Surrender Issues...

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

By the time the game starts, Scotland had only been part of Great Britain for around 100 years, moot point I suppose but the same is true for England.

If the game designers are going to re set the national flags etc over this issue, pretty please, but can England have 'the Leopards of England' rather than the Cross of St George, Ta everso [:)]

All the Best
Peter

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: madgamer

I am aware of that but I found that in FoF tactical battle was the only way the north had a chance to win many battles and friends who played CoG reported the same thing.

I find this to be a really odd statement.

Tactical battles allow quality to shine over quantity. Quick/Instant Battles quantity starts to take more of a front seat. If anything I would think its the other way, that the South would have trouble in a purely quick battle environment, particularly if the Northern player was fully exploiting his advantage in producing large amounts of artillery.

[Anthropoid]

So let me get this straight: the only way to take and hold provinces in the British Isles is if you declare Total War on Great Britain (which you cannot do if you are already in a state of limited war, which in itself is peculiar if not gamey) and then _win_ a total war against GB (meaning, I'm guessing, you conquer all her provinces? have not read the rules on Total War  . . .)?
 
No offense meant, and I am not a Western Europe specialist, but . . . that just seems silly.
 
During the Hundred Years War, significant chunks of "France" were under English control (no I don't remember dates and fiefs/provinces but it is true). Indeed, as late as the 1500s the Spanish were sending this rather signifcant Armada to invade England! I doubt that the intent was to invade and conquer some territory only to pack up and return it to the English AFTER the English had been decimated militarily, provinces were being gobbled up one after other, and then because the English surrender we are all going to just pack up and sail at top speed back to Spain!?
 
That is exactly what happened in my game: I _CONQUERED_ England! She has maybe ONE fleet left (if that) and perhaps a merchant or two, and her military was decimated. The best resistance she could put up in her front line provinces as I marched north was ~18K man armies! And I am to believe that under those circumstances, my nation would just HAND BACK the conquered core provinces of England simply because there was an English Channel between them and our "home" provinces?"
 
Its absurd, and not the least bit realistic. If you completely conquer a province, and your enemy surrenders to you, you should retain some sort of influence in that province irrespective of whether it is adjacent to your home provinces you own or not. Perhaps it is only a right of passage and the ability to view province infrastructure and garrisons, or perhaps it should actually be collecting a levy. Certainly I can agree that conquered provinces that are not adjacent to home provinces should not necessarily be cedeable and become part of home national territory, but the idea that the enemy surrender can just automatically get all their lost territory back is absurd!
 
Moreover, Hampshire province IS adjacent to Picardy else Normandy. The English Channel is pretty dang narrow! Sure if I conquer a province that is 100 or 200 miles away and lying on ther other side of an intervening foreign territory, having only "Limited Ceding" seems reasonable enough. But if we are talking about the two sides of the English Channel, well in my opinion that should count as being adjacent just like the two sides of the Dardanelles, Denmark to Norway or Gibraltar to North Africa.
 
Hampshire should count as being "adjacent" to Picardy and/or Normandy. Corsica should count as being 'adjacent' to Marseille. Corfu should be counted as adjacent to whatever major landmass it is immediately next to.
 
I would suggest two changes:
 
1) A new Treaty Clause: "Limited Ceding" in which occupied provinces that are not adjacent to home territory can be included. Ideas for what a Limited Cede results in: collect a certain amount of resources from the province. Enjoy an ROP, and ability to view the infrastructure and garrison.
 
2) Certain provinces that are separated by fairly narrow strips of ocean are demarcated as being "adjacent" with respect to the full "Cede Province" clause (e.g., Hampshire and Picardy and/or Normandy; Corsica and Marseilles, etc.)

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

I don't remember how Russia's status is in the west.

Lots of Russias western provinces have the Lithuanian flag.

Actually I just checked, they might be flags from individual provinces/citys/duchys in the area that used to be Lithuania.

[Hard Sarge]

hassle is, it happens in every war, you give back everything you took (other then captured protectorates) and then ask for them in a treaty

in the 1792 campaign, the same thing can happen to France, vs Prussia, Russia or Sweden, even Turkey

but...

that said, if you defeat England in the first war, they are shot, the 2nd war is normally a war over a weaken enemy

I not heard back about what we are allowed to talk about, but we are working on a number of issues, either brought up, or now seen in a different light

[barbarossa2]

I have to admit, I enjoy the "giving everything back" aspect of the game.  It is what makes it different than the gamey Total War series. 

See what happened to Prussia when after France attacked them in 1870. Prussia advanced on the French armies and crushed them, then went on to invest Paris.  At that time, Britain was on Prussia's side.  However, when Prussia announced it would not be accepting just a plain surrender, but instead wanted Lorraine and Alsace, and horrible stories of privation started being leaked out of Paris by balloon (the scale of which would be totally dwarfed by 20th century conflict), English sentiment turned decidedly against Prussia--and all Bismark and the Kaiser wanted was PART of a single provence in CoG:EE terms. 

On top of that, the French were able to raise another 150,000 troops easily (who were squandered militarily) to try to beat out the Prussian enemy. 

And on top of that, this ongoing war lead to the collapse of French society in some respects and lead to the famous (infamous) Paris commune which no one could put down easily.  I have a feeling that outright annexation of a whole country would be viewed as so unjust and destabilizing you would immediately rocket to the "All of Europe is alarmed at your rise" status and result in major levels of unrest in every provence you came to occupy in any nation with any sense of national identity.

BUT!!!!! Anthropoid, I DO think that you have a valid point that several regions which are separated by bodies of water should be connected in the game for annexation purposes. However, it is interesting that historically, Kent was never ceded to a continental European power. What should we make of that? Since history is a game which has only been played once...what to make of it is extremely difficult and open to much speculation. I have a feeling that the longer it did not happen, that the more resistant any English/British monarch would have been to such terms.

Unfortunately, the CoG:EE system doesn't allow for real treaty negotiations. I think if it did, players would be able to negotiate things like this--and the British player might in several instances be just as unwilling to surrender for that. At the moment, a "conditional surrender" in CoG:EE is not controlled in any way and is really unconditional. The surrendering power can't say, I will surrender ONLY if you don't take any provences from me. This is where Empires in Arms (board game) shined and CoG:EE should play catch up.

[Anthropoid]

I have to admit, I enjoy the "giving everything back" aspect of the game.  It is what makes it different than the gamey Total War series. 

 
I admit I don't know my Napoleonic history too well, but didn't Napoleon effectively conquer most of Western Europe?

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

I admit I don't know my Napoleonic history too well, but didn't Napoleon effectively conquer most of Western Europe?

About the only thing you cant do very easily that Napoleon did is create the Duchy of Warsaw. I did it in one game by declaring Total War against Prussia. In another game I used a diplomat to have warsaw rebel and then conquered the minor independent and forced prussia to cede me the newly neighboring provinces.

[:D]

[barbarossa2]

Here is a great map of Napoleonic Europe at the height of Napoleon's power.

The dark blue areas are regions which were incorporated directly into France. This is equal to annexing territories. Or conquering minors and not setting them free.

The light blue areas are similar to protectorates or regions which were conquered and then turned into protectorates.

However, notice that Prussia and Austria still existed and were here not indicated to be directly under Napoleon's boot. What Napoleon did was defeat them in campaigns, and then came to terms with them which everyone could live with given the situation at hand. Prussia and Austria still have their own governments (he didn't remove their governments...had he requested that, he might have found himself in protracted campaigns against total resistance and revolts which would have cost more effort than he was ready to invest to do this). You can see the areas which Napoleon did strip from Prussia (all of the regions annexed from Poland through the late 18th century, which he used to create the nation of Poland) and Austria (regions of western Austria which he gave to Bavaria and regions along the Adriatic which were directly annexed into France). So, he beat these countries and demanded several things...all costs which the losing monarchs were willing pay rather than continue their war by any and all means possible.

Spain is blue because I believe Napoleon's brother was put on the throne. I don't know how this is represented in the game. And now I wonder about this tricky question. How does a French player get to the point where he can put a relative on the throne of Spain? Total war? Limited war? Coup? I don't know. Is it an event in the game I have not discovered?

I wonder what would have happened if Napoleon would have beaten Austria and at the initial peace negotiations if he would have said, "You are all losing all of your power, and every provence of your country is being incorporated into France." It is difficult to draw direct comparisons with the Prussian defeat of France in 1871, but one can draw some conclusions... resistance in Europe would have grown immeasurably. Perhaps even among his own advisors.

Who would have tolerated the complete disappearance of a nation like Prussia at the treaty of Tilsit? However, absolutes aren't useful. Poland disappeared without any real problems. Just went poof. However, all of its neighbors were complicit in the act and many Polish nobles were as well. I am not sure which absolute rules to draw from Poland...again, history being a game played once.

An interesting historical example I can think of which might be on point was Bismark's resistance to the Kaiser's desire to annex portions of Bohemia from Austria following the quick defeat of Austria in the war of 1866. Bismark's rationale was this would create a permanent enemy in Austria and might have risked the ire of Europe. He may have been right. But this tug of war between people who understand these things and people who don't does occur even in the most powerful nations ruled by monarchs.

My guess is that, while doing his best to bring Europe under his boot, Napoleon had to appear reasonable enough so as not to scare the shit out of every single landed aristocrat in Europe.

Totally taking over a region and assimilating it must be a very expensive prospect, which can be frought with dangers and difficulties, which is why most powers probably only bit off small chunks at any one time for this treatment. There must have been a strategically important reason for this decision. Napoleon may have felt the political benefits to him would be rather great and the costs relatively low to dissolve the Holy Roman Empire and then turn portions of it into a "puppet" organization known as the Confederation of the Rhine. Then you can con people into thinking they are free... when in fact they are slaves. And conning people is something Napoleon was good at. And he did get his way with it*.

Can anyone else add anything to this discussion? I cannot pretend to be an expert in all of this. But I have to admit that the mystery of annexation of foreign lands was always an interesting topic to me. I think I may even have a book buried in my boxes somewhere on that specific topic. Damn. Where is it!!!

*One example of how well he understood PR was his letter to Cairo on his retreat and total defeat at Acre. The letter he dictated claimed he had raized Acre to the last stone and forced its people into the sea and he was bringing many prisoners and standards. It was a total lie. Acre had been a major defeat and the reteat turned into a deadly rout. But he could not afford a mutiny in Cairo--and there was apparently a great risk of it. When his aid raised questions about how wise it was to send such a letter in which "each word was a deception". Napoleon repeatedly replied, "My dear fellow, you are a simpleton; you don't understand anything." Napoleon got his way. There was no mutiny in Egypt.

[Anthropoid]

Thats real purty, but my intent once this forced peace is over in a year or so is to declare Total War on GB and CONQUER England! Did you see how much industrial might and wealth she has!? With no Navy, England _will_ be mine [:D]

ADDIT: In fact, no. That will _NOT_ be enough! I intend to conquer _ALL_ of Western Europe . . . not sure how well-worth it Spain is. Might just set up a couple armies as defensive forces in my two Pyrennes provinces: good target practice whenever the Spaniards come down out of the mountains . . .

England is WAY too wealthy, and way too easily defended to NOT conquer her now that I've trounced her navy and army. Then, I will just spread west and south, keeping the best provinces and protectoratizing the less juicy ones, and making sure I create a "pathway more or less through the middle of the conquered territory so I can always have the option to add more new conquered territories on the extreme margins.

How many provinces would you guys say is a max before your Empire is really troubled with waste?

Awright, so I admit, maybe it should be as hard as it is to conquer . . . but I still think that the English Channel should be considered "adjacent."

[barbarossa2]

LOL.   Cool Anthropoid.

[barbarossa2]

Anthropoid, maybe what CoG:EE lacks is an ability for a megalomaniac like you to actually annex 10 provences and then pay the political and other costs for it:

1. High liklihood of rebellions in regions with a sense of national identity
2. The complications of a possible protracted add on war when they realize what you are demanding
3. Everyone in Europe not liking you
4. Elevated military spending to keep your new subjects in line
5. Over extension and collapse

Like just about every other megalomaniac in history.

It is kind of like the mobilization limits question we have dealt with in another thread.  In effect, the game doesn't let the player take the risks.  It forces risk levels on the player which the designers feel to be appropriate.

I do think it would be cool to allow players more room to take more, but risk higher anger in Europe, etc.  But I think that is all a pipe dream.

[Hard Sarge]

16% to 20% waste will cripple you pretty quickly, what will really hurt is the lack of food, once your food is lost, your Pop staves, once they start going hungry, you will start to lose production, and every province you own, will be just trying to grow food, very quickly, you will run out of money, then you start to lose troops and ships, and you won't be able to buy depots, so you will not be able to mass troops

if everybody is mad at you, or your at war with them, you can forget about trying to trade for what you need

one of the worst things that can happen to you, is to win two big wars, at the same time, or back to back

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

How many provinces would you guys say is a max before your Empire is really troubled with waste?

I couldnt say.

I have a path of nappy game I conquered Prussia in Total War and kept all of it except the parts I could turn into the Duchy of Warsaw. I will load it up and check how many provinces I had under my direct control and how many protectorates. I want to say it was about 40/20.

I think its maybe a bit too easy to pick several French provinces at the begining of any given scenario and develop their courts up so that you can hold 35+ provinces not including protectorates without having any waste.

I think the court development costs should maybe scale a little steeper.

[Hard Sarge]

keep playing, pretty soon, most of the provinces you pick up will be 0 or 1 Court level, in Path of Nappy, you looking at some 106 provinces you need, not counting what you take besides, and if your able to use all of your Textiles for Courts, you are not growing any of the rest of your provinces

[barbarossa2]

Anthropoid, I found this interesting description of the treaty of Schönnbrunn (1809), which I thought was very interesting.  In PBEM games with multiple players, surrender treaties can be much more involved than the ones which are cut and pasted in the treaties section.  From Wikipedia (rated by Nature magazine to be more accurate than the Encyclopedia Brittanica)... 

The resulting Treaty of Schönbrunn was the harshest that France had imposed on Austria in recent memory. Metternich and Archduke Charles had the preservation of the Habsburg Empire as their fundamental goal, and to this end the former succeeded in making Napoleon seek more modest goals in return for promises of Franco-Austrian peace and friendship.[4] Nevertheless, while most of the hereditary lands remained part of Habsburg territories, France received Carinthia, Carniola, and the Adriatic ports, while Galicia was given to the Poles and the Salzburg area of the Tyrol went to the Bavarians.[4] Austria lost over three million subjects, about one-fifth of her total population,[5] as a result of these territorial changes. While fighting in the Iberian Peninsula would continue, the War of the Fifth Coalition was the last major conflict on the European continent until the French invasion of Russia in 1812 sparked the rise of the Sixth Coalition.

In multiplayer PBEM games, I can see players negotiating reduced harshness in exchange for friendship and cooperation and more. Sort of like..."France, I know you are beating me. If I agree to surrender, will you agree not to choose to annex my lands?" Etc.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

keep playing, pretty soon, most of the provinces you pick up will be 0 or 1 Court level, in Path of Nappy, you looking at some 106 provinces you need, not counting what you take besides, and if your able to use all of your Textiles for Courts, you are not growing any of the rest of your provinces

Yeah, well Im particularly not looking forward to holding most of Spain to fulfill those conditions.

[Anthropoid]

When did Nature rate Wiki!?! THAT is awesome! [:D] I've been telling my colleagues for years that Wiki is the best first source for information; maybe now people will stop fearing new ways of sharing information.

[barbarossa2]

LOL... Anthropoid, I don't know exactly when it was.  Google it.  Britannica wanted to force a retraction and Nature refused.  Actually, I have to say that Nature rated the scientific articles.  So, I don't know how Wiki does on "history".  But if their science is up to snuff, I am guessing their history is too.

But I think this all happened around 18 months ago or so????

[dude]

Speaking of treaties… I always like the way Empire in Arms had conditional surrenders.  You could limit some of the terms.  But is seems in this game most people (including the AI) seem to be playing for the all out kill… so there’s very little point.  I’ve tried a number of times to ask for limited surrenders in this game but none have ever been taken and I don’t think I’ve ever been offered one (the AI always fights until forced to surrender.) 
 
I’d love to see more limited surrenders… I like to fight quick wars… then refocus on someone else… in this way I like the conditional surrenders in EiA.  I can fight someone and if winning offer them a chance at a conditional surrender if I think I’ve met my goals then quickly shift my forces against someone else.  If I’m losing then I hope my opponent feels the same way and is willing to accept a conditional before I end up losing everything.
 
I  never like playing the way the AI does (and it seems a lot of players…)  to the last man and grabbing every province in sight.  I just don’t like playing the Napoleonic period as if I was Hitler, Attila the Hun, or Genghis Khan.  But that’s just me.  I’m not out to conquer all of Europe…. Yet…[:D]
 
I can win and gain Glory points by fighting quick wars and switching enemies.  This usually keeps them off balance and generally gives me a little time in between wars.  I also don’t find it any fun once you’ve eliminated the armies of an enemy as they almost never have any time to rebuild and it’s just easy pickings from then on out and not just for me… it means my other opponents can pick on that carcass too.  I prefer to defeat them but try to leave them in a position to fend off others just to prevent the others from gaining from my work.
 
I feel something like a limited surrender that used/offered more often or something like EiA’s conditional surrender would be suitable for this style of play… but it would be worthless in the style the game seems to be aimed at right now.