David Lesouef
France
Ermont
Unspecified
-
In VQ, the Sue For Peace is not possible.
The risk is to make too irreversible military defeat, no? In HIS it was possible to rebuild after a big defeat. Not in VQ?
Also I see that most of the nations begins three keys to auto-victory. The game may not finish too quickly?
-
Jon Getty
United States
Goleta
California
-
I had an interesting discussion about this rule with a couple of Renaissance scholars... was the omission of peace suits meant to simulate the play-for-keeps politics of the latter 16th century, or was it a game balance issue.
-
Jon Getty
United States
Goleta
California
-
Our discussion with renaissance scholar geeks decided that that in the latter 16th century, monarchs continued to respect suzerainty (hence suits for peace on home spaces), while becoming more permissive on assassinations when the victim was a Protestant noble (e.g. Navarre & Orange were valid targets, but the murder of de Guise brought down the French crown). Similarly, Philip never wanted to annex England with the Armada, just change its ruler to a Catholic ally.
So our conclusion was something like suits for peace should be valid, but Protestants/English should only be able to sue to Catholics if the old ruler is made a prisoner when he does so.
-
Kristian Thy
Germany
Bonn
Nordrhein-Westfalen
Together, we are the United Nations
Gunulfr ok Øgotr ok Aslakr ok Rolfr resþu sten þænsi æftir Ful, felaga sin, ær warþ ... døþr, þa kunungar barþusk.
-
I think Ed's notes to the game say something to this effect:
- England and Spain can't sue for peace with each other. (If Spain's objective of putting a Catholic monarch on the throne succeeds, the game ends in a Spanish autowin anyway, so peace suit isn't relevant there.) The game is essentially about the Anglo-Iberian conflict; once they're at war they stay at war.
- HRE and Spain can't sue for peace with the Ottoman and vice versa. They were too antagonistic in this period for that to realistically happen.
- Spain and France can't make peace with the Protestant (similar to HIS). The religious conflict is a fight to the death.
And then, looking at it like that, there are very few powers left that would even be allowed to sue for peace. Simpler to remove the mechanic outright.
(Ed, correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth, but that's how I remember your argument going.  )
-
Ed Beach
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
-
Kristian's got it right. Once you get to a period where half the potential conflicts (and the clear majority of the LIKELY conflicts) could not be resolved by suing for peace, it no longer maked sense to include the mechanic in the game.
-
David Lesouef
France
Ermont
Unspecified
-
Thank you for your answers.
In any event, I trust you to make a balanced game!
I can't wait.... 
-
Kristian Thy
Germany
Bonn
Nordrhein-Westfalen
Together, we are the United Nations
Gunulfr ok Øgotr ok Aslakr ok Rolfr resþu sten þænsi æftir Ful, felaga sin, ær warþ ... døþr, þa kunungar barþusk.
-
judograal wrote: Also I see that most of the nations begins three keys to auto-victory. The game may not finish too quickly?
Just realized that this part of the OP was never responded to. I will say that, unlike in HIS, I haven't so far seen any "rampages" grabbing multiple keys in a single turn. There is much more emphasis on piracy, patronage and espionage.
-
David Lesouef
France
Ermont
Unspecified
-
turbothy wrote: judograal wrote: Also I see that most of the nations begins three keys to auto-victory. The game may not finish too quickly? Just realized that this part of the OP was never responded to. I will say that, unlike in HIS, I haven't so far seen any "rampages" grabbing multiple keys in a single turn. There is much more emphasis on piracy, patronage and espionage.
Good to hear that!!
Thanks.
-
Dan Moore
San Francisco
California
-
Hmmm. My first response was Of course one could sue for peace; then I started counting in my head. England didn't make peace until James took the throne; the Netherlands revolt took a break when a truce was signed in 1609; the Wars of Religion finished in 1593-1594, France and Spain signed a peace in 1598.
So yes, I agree with Ed's "Kristian's got it right. Once you get to a period where half the potential conflicts (and the clear majority of the LIKELY conflicts) could not be resolved by suing for peace, it no longer maked sense to include the mechanic in the game."
But there was an extended truce in the Mediterranean between the Ottomans and Spain, whatever the conditions for the Austrian Habsburgs; without that, the Netherlands Revolt may well have been decisively concluded. Had the Ottomans concentrated efforts against Naples or Sicily, Philip would have let both the Netherlands and England stay on the back burner. The Portugese were absolutely crushed.
Which leads to the third point: an Anglocentric view of the 16th century isn't, I have come to think, the correct one. Philip was willing to ignore Elizabeth's pinpricks and diplomatic endevours in Europe as long as they stayed unofficial. Placing a Catholic monarch on the throne wasn't germane to Spanish interests. Annexing Portugal, defending the Mediterranean, preventing Protestant Henry of Navarre from taking the French throne, thus guarding against French intervention in the Netherlands; all of these interrupted the fighting in the Netherlands at one time or another. It was the 1585 alliance with the rebel States that stirred him to action; and he would have been happy -- it is included in his instructions to the Armada - - even if he cowed England into withdrawing their intervention without a regime change.
Philip was correct in his estimations of his enemies strengths. England wasn't, and would never be, a threat to Spain. The Netherlands, however able to defend themselves they were, were unable to launch an offensive until the late 1500s. The Truce proceeded from an exhaustion of funds and the hope that treaties would exclude or limit Dutch trade interloping in the New World. The Spanish failed of this; the New World became the theater of conflict, the truce strictly limited to Europe.
And that is the final point against Anglocentric orientation: the English were tag-alongs in developing international trade. Let alone naval capabilities . . . I'm sure you realise I could keep going. Let it be a mercy that I do not.
-
Kristian Thy
Germany
Bonn
Nordrhein-Westfalen
Together, we are the United Nations
Gunulfr ok Øgotr ok Aslakr ok Rolfr resþu sten þænsi æftir Ful, felaga sin, ær warþ ... døþr, þa kunungar barþusk.
-
catmando wrote: But there was an extended truce in the Mediterranean between the Ottomans and Spain ...
Yes, and you are free to negotiate truces to your heart's content.
-
Jon Getty
United States
Goleta
California
-
The wars I'm wondering about are France-Spain, France-England, and to lesser extent France-HRE. France looks to be a difficult power to play... the Huguenots are going to pester you all game, and England and Spain may find it easier to raid your coastal & border keys than fight each other. I don't know if the HRE will get vp's for French keys, but if HRE can get a truce with the Turks, why not beat up France too? It seems like all of these could (historically) be settled with peace suits...(although France might have had to give back Calais/Navarre to get peace)
What mechanics prevent France from just getting picked to pieces? In HIS, the Haps were spread widely enough that they had to be careful how many fights they started. With Spain & HRE split up, it seems like each has fewer borders to defend, so they could be more aggressive.
-
Kristian Thy
Germany
Bonn
Nordrhein-Westfalen
Together, we are the United Nations
Gunulfr ok Øgotr ok Aslakr ok Rolfr resþu sten þænsi æftir Ful, felaga sin, ær warþ ... døþr, þa kunungar barþusk.
-
dr.mrow wrote: What mechanics prevent France from just getting picked to pieces?
The same as in HIS: four other players concerned with the increased VPs of the power rampaging through France.
-
Jon Getty
United States
Goleta
California
-
Hmm... I guess I view the Haps as the "power in the middle" in HiS, but they have the firepower to defend themselves, and enough to dismember their opponents if they can buy peace with one or two adversaries. Whereas with France in VQ, Spain and England are still enemies, but now the Prots and HRE both able to take French keys. Historically, that didn't happen, but France seems like easy pickin's here.
-
Kristian Thy
Germany
Bonn
Nordrhein-Westfalen
Together, we are the United Nations
Gunulfr ok Øgotr ok Aslakr ok Rolfr resþu sten þænsi æftir Ful, felaga sin, ær warþ ... døþr, þa kunungar barþusk.
-
Since Calais is in French hands in VQ, the enmity between England and France tends not to be as directly translated into military action as in HIS. Both powers lack a base of operations from which to launch an attack on the other. Add to this that France is generally pretty busy with Huguenot whack-a-mole plus England can get better ROI on piracy than war, and I think you'll find there is no immediate reason for Red to attack Blue. Especially not with Yellow's empire stretched thin for both of them to pick.
HRE attacking France should be a dream scenario for the Ottoman, who is fairly safely turtled in Southeastern Europe with the ability to SD almost to the gates of Vienna. Also, HRE gets bonus points for holding Ottoman territory, which gives them an incentive to look East rather than West.
-
Dan Moore
San Francisco
California
-
Two problems with historic-based games: The player, with benefit of hindsight, can 'do it right.' Which said, the result is not necessarily improbable. The Germans 'ought' to have been able to conquer Soviet Russia in their initial attack, for instance . . .
The second is ahistoric results arising from faulty modelling. The notion of a Holy Roman Empire in the 16th century operating as a concerted, organised entity isn't likely. They were a patchwork of tiny states and statelets, bishoprics, free cities, Hansard enclaves, divided by differing faiths, whose dearest aim was to be left to their affairs without Imperial interference. Which they were granted, owing to the relative weakness of the Emperor and their constant preoccupation with the Ottoman threat.
Less determinate, but important, is the variable of personality. Ferdinand was an easy going type ruler as far as the Empire was concerned. That the Habsburg could never influence the course of affairs in the Empire was given the lie by the Thirty Years War; a policy arising directly the character of it's then-emperor. In game terms, the HRE would be without ability to expand their borders; the Austrian Habsburgs could either intervene in France, fight the Ottomans, reconfigure the Empire, or assist Philip in Italy and/or France.
As Kristian says, France was deeply distracted by internal affairs; England was ruled by a woman who hated the notion of war, of which she saw one certainty: They cost enormous amounts money. And, once again, it was Spain in the abstract and the Netherlands in the specific that England was concerned with.
In game terms, however, playability is key.
-
Jon Getty
United States
Goleta
California
-
turbothy wrote:
HRE attacking France should be a dream scenario for the Ottoman, who is fairly safely turtled in Southeastern Europe with the ability to SD almost to the gates of Vienna. Also, HRE gets bonus points for holding Ottoman territory, which gives them an incentive to look East rather than West.
Ah. That was the rule I was probably missing. And I suppose the Prots will be more of a thorn in the Spanish side than the French as the Dutch keys are worth more to the Prots.
-
|
|
Posted Tue Nov 8, 2011 5:57 pm
