1792 No frills PBEM

[timurlain]

Prussian turn 30 in. I do apologize for being latest, but I have been quick previous and it is the weekend and I wanted to spend some time away from the humming noise of computers and the virtual worlds

[Marshal Villars]

I would like to have these voted on discussed. Each player should have a veto over any change, giving any one player explicitly opposed to a change a chance to continue playing vanilla...

See my discussion above for the rationale behind the proposed votes. As some of you may know, I am on a mission from God and am doing some play-testing here. I would like to try some of these variants out if possible. If not, that is fine.


Possible House Rule One
1a) The transfer or splitting of protectorates is to be TOTALLY disallowed through the method of treaty transfer. The single exception to this treaty transfer prohibition is an enforced peace treaty, where any nation being forced to accept terms can have portions of protectorates or whole protectorates stripped away from it. Kingmaker would be the sole interpreter of the rule to avoid committee decisions which slow the game down.
OR
1b) The transfer of WHOLE protectorates through the method of treaty transfer is to be allowed under the condition that the recipient IMMEDIATELY create a protectorate with the received provinces (instead of keeping it as a conquered minor). Partial protectorates may not be transferred with this method. The single exception is an enforced peace treaty, where any nation being forced to accept terms can have portions of protectorates or whole protectorates stripped away from it. Kingmaker would be the sole interpreter of the rule to avoid committee decisions which slow the game down.
EITHER option 1a or 1b can be adopted, but not both.


Possible House Rule Two
2a) If a nation liberates a protectorate and declares war on that protectorate within two years of liberation, that nation must surrender all of its protectorates on the turn thereafter. Kingmaker would be the sole interpreter of the rule to avoid committee decisions which slow the game down.
OR
2b) If a nation liberates a protectorate it may not declare war on it for 2 years PERIOD. Kingmaker would be the sole interpreter of the rule to avoid committee decisions which slow the game down.
EITHER option 2a or 2b can be adopted, but not both.

Again, because both of these rules proposals would appear to affect Kingmaker more than others, I am especially interested in his veto if he would like to apply it.

I would have liked a vote/discussion before I entered my last turn, as it would have had an impact on my actions, but since I am only here to learn/take notes and not to WIN WIN WIN, I can wait until I submit the next turn.

[Mus]

I don't like the house rules particularly.

I would like to see it be possible to cede a protectorate, but the ceding power have the rest of the protectorate go into unrest and possibly spawn some "X Revolt" guerilla units where X is the ceding country. That would be a patch solution or solution for a new game, not a house rule.

[Marshal Villars]

Mus, I agree that there are better and more realistic ways of dealing with it.

If you want to say "veto", just say "veto". Everyone has the right of course. And there will be no hard feelings.

I am just interested in avoiding some serious abuse potential.

[Mus]

Well, you still need adjacent territory. So there can't be that much abuse.

I would say veto, just because I don't like those particular solutions.

[Marshal Villars]

Well, we have one veto. And that is enough.

However, after you made the following statement, it is confusing why you would choose to veto:

"A Protectorate is a fairly defined legal phenomenon. A protecting power handing over portions of the protected country should either suffer a massive glory hit or just lose the protectorate. Some kind of mechanism where insurrection would result and guerillas would spawn and troops have to be brought in to quell the uprising might be needed, or perhaps that is more work than it is worth and it just shouldn't be allowed."

Just curious. Can anyone give me an example in history of a nation handing away half of a nation which came to it for protection? Or even the whole thing? Outside of a forced peace treaty? I am curious. I am looking for examples of this behavior. And frankly, I can't find any.

In the late 1700s, Austria was looking to sell, swap, or trade the Austrian Netherlands, and found no buyers. But the Austrian Netherlands were actually part of the Habsburg family inheritance--not really a "protectorate", although shown as one in the 1792 scenario.

I am talking about cases where a fully independent nation basically becomes very closely allied to another, larger nation. And the larger nation says, "Hey, I have an idea, I think I will trade half of these lands to the Austrians/French/Ottomans/Russians and get some money out of the deal!". Any examples?

Mus did just make the point to me in a PM that Napoleon basically remade nations on a whim. Just curious is that an example of this? It might be, I don't know.

How can one work to prevent abuse, but allow people like Napoleon to do what he did? Is it a matter of glory being high enough--so that all of Europe is in awe at you?

[Mus]

Check out what Napoleon did during the period. I submit that the only real flaw is that the game doesn't model any penalties for that kind of behavior.

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

If I ain't replied to any Diplo stuff recently please bare with me, fraid with my present Work & Games commitments I'm feeling I'm running round like the little Dutch boy sticking my finger in Dams trying to stem the tide, it's not deliberate Bad manners on my part and I'll try to get some time cleared to respond in the near future.

But if you ain't heard from me in the next 24 hrs send me an "Oy! were's my answers then?" I won't take offence, it just may be your stuff has slipped under the Radar.

Again my apologies for any lack of communication on my part.

All the Best
Peter

[Marshal Villars]

Mus, I have checked out what Napoleon did at the time. I think the most interesting aspect of it is the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire and the creation of the Confederation of the Rhine.

I do PREFER your ideas on allowing it with penalties. But that is even more complicated.

[montesaurus]

Hi Guys,
I agree with Marshall Villers, that it's "very gamy" situation with the protectorate issue, I likewise don't recall ever reading about these things happening in history. But I think this is something the designer should address in the game, and consider changing(though not knowing much about programming I wonder if that would be huge amount of work?).
But, I prefer not adding house rules in mid game.

Personally, I don't like incorporating house rules in any game (if a game is that unbalancing or unplayable then I will find something else to do!). I've always felt that it's better to play the game as it's designed, even with it's flaws! You start a game with a house rule, and play half of the game, and if just one player forgets about the rule for a moment then it could mess it up and create problems/hard feelings for everyone! In addition, by changing rules, your really don't know, without play testing that house rule, what type of unbalancing effect it might have upon the game, later on!

If everyone knows about the flaws then we're all on the same playing field! It's when one player doesn't know about the rule due to inexperience with the game, and the other player takes advantage of that lack of knowledge is when hard feelings are created!
Even with this flaw I love COGEE, and can forget about the flaw! The nice thing about computer games is there can always be another patch to make things better!

And if Turkey gets a protectorate in Italy, I can guarantee you I will not give it up willingly![:D]

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

Mus, I have checked out what Napoleon did at the time. I think the most interesting aspect of it is the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire and the creation of the Confederation of the Rhine.

I do PREFER your ideas on allowing it with penalties. But that is even more complicated.

Well he also created the Duchy of Warsaw out of land taken from Prussia Austria and Russia and made it a French protectorate. The game system is a little too tight to allow that in most circumstances. In singleplayer I was able to do a work around where I sent a diplomat to insurrect a minor (galicia?) and conquer it and demand adjacent lands from there.

[:D]

[Marshal Villars]

I am unilaterally declaring adherence to a rule I will follow concerning protectorates, known as the PAVNPT. If anyone else wants to join me I would encourage it and would welcome you. If you like you can be a signatory to section I, II, III, IV, or V--you don't have to be a signatory to all sections. Note: these rules are nothing more complicated than anything anyone ever bumped into in Empires In Arms, so stop complaining! [:D]


THE PROTECTORATE ABUSE VOLUNTARY NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
Because of the nature of the way the game currently handles the transfer and division and conquest of protectorates, which some of us find not in keeping with historical flavor, we the signatories agree to abide to the following provisions:

SECTION I
Intended to prevent nations which came to you for their protection from being handed over to another nation and incorporated into it!
1. If a protectorate is transferred to us, we will immediately create a protectorate with the lands which result.
2. Exceptions to point 1 of Section I are made only as part of an enforced peace treaty, where the protectorates of any party which is having a peace imposed on it can be split, handed over, and incorporated as per the "vanilla" rules.
3. Additional exceptions to point 1 of Section I include:
a. The Kingdom of Naples and Sicily, Parma, and the Austrian Netherlands at the beginning of 1792 scenarios and until they are converted into conquered minors for the first time, after which they are treated normally. in 1792 these were part of the royal families' possessions (as the kingdom of Norway was to Copenhagen and Hungary was to Vienna) and every argument can be made that they should be treated differently than regular protectorates. Indeed, for much of the 1700s, Austria sought a buyer for their Austrian Netherlands. At the beginning of each 1792 game, we encourage the option of transfer-retransfer incorporation of Parma, the Kingdom of Naples, and Sicily to Spain due to the nature of their relationship historically which was much closer than that of a true "protectorate". In a similar manner, at the beginning of each 1792 game, we encourage the option of transfer-retransfer-incorporation of the Austrian Netherlands into Austrian territory for similar reasons. All other transfer-retransfer-incorporation is strictly frowned upon. Transfer-retransfer-incorporation is defined as the act of transferring a protectorate province to a friend or ally and having him transfer it back to you, resulting in the instant conversion of a protectorate into a conquered minor--once again, not exactly what a protectorate is your friend for!

SECTION II
Intended to prevent nations which came to you for their protection from being split up and handed to other people.
1. We refuse to accept portions of protectorates in regular treaty transfers. That is, when protectorates are transferred, they are transferred whole.
2. We refuse to transfer portions of protectorates belonging to us in regular treaties. That is, when protectorates are transferred to others, they are transferred whole.
3. Exceptions to points 1 and 2 of Section II: Are made only as part of an enforced peace treaty, where the protectorates of any party which is having a peace imposed on it can be split, handed over, and incorporated as per the "vanilla" rules.
4. Additional exceptions to points 1 and 2 of Section II include:
a. The Kingdom of Naples and Sicily, Parma, and the Austrian Netherlands at the beginning of 1792 scenarios and until they are converted into conquered minors. Because these minor nations were not properly protectorates, they can be treated as desired, including splitting them, ceding them in regular treaties, receding, and incorporation. To avoid confusion, provinces which are part of these nations should be transfered-retransferred-incorporated at the beginning of each 1792 game. All other transfer-retransfer-incorporation is strictly frowned upon.
b. Bavaria. The minor nation of Bavaria's lands of Palatinate, Kleves, and Berg were actually three independent entities which belonged to the same extended family that ruled the Electorate of Bavaria (Munich, Augsburg, Upper Palatinate). As a result, if Bavaria is a protectorate, Palatinate, Kleves, and Berg may be transferred individually as long as they become protectorates immediately after their transfer per PAVNPT Section I. For the purposes of PAVNPT Section II, Upper Palatinate, Augsburg, and Munich are considered to be ONE protectorate.
c. The Papal States. For the purposes of Section II, Wurzburg, Salzburg, and Malta are independent protectorates. While influenced by Rome, they were not politicially the same entity and Bishoprics could show surprising independence from matters in Rome. The three provinces of the Papal States in Italy (Rome, Ancona, and Romagna) are considered to be one unified protectorate for the purposes of Section II. As a result, Wurzburg, Salzburg, and Malta may be transferred individually as long as they become protectorates immediately after their transfer per PAVNPT Section I. For the purposes of PAVNPT Section II, the three provinces of the Papal States on the Italian peninsula are considered to be ONE protectorate.


SECTION III
Intended to keep people from adopting a tactic of liberating their protectorates and then attacking them without any consequences with their other protectorates.
1. If we liberate a protectorate and declare war on it it within 18 months of the liberation date, we will liberate all of our other protectorates on the following turn.

SECTION IV
Intended to let people know that "regular" provinces (non-protectorates) are always handled with vanilla rules.
1. Sections I, II, and III apply ONLY to protectorates and protectorate handling. If any of the regions above or other provinces in play are converted to conquered minor status in any way other than those prohibited by this agreement, they continue to be controlled normally and in accord with regular "vanilla" rules.

SECTION V
Intended to make sure people know they can keep playing vanilla.
1. We will respect those who continue to play vanilla. However, encouraging players to adhere to the PAVNPT as bargaining tools in the game can also be done--for instance, encouraging those around us to adhere to it through in-game means.

SECTION VI
1. We will do our best to play according to the spirit of the sections we have undersigned and if we are in doubt, we shall go to Kingmaker for voluntary, non-binding interpretation advice, whether he is a signatory or not. Additional clarification can be received from Marshal Villars--however it is in no case binding.

This is our code of honor and conduct.


Signatories of the PAVNPT:
Marshal Villars (Signatory to Sections I, II, III, IV, V, and VI)
King of France and protector of Genoa and Corsica

[montesaurus]

Turkish turn 31 is in!

[montesaurus]

Turkish, FR, PR, and RU are posted!

[montesaurus]

Just GB and AU to go!

[Marshal Villars]

Kingmaker, I agree with you on the gaminess of the quick surrender option. In fact, I have mentioned it to WCS several times.

Please see my posting under your surrender thread.

If you want to propose a house rule to use to keep its use down in this game, I will be happy to consider it.

However, I also feel we need to make sure that protectorate abuse doesn't run rampant.

[Marshal Villars]

Kingmaker:

The above "Historical" production also brings to mind the rather surprising anomaly that it is as often as not the people who bang on and on with great intensity about historical accuracy and ‘feel’ for the Napoleonic era who are the prime offenders in “Lets Surrender in case something awful happens.”

King,

If you have a concern about the historical accuracy of the game, suggest a house rule, we can debate it, and I can swing with it. I like to play with house rules which add to realism. And in my opinion, we need one here. I am just as concerned about the rational option of quick surrenders and I have written several emails and posts to Eric and Co. with included thoughts on this very issue. The fact that the rational decision in many situations is a quick surrender is a problem which should be addressed. However, I surrendered to you for PURELY one reason. To teach Prussia a lesson--namely that we don't like making plans for a year and then having the rug pulled out from under us with secret treaties. By showing Prussia I was willing to accept a British imposed peace over this single principle, I will have made my point rather strongly. (what you should be arguing for in the forum--in addition to a fix for the quick surrender--is a fix for the fact that everyone can see when you are slipping your wads of cash under the table to subvert our efforts! [;)])

In fact, I would have recommended a house rule for these things and have recommended changes to Eric and Co., including the fact that if you felt strongly about it you should be able to go back to war to keep me from attacking Prussia now--though I think the workaround would be virtually impossible. The point is that there is a mechanism for it in the game called the alliance...secret alliances and deals do not afford your friends protection against situations like this. It was THAT loophole that I am exploiting. Not the quick surrender. I was prepared to fight you for years. But when I want to teach a nation a lesson, why do it while fighting another?

But I ain't gonna fight just to be the nice guy--not if CoG:EE delivers a rational option of surrender. No one had even mentioned their concern about quick surrenders in here. How was I to know I wasn't the only person who didn't like it much. Coming up with a house rule for it will certainly be harder than adding some other house rules, so I figured "forget it." However, maybe we can introduce a "Quick Surrender Abuse Voluntary Non-Proliferation Treaty". If we can think of anything decent which will work within the framework of the game. Perhaps...just perhaps...players can't surrender until morale hits 200 or less? I don't know. But that would penalize players with high morale.

There are lots of "problems" in CoG:EE, but I won't be a nice guy about them all. I doubt, for instance, you will reduce your naval amphibious landing capacity to 35,000. It would be arguable that this was the British capacity historically. And I don't expect you to do this to be a nice guy without at least someone mentioning it first. And sure as heck not afterwards! [:D]

Again, this is all a game, and it is certainly entertaining, and now I am taking what I have learned here to make yet more suggestions for the effort I am working on. So, since this is Kingmaker's game, if you want to recommend any fast surrender house rules, I am listening. In the meantime, I hope that this has brought enough attention to the quick surrender debate that something gets done about it in the next patch!

[montesaurus]

I believe everyone is in except for AU![8D]

[montesaurus]

Spain advised me AU has also posted, so all have posted!

[DaveConn]

Turn 32 just sent out. 
 
Also:
1.   Spain intends to abide by the PAVNPT, and as a result intends to make Malta a protectorate.  However, Malta doesn't show up in the list of countries under Details on the Diplomacy screen, so I can't figure out how to do it.  Any hints?  Does it have something to do with the unrest in the province? 
 
2.   I am at war "Spanish Revolt", and there are Spanish guerrilla units in a couple of provinces.  Do I just move and attack them?  I couldn't find anything about "revolts" in the manual.  Again, thanks for any help. 
 
Your Ignorant Spanish Player,
King Charles