages to merge positions and drop out.  What would be the point of writing new AA articles?

Unless say a third party wanted to really confuse matters and perhaps point the finger elsewhere?  Enough AA articles exist for a third party to knock up something close.  

Other action which would could be used is give it a year - publish a new AA article and see if anyone decides 2 + 2 = a player has returned.

Not sure if the original player came back in a year that any of his position would be left. Perhaps even his character would be dead. He could assume another character but his foe would be so strong by then that any character or position would be up against it.

Many thanks for an excellent summary yet again Marshal

Of course, I'm not saying that France has agreed to peace terms because King Louis realised that after the Dutch declared war, it was only a matter of time before 10,000 drunk Glaswegians rampaged across Northern France...but...

Mind you, if a war is over before it begins, was it truly a conflict?

Jason2 wrote:Many thanks for an excellent summary yet again Marshal

Of course, I'm not saying that France has agreed to peace terms because King Louis realised that after the Dutch declared war, it was only a matter of time before 10,000 drunk Glaswegians rampaged across Northern France...but...

Mind you, if a war is over before it begins, was it truly a conflict?

Strange partnership you Maritime nation boys have.

The Dutch declare a war. England and Scotland follow. Then France gives the Dutch Flanders so he pulls out and the English and Scottish follow.

The Dutch could do well in g10 if this continues. England and Scotland not so though.

jamesbond007 wrote:

Jason2 wrote:Many thanks for an excellent summary yet again Marshal

Of course, I'm not saying that France has agreed to peace terms because King Louis realised that after the Dutch declared war, it was only a matter of time before 10,000 drunk Glaswegians rampaged across Northern France...but...

Mind you, if a war is over before it begins, was it truly a conflict?

Strange partnership you Maritime nation boys have.

The Dutch declare a war. England and Scotland follow. Then France gives the Dutch Flanders so he pulls out and the English and Scottish follow.

The Dutch could do well in g10 if this continues. England and Scotland not so though.

If you wish to seek enlightenment, listen to one hand clapping

“ If you wish to seek enlightenment, listen to one hand clapping.”

If you wish to seek enlightenment remember. One hand can clap very loud. Depending on what it’s one hand is clapping with.

jamesbond007 wrote:

Jason2 wrote:Many thanks for an excellent summary yet again Marshal

Of course, I'm not saying that France has agreed to peace terms because King Louis realised that after the Dutch declared war, it was only a matter of time before 10,000 drunk Glaswegians rampaged across Northern France...but...

Mind you, if a war is over before it begins, was it truly a conflict?

Strange partnership you Maritime nation boys have.

The Dutch declare a war. England and Scotland follow. Then France gives the Dutch Flanders so he pulls out and the English and Scottish follow.

The Dutch could do well in g10 if this continues. England and Scotland not so though.

Odd difference between G7 and G10. In G10 French march into Flanders and take control without a shot fired now from reports in forum seems the Dutch have done the same.

Mind you with Swedes marching into Lille without a shot fired, the Doge of Genoa taking over Naples with nothing more than his native charm and a good dance band, the Duke of Savoy taking over Milan with a 200 year old legal document on which the ink was hardly dry and an unknown "miracle baby" taking Spain off the legitimate heirs with hardly a word or objection.

I do wonder if anyone in G10 bothers with garrisons and not hiding the keys to their strongest fortresses under anything other than the welcome mat?!

In contrast in G7 a very large French Army takes a short cut across Flanders without asking and was lucky to get away alive. And yes it would be possible for the Swedes to take Lille or the Dutch or French to take Brussels if they have say a 40,000 strong siege train, 100,000 strong covering army plus various other forces to bring up supplies and probably the best part of a year to spend on doing it.

Is this proof positive that G10 is full of honest, trusting types? Or proof that G7 is full of paranoid types convinced the world is out to get them? Odd really when G10 seems to have much more dodgy dealing than G7 has ever had.

Stuart Bailey wrote:

jamesbond007 wrote:

Jason2 wrote:Many thanks for an excellent summary yet again Marshal

Of course, I'm not saying that France has agreed to peace terms because King Louis realised that after the Dutch declared war, it was only a matter of time before 10,000 drunk Glaswegians rampaged across Northern France...but...

Mind you, if a war is over before it begins, was it truly a conflict?

Strange partnership you Maritime nation boys have.

The Dutch declare a war. England and Scotland follow. Then France gives the Dutch Flanders so he pulls out and the English and Scottish follow.

The Dutch could do well in g10 if this continues. England and Scotland not so though.

Odd difference between G7 and G10.  In G10 French march into Flanders and take control without a shot fired now from reports in forum seems the Dutch have done the same.

Mind you with Swedes marching into Lille without a shot fired, the Doge of Genoa taking over Naples with nothing more than his native charm and a good dance band, the Duke of Savoy taking over Milan with a 200 year old legal document on which the ink was hardly dry and an unknown "miracle baby" taking Spain off the legitimate heirs with hardly a word or objection.

I do wonder if anyone in G10 bothers with garrisons and not hiding the keys to their strongest fortresses under anything other than the welcome mat?!

In contrast in G7 a very large French Army takes a short cut across Flanders without asking and was lucky to get away alive.  And yes it would be possible for the Swedes to take Lille or the Dutch or French to take Brussels if they have say a 40,000 strong siege train,  100,000 strong covering army plus various other forces to bring up supplies and probably the best part of a year to spend on doing it.

Is this proof positive that G10 is full of honest, trusting types?  Or proof that G7 is full of paranoid types convinced the world is out to get them?  Odd really when G10 seems to have much more dodgy dealing than G7 has ever had.

As for Flanders in g10 and it getting passed around the history is quite simple. A few turns before the current Spanish player took over and the position was vacant. The French marched an army into Flanders and took it. There were no Spanish troops in Flanders. So when the current Spanish player took over he was faced with having already lost Flanders. Eventually a deal was struck were France bought Flanders for money and recruits. Hence it was French.

Then a few turns ago. The Dutch took advantage of the French not having troops in Flanders and the fact the French had just lost a part of Paris to send in troops and take Flanders. The Dutch also declared war on France along with his Maritime pals England and Scotland.

The end result being. France had little choice but to sell Flanders to the Dutch for money and a promise to end the one month Maritime war on France.

Hope this history lesson helps. In reality. The Nations that held Flanders had little choice but to let it go. They had both lost it anyway.

I'm sorry but I feel the need to say something, cause I am a little fed up with others declaring what I am, why I am doing, etc,

Unlike those of you playing absolute monarchy positions, where you are King/Emperor/Given a divine right to rule by some fluffy bloke in the clouds with a beard, in Scotland my position is dependent on the support and approval of what is effectively the NPC Scottish Parliament, over which I have no control.

Scotland's declaration of war against France was not a case of me saying "we are at war", I put the matter to the Scottish parliament and waited to see what Agema said it would do. I'll be honest, I expected it to vote against war-I may have a high honour score and all that, but I honestly thought the vote would go the other way.

So in future if other players would not simply assume that playing Scotland is the same as playing the positions they have, where their word is Law and they could round up all the first born and drown them if they wanted, I'd take it as a kindness

Jason2 wrote:I'm sorry but I feel the need to say something, cause I am a little fed up with others declaring what I am, why I am doing, etc,

Unlike those of you playing absolute monarchy positions, where you are King/Emperor/Given a divine right to rule by some fluffy bloke in the clouds with a beard, in Scotland my position is dependent on the support and approval of what is effectively the NPC Scottish Parliament, over which I have no control.

Scotland's declaration of war against France was not a case of me saying "we are at war", I put the matter to the Scottish parliament and waited to see what Agema said it would do.  I'll be honest, I expected it to vote against war-I may have a high honour score and all that, but I honestly thought the vote would go the other way.

So in future if other players would not simply assume that playing Scotland is the same as playing the positions they have, where their word is Law and they could round up all the first born and drown them if they wanted, I'd take it as a kindness

Totally understand your position Jason. When I played Scotland my character was Catholic in a Presbyterian Scotland. Roleplaying hammered my honour as I played to his nature not what society expected lol, there's a lot of dependency on those NPC's around you but makes it more interesting and as you say for G10 can throw up the unexpected!

Marshal Bombast wrote:

Jason2 wrote:I'm sorry but I feel the need to say something, cause I am a little fed up with others declaring what I am, why I am doing, etc,

Unlike those of you playing absolute monarchy positions, where you are King/Emperor/Given a divine right to rule by some fluffy bloke in the clouds with a beard, in Scotland my position is dependent on the support and approval of what is effectively the NPC Scottish Parliament, over which I have no control.

Scotland's declaration of war against France was not a case of me saying "we are at war", I put the matter to the Scottish parliament and waited to see what Agema said it would do.  I'll be honest, I expected it to vote against war-I may have a high honour score and all that, but I honestly thought the vote would go the other way.

So in future if other players would not simply assume that playing Scotland is the same as playing the positions they have, where their word is Law and they could round up all the first born and drown them if they wanted, I'd take it as a kindness

Totally understand your position Jason. When I played Scotland my character was Catholic in a Presbyterian Scotland. Roleplaying hammered my honour as I played to his nature not what society expected lol, there's a lot of dependency on those NPC's around you but makes it more interesting and as you say for G10 can throw up the unexpected!

Thanks Marshal That is why I always appreciate any comments or advice you give on Scotland, you understand it's not a standard position in Glory. I do have the advantage of my character is Presbyterian but he is also someone who is "Scotland for the Scots"...mind you that has worked to my advantage as being rude to Johnny Foreigner has worked to my advantage

It's also on top of that. I'm playing what is a team position and what with it taking 3 months of letters to get an agreement on the simplest of things, at least and with noone having authority to tell anyone else what to do, and I get other players in these games going "oh the Scots are only doing this cause the Dutch told them to"...and that from players who never play team positions so have no idea of the complixities of such positions...and this after several years of having to put up with other players trying to pressure the Dutch player to force me and the English player to do things, like we are some created character with no free will of our own, and saying"kick them out of the game if they don't obey"..you know what I've had enough.

These games ain't cheap and in a cost of living crisis, lets be honest the money I waste on these games could be better spent on things like food.

Thanks again to Marshal for his rapid summary.

As previously discussed, numerous garrisons will mean smaller field armies, so a question of each player getting the right balance for their position, fortifications, and intentions.

I recall The Duchy of Flanders-Brabant’s Viceregal forces retreated with the Bavarian Viceroy when vastly outnumbered by the French army and live to fight another day. As reported in recent newspapers French troops have concentrated in Brussels so could put up an awkward and determined defence if they wanted. In a reversal, the defenders, now French controlled, expect to be vastly outnumbered and overrun if attacked so apparently concede the Duchy in exchange for cash rather than lose it for nothing.

Jason2 wrote:

Marshal Bombast wrote:

Jason2 wrote:I'm sorry but I feel the need to say something, cause I am a little fed up with others declaring what I am, why I am doing, etc,

Unlike those of you playing absolute monarchy positions, where you are King/Emperor/Given a divine right to rule by some fluffy bloke in the clouds with a beard, in Scotland my position is dependent on the support and approval of what is effectively the NPC Scottish Parliament, over which I have no control.

Scotland's declaration of war against France was not a case of me saying "we are at war", I put the matter to the Scottish parliament and waited to see what Agema said it would do.  I'll be honest, I expected it to vote against war-I may have a high honour score and all that, but I honestly thought the vote would go the other way.

So in future if other players would not simply assume that playing Scotland is the same as playing the positions they have, where their word is Law and they could round up all the first born and drown them if they wanted, I'd take it as a kindness

Totally understand your position Jason. When I played Scotland my character was Catholic in a Presbyterian Scotland. Roleplaying hammered my honour as I played to his nature not what society expected lol, there's a lot of dependency on those NPC's around you but makes it more interesting and as you say for G10 can throw up the unexpected!

Thanks Marshal   That is why I always appreciate any comments or advice you give on Scotland, you understand it's not a standard position in Glory.  I do have the advantage of my character is Presbyterian but he is also someone who is "Scotland for the Scots"...mind you that has worked to my advantage as being rude to Johnny Foreigner has worked to my advantage

It's also on top of that. I'm playing what is a team position and what with it taking 3 months of letters to get an agreement on the simplest of things, at least and with noone having authority to tell anyone else what to do, and I get other players in these games going "oh the Scots are only doing this cause the Dutch told them to"...and that from players who never play team positions so have no idea of the complixities of such positions...and this after several years of having to put up with other players trying to pressure the Dutch player to force me and the English player to do things, like we are some created character with no free will of our own, and saying"kick them out of the game if they don't obey"..you know what I've had enough.

These games ain't cheap and in a cost of living crisis, lets be honest the money I waste on these games could be better spent on things like food.

Yes some very good points Jason.

I must admit I am glad I am not playing a Maritime position. Diplomacy must take an age and like you point out. Nothing can be assured of as you have to get most action voted on by Parliament. I probably wrongly believed that England and Scotland would naturally follow the Dutch lead, but as you point out. Parliament has the final say. I would hate to play such a position. On reflection I think both you and the Reverend handle the complicated positions superbly well. England and Scotland are so difficult to play but I think the game is lacking without these player positions. Sadly Scotland is often not played in game. Due to these complexities.Carry on the great work.

I must agree with you on the cost of the games as well. Especially in these times. I dropped a game recently to save a few quid. These games are complex and Richard charges a fair fee but they can soon mount up. I wonder as time goes on, if it will get harder to find players to pick up the bigger more expensive to run positions in game.? It’s very difficult to play a big position without spending a hundred a month. Or more. In my experience. You often find that once a player has played such a major position that it puts them off playing that major cost position again. They often look for cheaper alternatives.

Gentlemen I am in full agreement with you.

As Jason points out playing an Alliance position isn't easy. It could be thought by some that playing the "King of England & Scotland" Gives the King William player(Me.) The right to simply tell the other players in England & Scotland what to do. There are a few historical problems however.

England & Scotland (Nor the UDP itself) were Absolute Monarchies , unlike France, Spain Russia etc. Parliaments need to be taken into consideration.
There are laws in place in both England & Scotland limiting the Monarchs powers, these have to be taken into consideration.(Law of Settlement, Bill of Rights.....)

On a more personal level & tying in with the turn fee discussion, I don't think many of us would appreciate another player simply telling us what to do & having to pay for the pleasure of doing so.
The Parliaments give players the ability to say yes or no! Keeping control of their own paid for positions, plus if Richard feels we are getting ahead of ourselves, or thinks there is out of game cooperation, he has the ability to use the built in game mechanics to keep us in line.

There has been some discussion about a "one month war." Between France & the Maritime powers. The facts remain, that the Parliaments of England & Scotland had to be asked rather than be told. The decision/vote was made on the assumption that it would be a protracted conflict. Luckily it was not the case & peace has been restored.
It could well be that the UDP is the chief beneficiary this time around. Not going to argue with that. It does mean though that the Alliance as a whole has been strengthened, so in the long run England & Scotland should benefit from a stronger UDP. If the war had been prolonged then there may well have been a different outcome. It has shown that the in game system works albeit slowly.

Its not easy, but it is fun to play as part of The Maritime Alliance, as someone who enjoys the diplomatic letter writing side of the game it makes for a more fulfilling & interesting game.

I hope this helps to give a slightly better understanding of why the Maritime group has acted the way it has in game.

Thinking about how the maritime nations work. Which is very complex. As the Dutch called for the war then ended it. How will this impact England and Scotland.? Will their parliaments be needed to vote again on ending the war, as it had voted to start the war. Surely this will hurt their honour. Calling for a war, getting the vote for a war. Then ending it before a bullet is fired.? The Dutch May have gained Flanders but the English and Scot’s gain nothing. Will their parliaments be rather annoyed and upset at their treatment by King William.? Be interesting to see the reaction of both parliaments. Especially after voting for war and not getting one.


Also be interesting to see how Austria reacts. It looks like The Dutch have gained more out of this war than the Emperor has. Which is odd because the Empire had been at war with France since the first few turns. Yet the Dutch never fired a bullet. Just threatened to. A master stroke by the Dutch. Rather embarrassing for the French, Austrian, Empire, Swedish, Scot’s and English.?

The next few turns should be great reading.

Guess it is all a case of perspective.

France by signing the Peace has stopped the war not the UDP, possibly the threat of 10,000 drunken Glaswegians descending on Paris was just too much.

As for honour scores & how they will be effected, that remains to be seen, there have been numerous discussions about the honour system & even after all these years of playing I am not willing to place money on any bets of what will happen with honour scores.

Wars are bad for business so the merchants of England & Scotland could, repeat could, be happy that their support is the reason for peace.

Certainly interesting times ahead.

Sometimes the pen is mightier than the sword, well sometimes, occasionally , possibly, if your lucky, maybe, not so often, hardly ever to be honest.....

From what I can see of the treaty signed by France and published in the newspaper, it breaches the word limit in the rules, is therefore not binding and not enforceable by the Court. Agree?