-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Originally posted by BiB
One must take in account the potential of a nation. Manpower rules all in MP. Hence being a strong 3rd as the Netherlands is an extremely good position.
As I said before, apart from 3 nations, no one can act independently. IF Spain seems to do so anyway it's only that, seemingly. Just because mine are very much along the lines of France doesn't mean we don't have one, just means that we're a strong team with common, complementary interests. Still, coming back to the point about nations being dropped, if the Dutch are too dependant on France in ur opinion I can name more nations that are more dependent on others (like england after being propped up for years still being the weakest human nation) so the Dutch shouldn't go. Anyway, most diplomacy goes on behind the screens and doesn't get out
I do agree about the game being somewhat stale once the top powers collaborate, I started this all because it didn't look like changing at all.
IF the Habsburgs hadn't broken we'd most likely have ended up with a French-Dutch combo allied with the Ottomans and Sweden against the Habsburg combo allied with Russia and England. Instead the 2 leders of those alliances got into bed together.
I don't like the inheritance event either. It'd create a large, yes, colonial power but one that is hopelessly out of touch techwise, will have lots of cultural and relious trouble, and will end up not fulfilling its role yet again. We know by now a strong England would be very nice, but we must face facts here, there isn't one and move on with that reality. We tried propping up in all kinds of fashion and it is still the weakest player nation. Just put it out of its misery already.
I agree that manpower is probably overly important, but I still think that Spain has a great deal of influence on the outcome of the game. The Austrians aren't finished yet, and Spain is still able to control the balance of power, if they so willed. Are the Dutch? A nation doesn't have to be capable of "going it alone" to be relevant.
Also I'm not criticizing your play, I think it's been great. Just the influence you have, or are willing to assert. If the Dutch are content being a satellite of France they play much less of a role than some other nations (though England probably should be put out of its misery, you are right - maybe as part of the Netherlands).
One last thing - if the Hapsburg alliance had been solid and there was a permanent Frano-Dutch alliance it would have been almost as bad for the game as it is now. There has to be SOME fluidity, and some risk of change. Being able to 100% count on an ally forever really damages a game. I'm not saying everybody should be backstabbing left and right, but alliances should shift and change with the times and the interests of their nation.
That's a problem though with a game that has the same rulers for 400 years. IF u have been backstabbed 100 years ago u won't work with that nation while in reality that would all be in the past and new rulers generations down would be at hand. In the game the Spanish king in 1500 who betrayed the austrian king in 1500 is still the same spanish traitor to the austrian king in 1600. Hence having at least one very solid ally is really useful. As long as there's like 4 sets of 2 staunch allies u still have a lot of options.
True, and it is hard to avoid. As others pointed out occasionally have replacement players helps, but it can hurt in other ways.
The other thing that can really help is the players themselves. If deals aren't quite so far reaching it works a lot better. If the Spain and France made a temporary alliance to take down Austria a bit, but didn't keep that alliance so firmly, or if Spain was willing to forgive and forget Austria's malfeasance this would be a different game. I'm not even sure what Austria did (to Spain) was that bad - things were talked about I think, but not followed through with. Of course that is really hard to tell for an outsider.
If they are really that untrustworthy, sure. I can understand the tendency to be cautious with someone that betrayed you, but I'm not sure that one double-cross means that you can never trust them again. From what I have read, I'm not sure DarthMaur is all that bad, but I suppose he could be. It seems like both sides would want to make an attempt to patch things up.
However, it would add an interesting twist to force change players on every nation every 50 years.
I don't suppose Mad King James (God bless him for making me enjoy single player again in small doses) or the EEP boys had a hand in helping to form the U.S?
Though, only 9 cultures is fairly conservative. As to the question of keeping the Netherlands in the game...Frankly, I consider the Netherlands remaining as integral to French foreign policy. I have carefully cultivated BiB as a loyal vassal (Hah!) with a strong naval and colonial presence perfectly complimenting mine. If France ever found itself at war with a strong overseas power such as Spain or Super-Mexico, I would find myself with adequate strength to protect my interests.
I know that *Ulver* would never betray me...Though I know others find this unfortunate that neither of us have ever actually given the other a reason. That means, in order for us to split either A) New leadership has to take over B) That new leadership must disagree or C) Either myself or Ulver must concsciously and deliberately backstab the other just for the hell of it. I seem to recall France and Spain becoming pretty firm allies around this point anyhow. Though RL, empires tend to decay over time.
Any new player that takes over Spain, seeing as how Ulver has mentioned a few times that he would like to take over a new country or that he has grown bored with Spain, I know, if only from outside pressure, he will likely be rabidly anti-french. Despite the fact that neither France nor Spain would have been able to achieve it's present position without that support of the other. Actually, there has been surprisingly little material support. Ulver has given me a few state gifts, etc...But the real invaluable strength of the alliance is the moral support. Ulver feels that his back is protected, I feel that mine is protected. The fact that there is a whole lot of mutual respect helps matters along.
To be fair however, Austria may have found itself in a worst position far sooner without Spain's moderating influence on France. There was a real French-Ottoman-Sweden-Dutch alliance shaping up with the intent of matching the Habsburgs.
I think that the number one priority is seeing a Prussia introdced into the game as effectively and efficiently as possible to keep the situation alive in Europe. Mexico, US...Those are 1750 concerns. Prussia would probably be given extra CBs (considering the outstanding situation) and allowed to help itself to Saxony and Hannover, so it will certainly be not a mere plaything.
Edited:
P.S I actually wrote the above about the Netherlands role in aiding France before I read BiB's own post on the matter which states almost the same reasons. I sincerely agree that with a Spain possibly about to slip into the hands of another player and Ulver wanting to move on to greener pastures, that BiB is more valuable then ever.
Last edited:
Maur is NOT all that bad. I've played many games with him and I consider him a very honorable competent player. He just got a little out of his league with machiavellian power politics and indulged in some really rather innocent scheming, wheeling and dealing.
Maur's actual goal wasn't really to destroy Spain, but to get a free hand in Germany...Perhaps because he knew he had to consolidate a strong position to really counter France. Allowing me to attack Spain without Austrian intervention was perhaps his way of trying to get something for nothing.
I like Maur and I respect him and feel he has been a entertaining opponent. I will definitely be the first person to protect him against any charges of ill faith or incompetence. The fact is, he actually attempted to renege on our deal but he tried to in a very undiplomatic fashion (Trying to retain his free hand in Germany while then attempting to impose his will on me).
However, even Maur's fairly amateur innocentish conspiring is absolute kryptonite to Ulver's staunch approach to honor, integrity and keeping one's promise. That makes Ulver a very attractive ally compared to someone like Maur who was playing a more traditional diplomacy game (Yes, Maur is a great guy, but I also know, he would interdeed, betray someone as would 99 percent of the world). When I had the chance to get Ulver as an ally it was like striking gold. I was certainly *never* going to jeopardize that partnership. Not while it allowed me to benevolently police Europe as I saw fit.
Turn it around however, and one sees that Ulver completely neutralized his most dangerous opponent and gave him a free rein in the rest of the world...While I've dealt with 100 years of intrigue and open warfare. Though I am loathe to say I'd be better or worse off without Spain. I'm pretty sure Austria would have been destroyed sooner because I actually lost alot of sympathy when I allied with Spain. Austria managing to unite the Eastern hordes certainly put them on par (Having 600k manpower yearly!!!) with the West, but Turkey and Russia lacked the fanaticism of Austria.
My allies are Spain. The Netherlands and Sweden. Here is how I would describe their strength:
Spain: An alliance born of the best intentions. I suspect that even if Ulver agrees with the people on these boards, until I show him a reason, he is far too honorable to ever go back on his word to me.
Sweden: Smirfy has made Sweden one of France's dearest friends. And if it seems like he has a French cheerleader...Well, it shouldn't take a bloody rocket scientist to figure it out. When Russia/Netherlands/Austria were looking to carve up Sweden, who stopped them? France laid it all on the line to protect Sweden as a invaluable bulwark against the East. The French-Sweden alliance is probably the most pure, having come out of Sweden's genuine need to seek an ally against the hostile Austria/Russian coalition. Keep in mind however, that at Austria and Spain's bidding, Sweden thrice declared war on France. (The first time being France's ally, Poland). When his erstwhile allies turned their back on him, causing his benefactor to come from the least corner imaginable, probably did alot to cement the feeling of good will. Personally, I am ready to let France go down in flames if it means protecting Swedish integrity. Even if they are a bunch of schismatic protestants!
Netherlands: I believe that the only reason BiB dosen't betray me is because he fears what I would do to him otherwise. I do have 3 CBs on him.
So there you have it. Honor, friendship, and fear.
Last edited:
That is unbelievably true. I wish I had the mind to have taken screenshots during the invasion (Maybe Maur did? We might never know it seems). It was very akin to Dunkirk where if only Hitler had sent in the panzers...The Austrians failed because they came one inch from ultimate success. Despite the following tactical blunders that saw the formidable Austrian presence in France eliminated army by army, it could have been over in only six months if he had managed to force his way past Gascony after having annihilated all opposition and reduced the entire French army at one time (When troops were still being recruited) to hardly more then the 1.7k cav under Villars! It was a magnificent, beautiful, and all in all, truly inspired offensive...Yet launched prematurely...And it was his last chance.
Last edited:
I actually think my diplomacy has worked rather well. There has been no anti-Spanish collation, I do have – or shortly will have – a manufactory in every province and there have been no real fighting on Spanish soil.. The thing is. I actually want a peaceful game. I like minding my economy and chatting diplomatically. I feel no real urge to make war unless it makes sense and it just doesn’t in this case.
As has been pointed out most diplomatic manoeuvring are never made public.
Breaking with Austria was not a decision I regret in any way. I was faced with a situation were there was a Dutch-French plan to attack me. My security demanded totally on having a rock-solid guaranty of Austria assistance in case of a French attack. Austria almost forced me into a war with France and the Dutch over Holstein and when I made a diplomatic effort to end that war he turned around and made a deal allowing France to attack me. This was a serious deal, he then began making unreasonable demands on me for colonies and rights to all of the HRE. He did so counting on me to reject the alliance.
Well I didn’t. I told him I’d have to consult France and I did, essentially asking for terms. I wanted to know that a non-aggression pact would cost. At the time I thought the French reply ‘prepare to die scum’ was rather inept diplomacy seeing as how he passed up an opportunity to split his enemies. With France having announced his intentions to burn Madrid to the ground I caved in and gave Austria everything he wanted. When Austria then turned around and announced to France the deal was off France realised he’d been used by Austria to extract concessions from Spain. That’s when we began to compare notes.
By playing us off against each other Austria took an enormous gamble and lost. Had it worked all it would have been gained him was a few Germany provinces. In reality the risk was never worth the potential gain. Creditability is worth infinitely more then any collection of provinces. Later events illustrated that losing it amounts to a death sentence. You do not plot behind the back of your allies, ever. I actually make a point of telling my allies the contains of discussions with other players to avoid precisely this situation.
If anyone ask I’ll happily reproduce the contains of my talks except if they have told me something and specifically asked me to keep it secret or it is dealing with a war plan not yet carried out. Everyone have my standing permission to reproduce anything I’ve discussed with them at anytime. It is no secret that I have probed other nations about the possibility of a joint anti-French stance as a insurance in case France went on a spree of aggression. (The result have always been polite non-committal on both sides in case you are wondering)
Austria was willing to sell out an ally who had saved his life asking nothing in return, and he was willing to do so over Holstein. That fact that he eventually decide to stick with me is irrelevant. In my eyes the fact that he was prepared to betray me over one German province made him utterly worthless as an ally. Even with a hostile France one could seriously argue that the destruction of Austria would actually enhance Spanish security, as it would bring the Ottoman Empire and Russia forward to border France. They might after all prove worthwhile allies.
Being trustworthy has little to do with ethics; it is simply in ones own interest. This is even truer if you expect to play with the same people again. Sure I have broken commitments of I have been caught by conflicting promises or if my survival has depended on it but the thing is doing so is expensive. Provinces can be regained a lot easier then trust.
The notion that France somehow planned the whole thing is just plain silly to me but even if he had that is completely irrelevant. Continuing a policy where Spanish security depended on Austria was clearly impossible. I actually think I got out of it quite well; I lost nothing and gained a trustworthy ally. My position is in fact more secure then ever.
Now, it is no secret that the Netherlands have been very active in trying to make me break with France but the only argument that could be mustered has basically been that it would make for a more lively game. I’m sorry but stabbing an ally in the back and starting a war that is manifestly against my own interest because it would be more entertaining is just not on. If he wants excitement he can get the rest of the world to gang up on France-Spain.
Quite apart from the question of honour the Spanish-French alliance is that it serves the interests of both sides so well. It isn’t just that we have made commitments to each other that are pretty conclusive it is also that we have no point of conflict. This game is unique in that France is not in competition with Spain for colonies. Neither side has anything to gain from a conflict; we have nothing the other wants. So the chance of a break is somewhere between zip and zero.
I don’t know obviously but I suspect BiB has been equally active trying to persuade France to attack me and he has most likely failed just because France – quite rightly -trust me. I’m sure I have enemies around the world but I don’t believe anyone is in a position to ignore Spanish wishes nor do I believe anyone would doubt my word.
So even my enemies trust me, I’ve by far the richest nation in the world, I have about 1/5 of the planet under my direct control with China and Japan as vassals and I’m essentially immune from just about any conceivable attack.
I consider that the mark of successful diplomacy.
I understand that someone feels that I should have thrown it all away to aid an Austria that would sell me out over Holstein. I have to respectable point out, sir, that I consider you an idiot.
As has been pointed out most diplomatic manoeuvring are never made public.
Breaking with Austria was not a decision I regret in any way. I was faced with a situation were there was a Dutch-French plan to attack me. My security demanded totally on having a rock-solid guaranty of Austria assistance in case of a French attack. Austria almost forced me into a war with France and the Dutch over Holstein and when I made a diplomatic effort to end that war he turned around and made a deal allowing France to attack me. This was a serious deal, he then began making unreasonable demands on me for colonies and rights to all of the HRE. He did so counting on me to reject the alliance.
Well I didn’t. I told him I’d have to consult France and I did, essentially asking for terms. I wanted to know that a non-aggression pact would cost. At the time I thought the French reply ‘prepare to die scum’ was rather inept diplomacy seeing as how he passed up an opportunity to split his enemies. With France having announced his intentions to burn Madrid to the ground I caved in and gave Austria everything he wanted. When Austria then turned around and announced to France the deal was off France realised he’d been used by Austria to extract concessions from Spain. That’s when we began to compare notes.
By playing us off against each other Austria took an enormous gamble and lost. Had it worked all it would have been gained him was a few Germany provinces. In reality the risk was never worth the potential gain. Creditability is worth infinitely more then any collection of provinces. Later events illustrated that losing it amounts to a death sentence. You do not plot behind the back of your allies, ever. I actually make a point of telling my allies the contains of discussions with other players to avoid precisely this situation.
If anyone ask I’ll happily reproduce the contains of my talks except if they have told me something and specifically asked me to keep it secret or it is dealing with a war plan not yet carried out. Everyone have my standing permission to reproduce anything I’ve discussed with them at anytime. It is no secret that I have probed other nations about the possibility of a joint anti-French stance as a insurance in case France went on a spree of aggression. (The result have always been polite non-committal on both sides in case you are wondering)
Austria was willing to sell out an ally who had saved his life asking nothing in return, and he was willing to do so over Holstein. That fact that he eventually decide to stick with me is irrelevant. In my eyes the fact that he was prepared to betray me over one German province made him utterly worthless as an ally. Even with a hostile France one could seriously argue that the destruction of Austria would actually enhance Spanish security, as it would bring the Ottoman Empire and Russia forward to border France. They might after all prove worthwhile allies.
Being trustworthy has little to do with ethics; it is simply in ones own interest. This is even truer if you expect to play with the same people again. Sure I have broken commitments of I have been caught by conflicting promises or if my survival has depended on it but the thing is doing so is expensive. Provinces can be regained a lot easier then trust.
The notion that France somehow planned the whole thing is just plain silly to me but even if he had that is completely irrelevant. Continuing a policy where Spanish security depended on Austria was clearly impossible. I actually think I got out of it quite well; I lost nothing and gained a trustworthy ally. My position is in fact more secure then ever.
Now, it is no secret that the Netherlands have been very active in trying to make me break with France but the only argument that could be mustered has basically been that it would make for a more lively game. I’m sorry but stabbing an ally in the back and starting a war that is manifestly against my own interest because it would be more entertaining is just not on. If he wants excitement he can get the rest of the world to gang up on France-Spain.
Quite apart from the question of honour the Spanish-French alliance is that it serves the interests of both sides so well. It isn’t just that we have made commitments to each other that are pretty conclusive it is also that we have no point of conflict. This game is unique in that France is not in competition with Spain for colonies. Neither side has anything to gain from a conflict; we have nothing the other wants. So the chance of a break is somewhere between zip and zero.
I don’t know obviously but I suspect BiB has been equally active trying to persuade France to attack me and he has most likely failed just because France – quite rightly -trust me. I’m sure I have enemies around the world but I don’t believe anyone is in a position to ignore Spanish wishes nor do I believe anyone would doubt my word.
So even my enemies trust me, I’ve by far the richest nation in the world, I have about 1/5 of the planet under my direct control with China and Japan as vassals and I’m essentially immune from just about any conceivable attack.
I consider that the mark of successful diplomacy.
I understand that someone feels that I should have thrown it all away to aid an Austria that would sell me out over Holstein. I have to respectable point out, sir, that I consider you an idiot.
Last edited:
So basically this game appears to be on it's death bed for two reasons. 1 England's utter failure to do anything but make all the wrong choices. Lets look at those real quick. First he chose a CC over a COT and shipyard in the admiralty event. Then he failed to colonize much of anything in the 16th century. What was he doing with all those colonists anyway? Feeding them to his pet mongoose? I would have expected atleast 1 of the many english players get around to annexing Ireland and conquering Scotland by now but apparently it hasn't occured to anyone. Finally he turned down claims to India for some near worthless pagan african provinces. Atleast England hasn't broken up into a bunch of little states. So he has one up on the AI. 2 the ironclad, ordaned by god, and sworn in blood franco-spanish alliance. Nothing short of extinction could end these two love bird's happy honeymoon.
Ulver maybe you should just go ahead and create the USA in1711 and move on to it. You could then turn Spain over to Mowers. But without someone to play Prussia there really is no point in creating it. If EUII only had a truly competenat AI then the present situation might not be so bad. I suppose BiB could leave the Netherlands for Spain and Mowers could move to Prussia. Sure France would probably eventually annex the Netherlands but that might not be so bad. Think of all the revolts and France would lose alot of income from the difference in culture and religion. Cya, bye!
Ulver maybe you should just go ahead and create the USA in1711 and move on to it. You could then turn Spain over to Mowers. But without someone to play Prussia there really is no point in creating it. If EUII only had a truly competenat AI then the present situation might not be so bad. I suppose BiB could leave the Netherlands for Spain and Mowers could move to Prussia. Sure France would probably eventually annex the Netherlands but that might not be so bad. Think of all the revolts and France would lose alot of income from the difference in culture and religion. Cya, bye!
geez, which one of you is creating dutch india? (sorry - not following this MGC am very very occupied in OT and 1420... )
)Time to move on
Hmmm, why do people continue to talk in absolutes? All this talk of 'if he betrays me' etc etc is a bit repetitive, no?
I'm not going to alter the file but I'm not going to start the MGC4 the same way again. In the future I think that I'm going to introduce the 1700 vassalisation rule and that players may not stay the same country for more than 150 years- this game has proven that 'straightjacket diplomacy' is too strong a pull for too many people.
Lets play on, France can have a go at redrawing the map of Europe. Netherlands and England or Sweden? who play what seems to be insignificant and non critical strategic powers can be dropped, and countries on strategic fault lines, such as a German and New world state can be brought in. For those unhappy, I'm sorry but I dont see a more interesting or practical suggestion and you all know that the introduction of these 2 powers was always on the cards. The key issue is that I need to know which 2 of the 3 we drop. Please try and think objectively as what will provide the most interesting strategic situations. I am also open to suggestions that we switch Spain/ France & austria after the map of Europe has been redrawn. Thoughts please.
For those that dont like this try to remember that new strategic challenges invariably bring new seratonin (sp) rewards.
I can play early on Saturday morning or tomorrow night
Mowers
Hmmm, why do people continue to talk in absolutes? All this talk of 'if he betrays me' etc etc is a bit repetitive, no?
I'm not going to alter the file but I'm not going to start the MGC4 the same way again. In the future I think that I'm going to introduce the 1700 vassalisation rule and that players may not stay the same country for more than 150 years- this game has proven that 'straightjacket diplomacy' is too strong a pull for too many people.
Lets play on, France can have a go at redrawing the map of Europe. Netherlands and England or Sweden? who play what seems to be insignificant and non critical strategic powers can be dropped, and countries on strategic fault lines, such as a German and New world state can be brought in. For those unhappy, I'm sorry but I dont see a more interesting or practical suggestion and you all know that the introduction of these 2 powers was always on the cards. The key issue is that I need to know which 2 of the 3 we drop. Please try and think objectively as what will provide the most interesting strategic situations. I am also open to suggestions that we switch Spain/ France & austria after the map of Europe has been redrawn. Thoughts please.
For those that dont like this try to remember that new strategic challenges invariably bring new seratonin (sp) rewards.
I can play early on Saturday morning or tomorrow night
Mowers
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for your comments generally its been interesting. To answer your points
England had massive stability recovery costs and thus what you are suggesting would have been a particularly bad idea.
You cant send colonists when you have no money.
There wasnt a deal of Africa for India- there was a 10K price tag.
Just a suggestion - why not drop France and Spain. Restart a game with the current minors plus Prussia and US (and Mexico?) and see how the "new" powers break up the "old" hegemony?
Its not a bad idea, perhaps another game could be spun off it, its something I have considered in the past. But Russia and the Ottomans will want to see this game through to the end and they will need to see some opposition of sorts. Although maybe having 2 German players could make things very interesting!
I never gave commits to France never to break with him. There is nothing absolute about the alliance in that sense. My sense of honour would just demand it would be done right. In this case a careful laid out statement explaining to France why his actions were incompatible with the alliance followed with a setting out what Spain finds necessary on the part of France to maintain it. If – after respectful consultation – we found out interests to be no longer compatible I would give proper notice to dissolve the treaty of Paris and consider myself free to pursuit an anti-French policy after the proscribed 3 years.
Why some finds that attitude somehow wrong is beyond me. It is the smart thing to do as well as good role-play.
It is not a question of absolutism at all, if I wanted to break with France I could certainly to so honourably. It is, rather, that the alliance makes perfect sense. France has supported every major Spanish policy goal. Not just security, he backed me in reserving all remaining pagans for England and gave Kent back. He offered me support on just about any issue I asked for and the only thing he demanded was that I didn’t conspire with a declared enemy that I had no reason to support.
It is not a case of some sort of diplomatic straitjacket – it is simply a question of good solid enlightened self-interest.
What country to dump? If you want to break the stalemate I’d say the Netherlands, no country gets more credit for maintaining a static system of alliances. Despite the fact that BiB as a player as consistently tried to convince me to break with France, he has as the Netherlands acted in a way to cement the Spanish-French alliance.
The latest example was when I considered asking France to lay off a new Austrian player for a period for 5 years. My thought was the it was manifestly unfair to a new player being forced into a war of annihilation or having to give up a 3rd of his territory without being giving a chance to get the feel of the game. I went out looking for support for such a demand being willing to consider giving France notices if rejected. Despite being the guy constantly nagging me to break of the French alliance BiB was not willing to co-sign such a statement nor was he even willing to given ironclad guaranties of neutrality in case my action should lead to war with France in 3 years. Given his exposed position vis a vis France he felt unable to promise he wouldn’t join in a French attack.
Understand that this is in no way a criticism of BiB. I appreciate his honestly about his position and it is a sound Dutch policy he is pursuing. I would likely do precisely the same in his place. (That, incidentally, is a compliment in case you are wondering) From a Dutch perspective the prospect of a navel war with Spain backed by France is very attractive and he really can’t oppose France. The net result however is that the existence of the Dutch works as a massive disincentive for Spain to break with France. In effect their in-game function is as a sort of anti-England.
Without the Dutch Spain has no reason to break with France but is able to do so essentially risk-free. With the Dutch the cost of opposing France increases explosively. Couple this with the fact that just by rejecting Dutch overtures for a joint Dutch-French attack on Spain France gets to prove that he is a loyal ally and thus also create a moral obligation on the part of Spain to extend loyalty in exchange.
Now please understand that even without Holland I would never have stabbed France in the back but it is just possible that a difference of opinion would have lead to a honourable dissolution of the treaty of Paris. Hard to say if my position would have been harder knowing that I could break with France with no risk to my colonies.
If you want a new Spanish player to take an-anti France stance you increases the chances considerably by removing the Netherlands and imposing the same no-annex rule that applies to Spain-Portugal. Please consider that even so it still would be the best policy for Spain to stick with France provided they could trust each other.
I think your release vassal idea has a lot of merit but it needs careful consideration. Using BB as an indicator doesn’t really work as Spain can conquer all of the Americas without incurring a single BB point. Imperfect as they are VP actually works better methinks.
A random shuffling of players works fine for me. Who knows: I might end up with France with Damocles running Spain. Would be interesting to see how that would pan out. I have never considered how things look from Paris. I wouldn’t mind making a last heroic stand with Austria and then mowing to the US when she inevitably ended up annexed. England would be fun to Hell; I’ll take anybody except Prussia. Actually shifting me and Bib would be really interesting. If he feels it makes so much sense for Spain to conduct an anti-French policy surely he is the man to do it?
That being said I feel it should be random for everybody. Damocles is right in that no one should be punished for doing well. I actually proposed shifting all players every century still think that is a good idea.
Good call on no editing. A dead Austria raises interesting problems and makes for a fascinating situation in itself.
Why some finds that attitude somehow wrong is beyond me. It is the smart thing to do as well as good role-play.
It is not a question of absolutism at all, if I wanted to break with France I could certainly to so honourably. It is, rather, that the alliance makes perfect sense. France has supported every major Spanish policy goal. Not just security, he backed me in reserving all remaining pagans for England and gave Kent back. He offered me support on just about any issue I asked for and the only thing he demanded was that I didn’t conspire with a declared enemy that I had no reason to support.
It is not a case of some sort of diplomatic straitjacket – it is simply a question of good solid enlightened self-interest.
What country to dump? If you want to break the stalemate I’d say the Netherlands, no country gets more credit for maintaining a static system of alliances. Despite the fact that BiB as a player as consistently tried to convince me to break with France, he has as the Netherlands acted in a way to cement the Spanish-French alliance.
The latest example was when I considered asking France to lay off a new Austrian player for a period for 5 years. My thought was the it was manifestly unfair to a new player being forced into a war of annihilation or having to give up a 3rd of his territory without being giving a chance to get the feel of the game. I went out looking for support for such a demand being willing to consider giving France notices if rejected. Despite being the guy constantly nagging me to break of the French alliance BiB was not willing to co-sign such a statement nor was he even willing to given ironclad guaranties of neutrality in case my action should lead to war with France in 3 years. Given his exposed position vis a vis France he felt unable to promise he wouldn’t join in a French attack.
Understand that this is in no way a criticism of BiB. I appreciate his honestly about his position and it is a sound Dutch policy he is pursuing. I would likely do precisely the same in his place. (That, incidentally, is a compliment in case you are wondering) From a Dutch perspective the prospect of a navel war with Spain backed by France is very attractive and he really can’t oppose France. The net result however is that the existence of the Dutch works as a massive disincentive for Spain to break with France. In effect their in-game function is as a sort of anti-England.
Without the Dutch Spain has no reason to break with France but is able to do so essentially risk-free. With the Dutch the cost of opposing France increases explosively. Couple this with the fact that just by rejecting Dutch overtures for a joint Dutch-French attack on Spain France gets to prove that he is a loyal ally and thus also create a moral obligation on the part of Spain to extend loyalty in exchange.
Now please understand that even without Holland I would never have stabbed France in the back but it is just possible that a difference of opinion would have lead to a honourable dissolution of the treaty of Paris. Hard to say if my position would have been harder knowing that I could break with France with no risk to my colonies.
If you want a new Spanish player to take an-anti France stance you increases the chances considerably by removing the Netherlands and imposing the same no-annex rule that applies to Spain-Portugal. Please consider that even so it still would be the best policy for Spain to stick with France provided they could trust each other.
I think your release vassal idea has a lot of merit but it needs careful consideration. Using BB as an indicator doesn’t really work as Spain can conquer all of the Americas without incurring a single BB point. Imperfect as they are VP actually works better methinks.
A random shuffling of players works fine for me. Who knows: I might end up with France with Damocles running Spain. Would be interesting to see how that would pan out. I have never considered how things look from Paris. I wouldn’t mind making a last heroic stand with Austria and then mowing to the US when she inevitably ended up annexed. England would be fun to Hell; I’ll take anybody except Prussia. Actually shifting me and Bib would be really interesting. If he feels it makes so much sense for Spain to conduct an anti-French policy surely he is the man to do it?
That being said I feel it should be random for everybody. Damocles is right in that no one should be punished for doing well. I actually proposed shifting all players every century still think that is a good idea.
Good call on no editing. A dead Austria raises interesting problems and makes for a fascinating situation in itself.
Last edited:
I am more than aware that there is a differentation between 'straight jacket diplomacy' and strategic sense. Its a generic point that I wished to make as opposed to a case specific one. If you check your emails I am now contemplating your orginal idea of an English- Dutch union.
I'd say.
The continued alliance has allowed you an unchecked hand in Asia - which you have used with restraint. Well, sort of. It may not be all that large a territory, but snagging both Kansai and Shanghai without any real complaints (as shown in this AAR, that is) from the European powers counts as a real coup in my eyes. Conquests worth more than a dozen lesser provinces gained while preaching peaceful coexistence under the Pax Francia...
Well done
That's from his first post. And it's exactly what he has achieved. That it is the interests of neither Spain nor the Netherlands to change anything just shows what a great job he's done. For all the lengthy discussions about Balance of Power no-one is really paying much attention to it any more. If the objectives of Spain and the Netherlands were to build rich colonial empires while simply ensuring that their own territory was secure in Europe then they've done well. However, that security has been bought by toeing the line with Damocles' policy. And both, at one point, expressed concerns that France could not be allowed to run roughshod over Europe.
So peter how are things going with getting an IP number?
I just don’t know Mowers. As always I’m glad I’m not in your shoes.
The way I see things we have a number of options. Perhaps we should list them?
The obvious one being to do nothing. Let Austria fight to the death and see where the chips may fall. Once Austria is eliminated I guess we introduce the United States.
This could be spiced up some player changes. Personally I’d like to exchange places with BiB. He has expressed some ideas of Spanish foreign policy I disagree with. It would be interesting to see if he is right. The argument against is that I actually agree with his policy so perhaps a 3-way shift is on order?
Everyone agrees that the French peace proposal for an independent Prussia has merit the problem is how to free a player. We have have a number of options here as well.
Again the do nothing option deserves serious consideration. An AI run Prussia is not complete madness. It would be a way to allow France the victory she deserves. With a no vasselation rule it would create some dynamic in Northern Europe with an alliance with Prussia under Fredrick the Great no doubt being prized.
We Just dump England for good and let the player take over Prussia. It would create some possible dynamism in Europe and open up the question of what to do with the Pagans in Africa. The most likely result being a Spanish-French decree allocating it to Sweden or Prussia. The problem here is that the basic overall stability of the situation remain. With regard to the Spanish-French axis it changes nothing and in that sense the Netherlands staying in makes that problem even worse as any new Spanish player will find it very hard to break with France unless we also exchange the Dutch player. (Objectively it makes no sense to break with France in any case the Dutch just makes it expensive as well as pointless)
Dump the Dutch player and impose a no diplo-annextion of the Netherlands makes better sense to me frankly. It gives Spain the freedom to move against France if she wishes to and that added security will inevitably make for greater Spanish-French tensions under any Spanish player. The problem of extreme English weakness remains however.
The Dutch-English union is certainly a possible answer to that. We could offer BiB a choice of taking over England or Spain. I think we should stick with England taking over the Dutch and not the other way around. England is an island, which gives much greater freedom of action. I realise they’d be in trouble with their entire colonial empire being the wrong culture but the answer of giving them Dutch culture seems excessive. They will also have nationalism all over their empire at once. I suppose we could argue that it would make sense to give the union Dutch culture and perhaps release all British provinces as Part of the United States. I’d like to make the US as in AI nation anyway. Such a large AI controlled US would be quite valuable as an object of diplomacy..
The English-Dutch union would create an island with a large navy and thus real independence of action. It would almost have to defend the Low Countries on the continent (a good argument for giving the union Dutch culture when one thinks about it) That is the great strength of the idea. The drawback is it is a fait from above and BiB is certain to resent it. Not sure it is wildly unrealistic however. Something like that happening is unlikely but not implausible
We could also implement any of the above and request that all players change country voluntary.
I honestly don’t know. As always the hard choice is up to you.
I just don’t know Mowers. As always I’m glad I’m not in your shoes.
The way I see things we have a number of options. Perhaps we should list them?
The obvious one being to do nothing. Let Austria fight to the death and see where the chips may fall. Once Austria is eliminated I guess we introduce the United States.
This could be spiced up some player changes. Personally I’d like to exchange places with BiB. He has expressed some ideas of Spanish foreign policy I disagree with. It would be interesting to see if he is right. The argument against is that I actually agree with his policy so perhaps a 3-way shift is on order?
Everyone agrees that the French peace proposal for an independent Prussia has merit the problem is how to free a player. We have have a number of options here as well.
Again the do nothing option deserves serious consideration. An AI run Prussia is not complete madness. It would be a way to allow France the victory she deserves. With a no vasselation rule it would create some dynamic in Northern Europe with an alliance with Prussia under Fredrick the Great no doubt being prized.
We Just dump England for good and let the player take over Prussia. It would create some possible dynamism in Europe and open up the question of what to do with the Pagans in Africa. The most likely result being a Spanish-French decree allocating it to Sweden or Prussia. The problem here is that the basic overall stability of the situation remain. With regard to the Spanish-French axis it changes nothing and in that sense the Netherlands staying in makes that problem even worse as any new Spanish player will find it very hard to break with France unless we also exchange the Dutch player. (Objectively it makes no sense to break with France in any case the Dutch just makes it expensive as well as pointless)
Dump the Dutch player and impose a no diplo-annextion of the Netherlands makes better sense to me frankly. It gives Spain the freedom to move against France if she wishes to and that added security will inevitably make for greater Spanish-French tensions under any Spanish player. The problem of extreme English weakness remains however.
The Dutch-English union is certainly a possible answer to that. We could offer BiB a choice of taking over England or Spain. I think we should stick with England taking over the Dutch and not the other way around. England is an island, which gives much greater freedom of action. I realise they’d be in trouble with their entire colonial empire being the wrong culture but the answer of giving them Dutch culture seems excessive. They will also have nationalism all over their empire at once. I suppose we could argue that it would make sense to give the union Dutch culture and perhaps release all British provinces as Part of the United States. I’d like to make the US as in AI nation anyway. Such a large AI controlled US would be quite valuable as an object of diplomacy..
The English-Dutch union would create an island with a large navy and thus real independence of action. It would almost have to defend the Low Countries on the continent (a good argument for giving the union Dutch culture when one thinks about it) That is the great strength of the idea. The drawback is it is a fait from above and BiB is certain to resent it. Not sure it is wildly unrealistic however. Something like that happening is unlikely but not implausible
We could also implement any of the above and request that all players change country voluntary.
I honestly don’t know. As always the hard choice is up to you.