Game 10

Hapsburg wrote: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?

jamesbond007 wrote:On the peace treaty. I would mention the following points, that I would suggest leaves matters rather complexed and open to abuse.

Clause ii. France Comte is French but the Austrians are in control of the Besancon citadel and can leave troops in it. Austria can resupply and drill from here. Which means they have access to the whole town. Yet the town is French and France can have troops everywhere accept the citadel. So both nations can have troops in Besancon town.

Clause iii. France Comte is French apart from a citadel in Besancon. Yet France has to dismantle all fortifications and not build anymore. So how French is it.?

Clause v. Strasbourg is an Imperial free city. Yet France can build a garrison, supply it, reinforce and add to it. So again. Many nations can have an army in the town.

Clause vii. Luxembourg and upper Guilderland to be administered by the Impetial Diet. So can France have an army there.? If not why not. It’s only administrated by the Imperial Diet.

My view would be the above points are open to different interpretation. Just my view guys.

Marshal Bombast wrote:Core rulebook says 260 words or less and on 1 side of A4 to be valid.

Late to party as was double checking all my signed treaties first lol.

James you raise valid questions.  Sounds like a lot of discussions to be had if it were signed.

I still can't see why a sovereign nation would accept another ruler to sign on their behalf and if not a signatory how could they be bound to it. If the treaty was signed by proposed signatories would that mean for example HRE having to 'enforce' the treaty on say Sweden even though Sweden didn't sign?

jamesbond007 wrote: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.

J Flower wrote:Historically there were no honour tables, treaties were written with enough words that you could call them Novels. Treaties were as often as not seen as cease fires to re-arm rather than solutions. Treaties could be broken before the ink dried. Seems a case of playing the rule book rather than the spirit of the game

In all the word counting & panic to find ways to not enforce the treaty, the human element of the players who have signed is being forgotten. France & UDP are both happy to see a peace return between them.

So if a new treaty is needed then it can be sorted out, where there is a will there is a way. Or was that where there's a "Will" there is a family dispute involving bereaved family members & their lawyers?

From Personal Experience Peace deals Agema puts in place are a little more painful, which maybe worth bearing in mind. They don't always take into account land occupied or battles won.

Trying to find a balance in the peace negotiations hasn't been easy, & honestly thought it had a chance this time around, obviously so very, very wrong  The next couple of turns I guess will see how it develops.

Give & take were the general idea behind the whole treaty. Seems not enough of one & too much of the other

Whilst reading up on "Treaties to Court Agema," isn't there a note somewhere saying Richard dreads seeing the words "For adjudication by Court Agema?"

Oh well Eric lets get back to the drawing board

J Flower wrote:

Whilst reading up on "Treaties to Court Agema," isn't there a note somewhere saying Richard dreads seeing the words "For adjudication by Court Agema?"

Michael0 wrote:Is there no Royal Prerogative in Scotland and England , exercised by His Majesty's governments of course  , that allow a declaration of war without consultation of Parliament?

Michael0 wrote:Yes, thanks, I understand it is a constitutional monarchy and that the Parliaments are different .
The Royal Prerogative in England at least gives the Government the right to declare war without the consent of Parliament. The Government "advises" the King that he should declare  war and the king does as he is advised.
The First Lord of the Treasury can choose to allow Parliament to discuss whether to declare war but it is not constitutionally necessary since he can simply advise the King to do so.
Brave is the one who tries it though.
Of course , he then might have the wrath of Parliament ever after since the King is never wrong in the decisions he makes ( but only ever badly advised )