1792 No frills PBEM

[montesaurus]

The TU and Fr files have been reposted! Let me know if there is a problem, as I'll be close to my comuter this PM.

[Mus]

How does everyone feel about a house rule vote about Insurrection?

fb.asp?m=2170984

My observations from "Another PBEM" and you can scroll down to read corroborating testimony on the part of lenin and IronWarrior from the same game that this particular game mechanic is really out of whack.

We are really early in this game so would request we consider a vote on implementing this rule:

No insurrection missions against a human power. Insurrections and coups still permitted against AI controlled minors.

The chances of success, ability to defend against it, risk/reward balance, etc are are all seriously unbalanced currently. I hope the developer will address the issue in the next patch. Its so bad I may consider a seperate petition type thread about it.

[montesaurus]

Not having played the game long enough I have no accurate opinion on this, but if the other players feel it unbalances things I'm ok without using the insurrection function of the diplomat.

[Mus]

So we are waiting on Sweden and then Spain to do his turn and merge for T12?

[and2]

We are waiting on Sweden and then me combining the turn.
 
Concerning the matter of the insurrection missions, my vote would be a yes to making a house rule that states "No insurrection missions against a human power. Insurrections and coups are still permitted against AI controlled minors."
 
It seems unbalanced at the moment and a potential game spoiler in a PBEM game.

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Monte, have you passed on B2s instructions for Sweden?

Andrew is normally very good on returns so I'm thinking maybe he's waiting on instruction.

Just a Thought

PS, you have a new Nickname 'Mouth of Suron' (from LoR) [:D]

All the Best
Peter

[Mus]

Ouch?

[montesaurus]

Hi Peter,
Mouth of Sauron! Nice touch. No I hav'nt heard from the Swedish player in the last couple of turns.

[and2]

All set, just waiting for Sweden

[and2]

Turn 12 processed, Poland is getting carved up piece by piece

[Mus]

Guys please chime in with your vote for an insurrection house rule. Only 2 votes for far (I dont know isnt a vote montesaur).

[montesaurus]

I vote we not use the insurrection function of the Diplomats! Though it places the peaceful non conquering Turkish peoples at a disadvantage in not being able to use this function! [;)]

[IronWarrior]

You already have my opinion on the matter, I'm for the house rule.

[Mus]

French turn again turned in with the report file in a text format inside the email instead of attached as a .rep file.

[Mus]

Epic fail monte. Still didnt attach the .rep file correctly.

[:-]

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Fraid I'm the odd one out, but obviously I will go along with the majority decision.

However my own personal opinion is dead set against the introduction of ‘House rules’ except where it involves a recognised Bug or involves an issue that gives clear advantage to 1 nation.

My reasoning is this is “a game” and any problems with game play that do occur should be flagged for the Devs to sort out in the next patch in the meantime the probs affect everybody so just get on with it, faults and all.

As I understand it, there are random elements built into the game whereby seemingly shocking events do take place, eg Movement will not always go as you plan, Trade deals will not always go as you plan, Ships will not always go to sea when you order them to, Diplomatic actions will not always come off as planned etc. etc.etc.

But, because there is a random element in the game some events may well come on top of each other, in the case of Insurrections & Coups nobody has seen fit to mention that there is also long, long periods where Diplomats fail time after time after time to pull anything off, also it is simply not true that there is no defence against it, eg set a Diplo to Expel/capture in sensitive provinces, of course that does mean that they can’t be used elsewhere doing glamorous stuff to ‘Reduce Moral’ or ‘Charm’, but then IMO diplomatic actions should not only be seen as offensive but defensive as well, cope with it it’s part of the Game.

But, and it’s a big But, my biggest objection to setting unnecessary ‘House Rules’ is that you set president for the introduction of HR’s further down the line when someone finds their craftily conceived concept doesn’t work, then they too want a HR as well, and then you have gaming time taken up by various discussions for & against till it devolves to the ludicrous situation of, “Voting”, on who is to be ‘Judge’ to monitor the new HR; some of you may think this farfetched, well, it’s already happened once!

Again merely my personal opinion but I want to play the game, warts and all, not get involved in time wasting bickering ‘Rule by Committee’.

Right folks, Rant over, ... guess it's now time for me to get a new nickname, how about ... “Lonely” [:D]

PS Though it places the peaceful non conquering Turkish peoples at a disadvantage in not being able to use this function! Monte raises a good point here in that it is again the smaller nations that get disadvantaged ie the complete opposite of what this game was trying to do, give the little guys a chance.

All the Best
Peter

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

PPS to the above, just found this from ericbabe on another Thread, it maybe helps put the Inserection thing in perspective, note the penelties involved.

I like the idea of only one insurrection per turn per minor -- it's just a little tricky to figure out which diplomat to allow to have that chance. I suppose we could search all the diplomats in the region and only allow the one with the best stats to have a roll.

Remember there is a penalty of -50 attitude with every minor power in the game for a failed insurrection attempt. We've been talking about adding a glory penalty on top of this, and possibly of giving the attempt itself a monetary cost, or perhaps a chance of one.

I think there's enough precedent in the period to justify diplomatically-motivated insurrections, though they shouldn't be as common as some people are describing on this thread -- I'd originally had in mind maybe 3 or 4 successful insurrections per game.

For instance, the insurrection attempt in Amsterdam in 1794 was motivated by French revolutionaries and organized with French assistance.

Stein and Gneisenau planned Prussian insurrection attempts against the French with British assistance in 1808, and engaged in "most careful and secret diplomatic preparations" with Austria, and they received secret funds from the British Foreign Secretary toward this. George Canning also tried to engage Russia to provide secret support for the Prussian insurrection. Stein was impressed with the Spanish resistance against French occupation and was attempting to replicate Spanish guerrilla-style insurgency against French occupied Prussia.

The British gave assistance to the insurgents in the Vendee for years.

Hofer's Tyrolian insurrection started with secret talks between Hofer and Archduke Johann in January of 1809.

I believe that Schill, who lead the 1809 insurrection attempt in Westphalia, had been in secret communication with Austria as well.

I'd also classify Murat's defection following an agreement with Austria in 1813 as a COG:EE-style insurrection. Murat also tried to regain power by holding an insurrection in Calabria.

William Hill, the British minister in Cagliari, worked with Alessandro Turri to promote insurrection in Sardinia.

The British and the Austrians had many clandestine plans for fomenting insurrection in Italy. The British funded many insurrection attempts in Italy, Dalmatia, and Tyrolia that came to no effect. They had so many failed attempts that the British began to give up home of funding a successful insurrection in Italy. Lord Bentinck, a British general, was dispatched as a diplomat to Sicily with the secret mission of attempting to foment an insurrection there. Bentinck traveled all around the Mediterranean, officially as a British diplomat, but all the while secretly engaged in attempting to foment anti-French insurrection. In 1810 Bentinck provided Francis d'Este with £100,000 (which I believe is about .5% of the entire British GDP for that year) to support an insurrection in Illyria and Corfu.

The 1813 Dutch insurrection was supported by 25,000 muskets smuggled from England and propaganda printed in Prussia.

Anyway, I don't think it's at all a-historical to have diplomats attempting to foment coups in conquered territory. A diplomat with a box of cash and maybe some smuggled muskets could, in fact, do what "special forces" often could not do.

All the Best
Peter

[timurlain]

Hello,

I can feel Kingmaker's pain. The more rules are in place outside the hardwired rules in the game itself the more problems. Who will check how many inserrections a month is another player doing ? What is the penalty if you make a mistake and forget the house rule (let's say you are playing a turn for someone else).

I think I would benefit more from the rule in place than not and I kind of object it. OTOH I will not make big fuss even if you apply the rule.

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

OK then, "Lonely (ish)" [:)]

All the Best
Peter

[montesaurus]

Peter makes some good arguments.I would like to change my vote to a let's use the insurrection rule. His arguments are good.
It does'nt make sense to conquer a dozen minors, and not have to worry about your enemies fomenting revolution.
If your going to rule the world you need to keep something around to keep things in order!

IN regards to my being unable to post the REP files. I'm not sure whats going on. I'm afraid I might have a Malware, because 95% of the time I try to attach a file my DPS comes up(data protection service) and cancels the load, and shuts shuts me down. I will take my computer in today to get it checked out.
I do believe that Barbarossa2 will hopefully be up and running, so will try to contact him today to do my turn.
Ill keep you posted.[&:]