10-20 people NON-PLAYER pbem game!

[Asaris]

I have to disagree with AVN's suggestion. I've never understood why a treaty couldn't be broken in the first turn, and it has over and over again proven to be problematic. I suggest that this just be handled as a normal treaty breaking, with the diplomatic consequences to be borne by the players of the game (probably primarily Austria Russia and OE.)

Though I should note that, looking at the save game file, apparently Austria has had the wrong AI file for the past two turns.

 

[Filou]

A question to Daniel, did you use Ton's modified version of the saved game?
Because the End of the Hundred year war was included in the modified version, so I was surprised to see those events fire. But these events should fire, since the new death dates for these events is 1819 in 1.07. I lose my French culture, but I can live with that.

Maybe the aggressivity of the game is too high.
We should play on coward or weakling. But if you set your ferocity to on, then any war can have devastating consequences.
Anyways since the non-aggression pact seems to be part of the issue, aggressivity probably won't be the answer

 

[unmerged(9404)]

IIRC treaties have been broken in the past in the first turn. I remember a treaty between Poland and Saxony where Poland more or less forgot his orders concerning the treaty.

Asaris diddn't include the non-agression pact in his orders, thereby violating the treaty and it should have the same consequences as any other violation of a treaty. Namely the cb and being diplomatic untrusthworthy. I am sure that some nations will intervene and try to keep the aggression&expansion of Austria within limits.

So I would say no rerun of the game, but open up the diplomatic channels

 

[Owen]

OK. In my opinion, if it was a genuine mistake, then we should rerun the turn with the NAP in, along with the other more minor changes. If on the other hand it was Machievellian deviousness , then we should just carry on, and the other players will treat Austria with caution and respect.

Normally I wouldn't want to rerun the turn for a player mistake, but this makes such a difference to the game that I think we should.

 

[AVN]

This violation of the rules by Asaris has devastating consequences for the game of the OE. Consequences I can't accept and which can''t be resolved diplomatically.

Therefore I repeat my request for a re-run (with amended orders of Austria).

 

[Asaris]

Originally posted by Ironfoundersson
IIRC treaties have been broken in the past in the first turn. I remember a treaty between Poland and Saxony where Poland more or less forgot his orders concerning the treaty.

How fondly I remember that... It was a genuine mistake, and not forgetfulness. I thought that the non-aggression pact from the Treaty of Messina was for 50 years instead of 40.

 

[unmerged(11097)]

I am not entirely certain how to interpret this response.

I almost think I read it like, "Yes, I did break the treaty, but I didn't really mean to"

If this is the case it belongs in the diplomacy thread, and I think I am entitled to some kind of explanation from Austria.

But could Austria please give a clear response. Should we wait for re-run, or is it time for diplomacy to begin??

I guess if Austria broke the treaty, Russia and Prussia gets a CB on Austria as well, right???

EDIT: Btw, if it was a mistake I support a re-run in line with Owen. But it is really up to Asaris to say if it was a mistake or a "mistake".

Originally posted by Asaris
How fondly I remember that... It was a genuine mistake, and not forgetfulness. I thought that the non-aggression pact from the Treaty of Messina was for 50 years instead of 40.

 

[unmerged(9404)]

Well it looks like a genuine mistake it can happen if you sign strange treaties with the duration of 50 years, but a NAP of only 40.

As a mistake with such huge consequences a rerun with NAP is ok with me together with a small punishment for Austria. Something along the lines of what AVN sugggested is ok by me.

 

[unmerged(471)]

Originally posted by Ironfoundersson
IIRC treaties have been broken in the past in the first turn. I remember a treaty between Poland and Saxony where Poland more or less forgot his orders concerning the treaty.

Asaris diddn't include the non-agression pact in his orders, thereby violating the treaty and it should have the same consequences as any other violation of a treaty. Namely the cb and being diplomatic untrusthworthy. I am sure that some nations will intervene and try to keep the aggression&expansion of Austria within limits.

So I would say no rerun of the game, but open up the diplomatic channels

I agree.

It may have been a broken treaty by devious design, or it may have been broken by "accident" (due to Austrian clerks mislaying the files...)
Nevertheless, it has been an action by a player - thus I am strongly against a rerun. (After all, time doesn't usually turn back 10 years...)

 

[Asaris]

I'm not sure how I feel about a penalty (I mean, I'm pretty sure I'm against it, but I also think it might be justified.) If there is a penalty, it should only be some amount Ederon, and only Ederon, decides, and should be roughly commensurate with the amount of effort it will take him to re-run the turn.

And what I meant above was just that it's somewhere between an honest mistake and a devious ploy. I didn't intend to not have a non-aggression pact with the Ottomans this turn, but I intended to not have a non-aggression pact with the Ottomans in my orders.

 

[Owen]

Originally posted by Asaris
I'm not sure how I feel about a penalty (I mean, I'm pretty sure I'm against it, but I also think it might be justified.) If there is a penalty, it should only be some amount Ederon, and only Ederon, decides, and should be roughly commensurate with the amount of effort it will take him to re-run the turn.

And what I meant above was just that it's somewhere between an honest mistake and a devious ploy. I didn't intend to not have a non-aggression pact with the Ottomans this turn, but I intended to not have a non-aggression pact with the Ottomans in my orders.

You mean you thought the previous NAP was valid for another 10 years? I wouldn't call that devious at all. You were just intending to reallocate when you spent the 50AP

 

[unmerged(11097)]

Well, I think it is a bit fluffy.

The rules clearly states that a treaty cannot be broken the first turn, and if at the same time Asaris claims it was a mistake I think these two factors together justifies a re-run.

Also we need to open up the good old discussion on, what to do about the treaty rule. I recall a previous discussion about the same topic, that was never really concluded. Personally I like the fact that treaties cannot be broken the first turn, but I have no idea how to enforce it.

Originally posted by Gorlin
I agree.

It may have been a broken treaty by devious design, or it may have been broken by "accident" (due to Austrian clerks mislaying the files...)
Nevertheless, it has been an action by a player - thus I am strongly against a rerun. (After all, time doesn't usually turn back 10 years...)

 

[unmerged(11097)]

I am completely agains't a penalty. A re-run should be enough. Afterall it was a mistake!

 

[Owen]

Originally posted by Ondoval
Also we need to open up the good old discussion on, what to do about the treaty rule. I recall a previous discussion about the same topic, that was never really concluded. Personally I like the fact that treaties cannot be broken the first turn, but I have no idea how to enforce it.

I thought the topic concluded when Daniel said he didn't have time to enforce it. In the end, when discussing things that mean more time spent by the host, there is only one decision that really counts. Much the same for this proposed rerun.

 

[unmerged(11097)]

I know that Daniel said he didn't have time to enforce it. But the fact that it is still a part of the rules, I thought it was bit like the event editing. Just because the host doesn't have time to check the event files for cheats, doesn't mean you can cheat with your event file. So when you cannot break a treaty the first turn, but the host doesn't have time to check it, I guess it means it is the players own responsibility not to break the rules..

Originally posted by Owen
I thought the topic concluded when Daniel said he didn't have time to enforce it. In the end, when discussing things that mean more time spent by the host, there is only one decision that really counts. Much the same for this proposed rerun.

 

[AVN]

I hope Daniel will be able to resolve this difficult situation satisfactorily for all parties involved

 

[Lord Ederon]

Well, first of all I want to announce that Master Summary was uploaded to AAR thread.

 

[Lord Ederon]

I'd say "let it be as it is and continue". But I won't say that. Rule, that treaties are not possible to break in the same turn as it has been signed is still valid. I think Asaris should have though about this when he was planning his turn orders. Nevertheless, re-run in this case is really possible. I said possible, because it's completely on AVN now.

I can imagine this turn without re-run. This would have really spiced up the game. But maybe so much, that some player would leave us...

I'll run the turn again now - with NAP, but I won't send it untill AVN decides whether to run turn again or not.

See you tomorrow then

 

[AVN]

Originally posted by Lord Ederon
I'd say "let it be as it is and continue". But I won't say that. Rule, that treaties are not possible to break in the same turn as it has been signed is still valid. I think Asaris should have though about this when he was planning his turn orders. Nevertheless, re-run in this case is really possible. I said possible, because it's completely on AVN now.

Daniel, I really appreciate a re-run here.

I can imagine this turn without re-run. This would have really spiced up the game. But maybe so much, that some player would leave us...

I believe you are going to know me. Your estimate of the situation is correct

I'll run the turn again now - with NAP, but I won't send it untill AVN decides whether to run turn again or not.

See you tomorrow then

As I said I appreciate a re-run with amended orders of Austria.

 

[Lord Ederon]

Turn 29 is out (after re-run)

I've run the turn again and sent results to players. Master summary has slightly changed, see here.

France has now inflation of 256% (almost twice as much as before rerun), 427k foot soldiers, 65k cavalry and 494 artilery. Support limit is 235k, which means France monthly pays 680d for army upkeep. I think we should think about this a bit.