AltHist-A: Shall We Try Again?

[Randomizer]

Posted as me:
I have no objection to an adjustment that would level the playing field as far as the Glory penalties is concerned and see no reason for Austria to profit from this undeserved bonus relative to the other Powers.  However I can only speak for myself and accept Mus's royal marriage solution and take the same relative Glory hit as the others.  Please advise if there is something you need me to do, sign or submit.

[Marshal Villars]

Vaalen, thanks for your understanding. You know, I recently opened up my email and had almost 20 diplomatic emails in there--and that is while AltHist was DOWN! ROFL.

I think what will happen with AltHist is that the day after I send my turn in, I must take the day off to deal with purely the other WCS project. And on the second day I can get back to the AltHist game.

[Marshal Villars]

Posted as Poniatowski, First Consul of the Polish Commonwealth

In order to maintain our good standing in the international community, Poland is working to abide by the Breslau for Saxony agreement which ended the war of the Saxon Crisis. Though the simply COG:EE solution would have been to directly transfer Saxony in exchange for Breslau in a single treaty, the AltHist house rules expressly prohibit the transfer of protectorates (with a few notable exceptions). To honor the peace settlement, Prussia has transferred Breslau to Poland with a treaty. With this turn's orders, Poland has released Saxony as a protectorate. This will allow Prussia to declare war on Saxony again in the near future. At that point we will make sure we have our PBEM policy towards Prussia set to non-aggressive so that we do not again end up with the Saxon protectorate. Poniatowski, First Consul of the Commonwealth of Poland also respectfully asks those nations neighboring Saxony or with interests in Germany to discuss with Prussia their PBEM settings in order to allow for the internationally agreed upon transfer of power to take place without any additional war.

Poniatowski
First Consul of the Commonwealth of Poland

P.S. Please note that there are no RULES concerning anyone's PBEM policy in this matter and this message is purely diplomatic and is not considered to be a requirement of any kind pertaining to the house rules for AltHist.

[terje439]

I'll do my turn tomorrow, can finally sit down for more than 3 minutes and breathe at the same time [;)]

[terje439]

replied at last

Terje

[Anthropoid]

RusDone Turn 5

[Anthropoid]

RusDone turn sent. Appreciate the Austro-support. Okay with whatever solution you guys wanna try as far as the glory bug.

About the exchange of protectorates between Prussia and Poland: I glanced back at HR 3.0 and I can't say I understand why this is a legitimate exception to House Rule 3.0, nor why there was this house rule in the first place, nor why so many exceptions to it? Which raises another question for me: why bother with all these house rules if we are just going to formulate exceptions to them on an as needed basis?

A related point: the house rule about not declaring war while occupying, as phrased at present is not as effective as it could be. It should state that you cannot DoW a nation when you have any units that start a turn occupying the nation.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

About the exchange of protectorates between Prussia and Poland: I glanced back at HR 3.0 and I can't say I understand why this is a legitimate exception to House Rule 3.0

It isn't a legitimate exception, because HR 3.0 doesn't forbid liberating a protectorate in any case.

Perfectly legal to liberate a protectorate and have somebody else attack it, which is what is taking place here. The only thing forbidden about liberation in 3.0 is to liberate and then attack within a year in order to make the protectorate be a fully conquered province.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

A related point: the house rule about not declaring war while occupying, as phrased at present is not as effective as it could be. It should state that you cannot DoW a nation when you have any units that start a turn occupying the nation.

Agreed. I lobbied for simpler wording, that would have stated just that, but apparently some of the circumstances this rule was intended to prevent wouldn't have been covered the way I asked it be written? Marshall Villars can clarify exactly what it was.

[Anthropoid]

Well, my apologies if I'm being a bonehead here, and law is certainly not my area . . . but as I understand it, the deal being discussed is to transfer a protectorate from one player nation to another. True, technically that would be achieved by liberating it so that the other guy can then take it, but the end result is the same: transfer of protectorate. My understanding of the house rule is that this is contrary to the spirit, if not the wording of it.

3.0 Protectorate Abuse Prevention
Prevents the transfer of whole protectorates or even portions of protectorates to other players at any time. Exceptions include several Spanish and Austrian territories at the beginning of the game and the regions of Wurzburg, Salzburg, Malta, Palatinate, Kleves, Berg, Malta, Corfu. See rules for details on these exceptions.

Not trying to be nasty here, just saying how I see it. You guys are to be commended for discussing it openly before you do it, but since you have been so transparent as to do so, I'm just being transparent too. It seems to be using a loophole to legitimate an exception to the spirit of the house rule.

Now, if Poland and Prussia will allow Austria to take the protectorate after Poland liberates it, that would be a different story I guess [:D]

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Well, my apologies if I'm being a bonehead here, and law is certainly not my area . . . but as I understand it, the deal being discussed is to transfer a protectorate from one player nation to another.

Transferring would be using cede or lend province clauses to directly transfer territory of a protectorate or the entire protectorate to another power.

Liberating a protectorate is not forbidden ANYWHERE in the text of the rule. The only thing that is forbidden is for the liberating power to invade within 12 months of liberation.

In this scenario Poland isn't even invading the protectorate, Prussia is.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

It seems to be using a loophole to legitimate an exception to the spirit of the house rule.

Quite the opposite, the only circumstance in which invading a liberated protectorate is forbidden is specifically defined in section 3.3.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Now, if Poland and Prussia will allow Austria to take the protectorate after Poland liberates it, that would be a different story I guess [:D]

How so? You are basically taking the position, over a week after the idea was first discussed publicly and agreed to by all parties involved I might add, that liberation+invasion by a 3rd party of a now independent minor=transfer.

Why would it matter who was invading the land, unless Poland was invading which would be a violation of section 3.3?

Again, where in the rule is liberation of a protectorate forbidden? It is transferring ownership of protectorates or their individual provinces through cede or lend province clauses that the rule is meant to address.

The only time liberation is mentioned it is to specifically state that a power can't invade within 12 months a protectorate it has liberated.

If something isn't against the rules it is legal. So since liberating a protectorate and sitting by and allowing a third party to invade a newly independent minor power isn't against the rules it is legal.

[Anthropoid]

A week? As far as I can tell this is the first time Villars posted anything about it 6 Oct at 12:33PM.

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

Hey guys.

A few issues we need to deal with in this game. . . .

2) The fact that Poland and Prussia have come to an agreement which adheres to the house rules of "not tranferring protectorates". This would entail Prussia transferring Breslau to Poland in a treaty and Poland releasing the Saxon protectorate. Prussia can then conquer it and I will make sure not to have "aggressive policy" set towards Prussia. However, other players may. While it is no player's obligation to set their policy to "non-aggressive", the Polish First Consul, Poniatowski asks the international community to respect the nature of the war ending settlement which was reached in this matter. . . .

If there is a consensus that this method of settling the Prusso-Polish war is okay, despite the fact that it de facto constitutes transferring a protectorate from one nation to another--which the house rule specifically says is to be prevented--I will go along with the majority. So far the only folks I see talking about this in the public forum are me, you and Villars.

Like I said, I don't understand why we needed the house rule in the first place. I just hate to see house rules get treated like they are amendable, unless of course there is a simple majority if not a unanimous quorum in agreement.

Liberating a protectorate is not forbidden ANYWHERE in the text of the rule. The only thing that is forbidden is for the liberating power to invade within 12 months of liberation.

*sigh* Are you an attorney Mus?

It is not the liberating of the province which constitutes a breach of the spirit of the House Rule. It is the liberating of the province, explicitly with the intent to allow another party to invade and take control of the liberated province as a part of an agreement to reconcile a state of war. This is exactly the sort of "spineless" and unrealistically casual diplomacy toward minor powers which the house rule was intended to prevent.

I'm not saying any players in this game are "spineless," but if the monarch of Poland were to release Saxony from its protection, just so Prussia could invade and conquer it, that would have been a spineless if not duplicitious foreign policy action. We are all just gamers, trying to do what we think is in our best interest as far as winning goes.

[Marshal Villars]

Hey guys. Concerning Saxony...

What is forbidden is the transfer of protectorates. Not their release. I am simply releasing it and won't be protecting it. Which is different than saying, "Saxony, you came to me for protection and now I will incorporate you into the Prussian Kingdom with the stroke of a pen."

I will clarify the posted house rule if it was not clear enough.

However, I would have NEVER accepted a treaty which would have simply exchanged Breslau for Saxony, as this is expressly against the rules. I informed the Prussian player of this problem as soon as we began discussing the issue.

I guess this is why this is a "playtesting" game. Because there will be situations which come up that no amount of writing rules in a vacuum could have predicted.

I feel comfortable that telling a minor country you are not protecting it anymore is not "unrealistic". But transferring it directly to another country to be incorporated is unrealistic. This release of Saxony by me may not go so well. Prussia still has some issues to worry about. For instance, maybe Saxony will become someone else's protectorate? This makes the solution an acceptable one and much more realistic than the old solution of treaty transfer and immediate incorporation.

I have to make it clear that NO ONE is obliged under the rules to NOT take Saxony as a protectorate if it is invaded again. Not even me. But I will honor my international agreements and won't check the "aggressive" box for Prussia.

So, now Saxony is released to fight on its own if invaded. However, I do see why someone might be confused as to the interpretation of the "prohibition of the transfer of protectorates" issue. I really do (hell, I even loosely called it a "transfer" in my posting as Poniatowski above--now removed for clarity). But I hope this helps people understand what I am thinking. And I will make sure to revise the text in the living house rules. I also hope most people agree that telling Saxony I won't protect it anymore is much more realistic than the vanilla solution of drafting a treaty which hands it over to Prussia and makes it a part of her without any problems at all. It is simply that massive violation of logic which I wanted to avoid in the game. The protectorate transfer CoG:EE loophole is being massively exploited in my other PBEM game, "GoingAgain". I am Sweden and have picked up Poland as a protectorate. But I have given half of it to my Austrian allies--without so much as a whimper from Cracow. Ridiculous.

[Marshal Villars]

By the way, is everyone's turn in?

[Anthropoid]

DESIGN NOTE: To experiment with preventing the abuse of protectorates which goes on in many PBEM games. The assumption is that minor nations come to you because they want protection and they want to maintain their independence. They don't come to you so that they can be traded, partitioned, and incorporated into other nations wholesale.

Maybe what the house rule should really say is: you cannot "liberate" protectorates?

You have explicitly stated that what you are doing is liberating Saxony in order to allow Prussia to be able to take control of it. This constitutes an indirect transfer of the protectorate, and vis a vis your design note, a breach of the diplomatic relationship between Poland and Saxony, i.e., Saxony agreed to become a Polish protectorate in order to maintain their independence. Liberating it so that Prussia can take control if it would constitute the end of Saxon independence. True it is not a direct transfer, but given that this action has been talked about as a specific term for the reconciliation of a state of war, it does de facto constitute an agreement to allow Prussia the opportunity to take control of a protectorate in exchange for a cessation of contestation of a province which they lost to you.

At the end of the day the result is (most likely) to be the same as if the protectorate was exchanged by the stroke of a pen, so the way I see it: why bother with the house rule at all? My understanding of your reasons for the house rule were that you thought it was unrealistic for a major power to transfer protectorates to other major powers? I'm guessing that you thought this because there is a lack of actual examples of this happening in history?

If there are specific examples from the period of nations doing what you are doing: "liberating" (which in actual fact might have meant "abandoning") a protectorate during a time of war as a basis for reconciliation of hostilities, after which the former enemy nation DoWed the former protectorate, then I guess what you are doing is no more unrealistic than the vanilla rules were in the first place. But if there is not such an example, then might I suggest you are just slipping through a loophole in your own house rule?

To me, I didn't see that house rule as having been that important in the first place.

[Marshal Villars]

Oh. I don't mind the liberation of protectorates. What the rule is really designed to do is to prevent a protectorate from being carved up and handed out without them saying anything about it.

Again, to me, "liberating" a protectorate is just like me telling them--"Look, it was nice while it lasted, but we cannot put our throat on the line for you guys anymore."

I do HOPE that Saxony gets to keep their army after my liberation.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

A week?

More than a week.

This was posted on Page 9 of this game thread 10-20-09:

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

Poland is willing to accept a joint ruling from France and Britain on the matter in Prussia.

Our initial demands were reasonable. We have offered a settlement to Prussia which would cease all conflict immediately. And we will now offer a slightly modified deal:

1. All Prussian forces are to stay put where they are at currently.
2. Prussia and Poland agree to a cease fire. (This was previously a demand to have Prussia surrender, but has been altered for this posting as a new offer)
3. Prussia gains Saxony and Lusatia by having Poland release them as a protectorate and allowing Prussia to invade unhindered.
4. Poland gains Breslau (as initially indicated and decided on by most in the international community, this would have been fair-- before Poland took on tremendous risk in an operation to save what was rightfully 100% POLISH Saxony). As part of the deal, Poland also gains the province of Silesia as compensation for the war which was literally forced upon us (note that Silesia is not a Prussian home land according to the house rules--and it is illegally pilfered land in Prussian possession for 50 years at this point).

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

*sigh* Are you an attorney Mus?

No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night. I would view the House Rules specifically like criminal law. They narrowly define what is illegal. Situations that are similar but outside the definition of a criminal act might look hinky but be legal.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

It is not the liberating of the province which constitutes a breach of the spirit of the House Rule. It is the liberating of the province, explicitly with the intent to allow another party to invade and take control of the liberated province as a part of an agreement to reconcile a state of war. This is exactly the sort of "spineless" and unrealistically casual diplomacy toward minor powers which the house rule was intended to prevent.

My understanding of the intent of the house rule was to prevent the completely secure carving up of large protectorates between multiple parties and the protecting power.

No power would agree to have half it's territory sold or traded off by it's protector. It would rebel or cancel the protectorate/protector relationship from it's end. So doing that is forbidden, except under specific circumstances where history has shown certain provinces were more easily severed from the parent body.

In this circumstance there is no protecting power. The proctorate/protector relationship ends with liberation. And there isn't guaranteed security in this arrangement either. Other power's could set aggressive to Prussia and gain Saxony as a protectorate if they wanted to.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

By the way, is everyone's turn in?

I hope so.

Need to get some turns in.

[:@]

[Marshal Villars]

I wish we could use the mod file I am about to post for this AltHist, but I don't even know if it is possible. Is there any way? If we install it on the Spanish player's computer in the 1792 scenario file will it be used?

It will include:
1) Much more accurate forage values
2) More accurate snow patterns in the Alps and other high lying regions of Europe
3) More accurate supply points
4) More accurate superfortress placement

Would anyone be against trying this if it were possible? On this one, if anyone says no, I will be happy to accept that. However, AltHist is about trying to deliver the most realistic experience possible. And I think with the new mod, we will be a step closer to that. Things will be harder for some players, easier for others, and operations in some regions will be more expensive. But I think it is a good mod.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

I wish we could use the mod file I am about to post for this AltHist, but I don't even know if it is possible. Is there any way? If we install it on the Spanish player's computer in the 1792 scenario file will it be used?

It will include:
1) Much more accurate forage values
2) More accurate snow patterns in the Alps and other high lying regions of Europe
3) More accurate supply points
4) More accurate superfortress placement

Would anyone be against trying this if it were possible?

Why not just make a new scenario folder and start a new game AltHistB?

[Marshal Villars]

In addition to AltHistA?

That would be a bit much for me. I am swamped with two PBEMs when they are actually running.

However, I see what you are suggesting. I should make a whole new scenario folder and if everyone installs it, we should be able to play (assuming there are 8 people willing to play AltHistB).