Online users
- Bill Otis
- kman
Revised fragmented states rules
September 14, 2009 - 3:33pm — Stephen Schmidt
I have put in the rules changes about creating new states. In brief:
Henceforth, only France can create new frags, and only to match the existing states. That is, if there is a Saxony, then France can create Revolutionary Saxony. But they can't redraw the map and no other major power can create a frag. (If France wants to do a Kingdom of Italy, they can create revolutionary states for several of the Italian frags and give them all the same monarch.) To do this, France has to be hostile to the target frag and control at least one-third of its cities (1 city for a 2- or 3-city frag, 2 for a 4- or 5- city frag). They appoint a new monarch in the usual way. If they want, they can appoint the old monarch to be the monarch of the revolutionary state. That way, if the Saxon monarch decides he wants to change sides, he can do it in two ways. One, he can keep his old non-revolutionary state and just sign an alliance with France. If he does this, he retains control of the original state but France can create a revolutionary alternative if they wish. Or, he can change to the Revolutionary state (but he has to do it under duress, since France has to be at war with him and hold one of his cities) in which case he commits to the Revolutionary side, France can no longer create a shadow state behind him, but he loses control of the original state. If he does that, then any other major or minor power which captures one of his cities can install a new monarch in the original state.
France can also do this in minor powers now, as they did in reality in Holland and Spain. They can't do it in major powers, since they didn't (not in Austria in 1805 or 1809, nor in Prussia in 1806), presumably because it was too difficult to establish and maintain a puppet in a really big rival state.
Original frags can no longer be destroyed - they can go zombie if their monarch switches to the Revolutionary state, but the zombie can be brought back to life under a new monarch. Revolutionary states can be destroyed if they have no city and either no units or no treasury.
On the flip side, there is also going to be a Bourbon state within France. Future rules changes will define its status and powers - for now I'll just say it starts as a British ally and Britain will pay a severe VP cost if they dump it.
Last, the scores of frags with the same monarch as a major power (eg Tuscany/Austria, Hannover/Britain, and I may let Prussia have a tame frag as well in the NWOL-3 setup along the lower Rhine) will be added to the scores of the controlling major power for scoring purposes. They'll still be tracked separately, but when the majors are ranked, Austria will be ranked on the basis of Austria plus Tuscany, and so forth. The scores of all revolutionary states will similarly be added to the French score.
Steve
This site is intended for the sole purpose of supporting the Players Guild an activity sponsored by the Historical Online Learning Foundation. It exists solely to provide a discussion forum for the members of the Guild and to provide an outlet for announcements of other services offered by the Foundation. Any other activities involving this site are prohibited. All rights reserved.
Who's new
- joequ1oeil
- koolguy66
- Sakkal
- David Adams
- rkimler
Can Frags still eat Frags?
I have been reading the new rules but could not find out if, for example, Saxony can still DOW Bavaria, conquer their cities and make them their own for the rest of the game (or until another German Frag takes it).
So can Frags get bigger by eating their buddies?
Marcelo
Frags eating frags
The honest answer is "less so than in previous games." Bavaria capturing a Saxon city is going to be more like Austria capturing it, and more like Bavaria capturing an Austrian city, than has been the case in the past. The main similarity is that the city will remain identified as originally Saxon, and only the Saxon player will be able to launch militia revolts. So in that sense the answer is no - Bavaria can capture a Saxon city and take the income, but it will remain an originally-Saxon city. The main difference is that Bavaria will be able to earn full income from the captured city, unlike Austria capturing it, or Bavaria capturing an Austrian city, where it'd be half income.
One issue (I think the only one) I have not yet resolved is the manpower one; whether Bavaria captures the manpower when it captures the city. I am certain it won't capture all of it immediately, as it did in the past; the city will retain at least some Saxon loyalty. On the other hand, it's easier for a German citizen to accept a new German monarch than to accept a French or Russian one, so it seems to me that Bavaria should eventually get part of the manpower, possibly with some delay. Details won't be fully resolved until I attack this in the code. However, this will be much more restricted than was the case in NWOL-2.
Steve
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
Manpower transfer when cities are captured
It turns out that NWOL-3 is much more complex in terms of manpower transfers than NWOL-2 was, for three reasons:
1) In NWOL-3 we're going to remember who the original owners of each frag city were, that is, we will remember that Dresden started out as a Saxon city.
2) Non-frag nations can still have two states; either the Bourbons and French, or for minor nations, the original government and the Revolutionary government.
3) Even frags now have the possibility of a Revolutionary alternate state; that is, Saxony and Revolutionary Saxony.
So the rule for manpower transfers at city capture time will be these:
A side is an original owner of a city if: in a non-frag nation, it's a state of that nation, or if in a frag nation, it's either the original owner or its Revolutionary twin. Thus, for Paris, France and the Bourbons are original owners, no one else is. For Dresden, Saxony and Revolutionary Saxony are original owners, no one else is, in particular, Bavaria is not.
When one original owner captures the city from another (Bourbons take Brest from the French, or Revolutionary Saxons take Dresden from the Saxons) the city's manpower is transferred from the losing side to the capturing side. If a non-owner captures it from an owner, the manpower is reserved and not available to either the capturing side or the losing side. If an owning side captures it from a non-owner, the reserve manpower goes to the capturing side. If a non-owner captures it from another non-owner, nothing happens - the manpower is already in reserve and it stays there.
So for example: Saxony owns three cities and has 30,000 manpower. Dresden is captured by the Bavarians. The Bavarians are not original owners, so they do not get any manpower. The Saxons lose 10,000 manpower, and that 10,000 manpower goes into the Dresden reserve. Next France captures Dresden from the Bavarians. This is from non-owner to non-owner, so no one gains or loses any manpower, the 10,000 stays in reserve. Next France transfers the city to Revolutionary Saxony. The Rev Saxons are the original owners, so the 10,000 manpower comes out of the reserve and is transferred to Rev Saxony. Let's say this is their second city and they have 12,000 manpower already. Now they have 22,000. Last, the Saxons recapture the city from the Rev Saxons. This is an owner to owner transfer, and the Rev Saxons have lost one of their two cities, so they lose 11,000 manpower and the Saxons get it back.
Owning states will be able to raise units at any time; non-owning states (eg, Bavaria in an originally Saxon city) will not be able to do so, neither regulars nor militia.
It seems to me that under some conditions, if Bavaria holds Dresden long enough, the city should become a Bavarian city rather than a Saxon one. I am thinking if they can hold it one full campaign, that might be enough. I am not sure whether I want to put this into NWOL-3, or save it for later. Any thoughts?
Steve
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
Loyalty is not really a factor
Steve,
Recruitment in this period was done in basically two ways.
1- Fight in our army or we make sure something really bad happens to you.
2- We have a nice shiny penny for you if you go shoot that guy over there.
Neither of these was based on which empire your city belong to in 1793.
When the French government issued conscription orders they applied to everyone the government considered to be part of the French Republic/Empire with no concern with the feeling of the Belgians, Dutch, Italians, Germans, Croats and so on. There was a quota and people had to fill it. End of story.
If you were recruiting soldiers for one of the professional armies, there was no reason that they had to live within your borders to hire them. The Austrian routinely recruited their soldier from the German states, since they were much more useful (speaking German and all) than many of the people that actually lived within the actual Austrian borders. It made economical sense too, since it didn't take anyone out of your economy.
You have to keep in mind that the idea of nationalism was brand new in this period. People tended to think in purely local terms. Which king was collecting the taxes and taking the young men was of little concern.
So basically what I am saying is that if we are reforming the way recruitment is being done, we should be making it easier for states to recruit from captured cities, not more restrictive. The status quo with Germans recruiting from any German city is more historical than the new manpower rules, in my opinion.
-Nick
Loyalty is not really a factor
Nick,
You're right about the history of this. Steve I'm sure would also agree.
However, I think this tweak is intended not to make the game more realistic but to improve game play. I believe it all stems from an assumption that without restrictions on the usefulness of captured cities, early unfettered aggression would be rewarded exponentially as captured territory could be immediately be put to use in continuing, snowballing, conquests.
Perhaps some day we will have realistic guerrilla rules to function in place of these rather less historic restrictions. But don't hold your breath. With all the work required to get ROTD up to speed, Steve's time is very limited and subject to pretty strict prioritization.
Jim
Jim Voege
But we are talking about Frags here
Jim,
Since this rule only affects Frags I doubt it will have much effect on the game as a whole. If the Swiss start getting out of hand the French can squash them in about 15 minutes. I can see a game play argument if the French could recruit troops in Vienna, but that really isn't the case here.
However, as the rules stand now, the French will have an easier time recruiting Germans, than the other Germans will. They can set up Revolutionary states that have full income and full recruiting rights, but are under French control. This will give the French an advantage over the other majors (which they may or may not actually need) but I think that the other frags should have the same rights as the French in this regard.
Otherwise, the distinction between frag and minor is essentially non-existent. We should just paint the borders on the map and have only a major/minor split.
-Nick
Distinction between frags and minors
I think the key distinction between frags and minors is going to be that within
Germany and Italy, frags can earn full income from other frags' cities, and over
time will be able to take full ownership - just not immediately as they had been
able to do in previous games. The rules for exactly how full ownership can be
taken will be settled ASAP, but realistically, not for a couple weeks yet.
Steve
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
But we are talking about Frags here
Nick,
Frags are huge. Vast manpower and income. *Each* of Germany and Italy are the equivalent of a major. And frag unity was a big deal last game so in some contexts it's proper to consider each of them as a whole.
In relation to using the frag income and manpower, the French won't have it any easier than they do now. It'll be about the same. The other states will have a toughter time though. Frankly that seems right. At least worth a try. Why should France have an easier time? Because historically they appeared to offer the ordinary subject/citizen something better than simply a change in autocrats. This is indeed an advantage that the French had over other frag states of the same nationality.
As to the disappearance of the distinction between frags and minors, I think you might be right but I don't see the problem in that. At least not yet. Because I have a feeling you'll explain it to me. :-)
Jim
Jim Voege
Frag unity
Jim,
I don't think there is anything wrong with merging the frags and minors either. Put Saxony on the map and call it a minor. Then you don't have to do any weird calculus to see if somebody is in your territory.
Now that Spain got move to a major the difference between the minors and frags is not that much.
-Nick
Frag unity
Ha. I suspect that the only real problem is that Steve has run out of crayons for colour coding. :-)
Jim (please note the correct spelling of colour) Voege
Jim Voege
Frag unity
Shouldn't this post be moved to the Canadian thread?
-Nick
Frag Unity
Better in the "Rest of the World" thread.
Jim
Jim Voege
Creating Frag states
It seems to me that under some conditions, if Bavaria holds Dresden long enough, the city should become a Bavarian city rather than a Saxon one. I am thinking if they can hold it one full campaign, that might be enough. I am not sure whether I want to put this into NWOL-3, or save it for later. Any thoughts?
Steve
1 city.... maybe if you can have a satisfactory time line to incorporate 'transfer of loyalty' this can be included in the rules to see if it can work as it might be the groundwork for more transfers of loyalty later on..... otherwise this should not affect the simulation.
One question:
When do revolutionary states and shadow governments get created? If I'm not mistaken a revolutionary 'Bavaria' could not be formed until an end of campaign season in previous games. Will this still be valid? If the conditions are valid for a revolutionary government will it have to be valid at the time of creation should the rule be at the end of a season?
Robert
Income Generation from Captured Cities Under the New Rules
Steve,
You spoke of transfers of manpower. What about the generation of income from captured cities? Might I suggest that if manpower is going to be made available to non-owners at some defined point should not at that same point the non-owner go from partial income to the city's full income value on the basis that if you can get their men, you can get their money?
Jim
Jim Voege
Implement it before NWOL3 starts
I like this modification to the game. I would like to see the "hold it long enough and it becomes yours" idea put into effect before NWOL3 (since we never know how long the game might go). One campaign seems good enough to me.
Rule about holding a city
I'd like to see a rule in place about holding a city long enough too. Particularily something that has a minimum limit time . In NWOL-II we had cities changing loyalties between the end of one campaign and the start of another. A fickle lot! Something substantial, full season plus the remainders of a current campaign perhaps ?
Bourbon rules are in
Contemplate NWOL rules 1.6, which has most of them, and 4.8, which imposes the penalty for losing control of the Bourbons (one-third of starting VPs). There is no Bourbon player; the Bourbons move automatically through a fixed list of the five non-French majors. If they run out before the game ends (I think very unlikely but possible) then they cease to exist. The Bourbons move if the host nation ever makes a peace treaty with France or if they are not at war with France for one game year (four consecutive seasons). This seems like a fairly strong rule - it virtually obligates Britain to go to war with France sometime in the first year of the game - but the war can be a phony one if the British wish it to be, though even a phony war will complicate their relations with France. The 1/3 of VPs penalty is pretty strong, but as we have learned, an alliance with France can result in a major gain of VPs to the major nation, so the penalty has to be strong to match.
As I wrote this I realized that I needed to add two clauses - the host nation cannot ally with France, and they are automatically allied with the Bourbons (though perhaps that last is not fully necessary). I'll add those shortly (but not tonight).
These rules are not set in stone, so comments are welcome.
Steve
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
Bourbons
I personally have a lot of reservations about this rule.
To begin with it does not seem to reflect history. If this rule was provided to history every major would gain and lose the Bourbons.
1802- Amiens. Bourbons move to Austria.
1805- Pressburg. Bourbons move to Spain.
1805- Spain is allied with France. (Not covered in the rules, but I assume the Bourbons would skip them. Would they lose the VPs?) Bourbons move to Prussia.
1807- Tilsit- Bourbons move to Russia.
1808- Russia not a war with France. Bourbons eliminated.
Although I haven't seen the specifics of the benefits of the Bourbons, so it may be premature to judge the penalties, I think the 1/3 VP penalty is very harsh. Losing the Bourbons may be unpopular for the government, but not nearly as unpopular as having the French capture London. That results in losing 200 VPs. Just for frame of reference.
If i was going to model the system based on VPs I would do it in the reverse. Instead of penalizing the British for not helping the Bourbons, I would reward the French for hurting the Bourbons. My reading of the diplomatic history of the period is not that the British had a disincentive to negotiate with the French, but rather the French consistently made unreasonable demands.
-Nick
Bourbons
Nick,
I agree but Steve is right about an overwhelming need to avoid Anglo-French alliances. I wonder if a simple rule -- Britain and France shalt not ally -- would be a satisfactory, if not "elegant" solution.
Jim
Jim Voege
Bourbons
Jim,
But this doesn't do that either. It would just mean that France would have to agree to send 600 VPs (or whatever) to the British as closing costs on the deal. If the British are content with second place they don't have to even get this. Then, the Austrians get stuck with the Bourbons, get smashed by the French/British and lose an extra 1/3 of their points. Repeat in Spain, Prussia and Russia. Game over. France 1st place, Britain 2nd place, then the others.
I don't like the idea of a blanket ban on alliances, since it presupposes a historical situation that might not exist as the game plays out.
What we need is a mechanism where France and the UK can't finish 1 and 2. When you are scoring entirely based on VPs then i don't see a way of actually doing that though.
-Nick
Bourbons
Nick,
I don't get you. There's nothing wrong with France and Britain scoring one and two. Or two and one. Suppose that Britain and France fight tooth and nails the whole game long. But France prevails and Britain finishes with the highest score of the other majors, ie. second. What's wrong with that? The order of finish is not where the evil lies. The evil is that they accomplish their standings by virtue of being allies.
I don't understand what you're saying about VP transfers.
I'm just wondering why there can't be a rule saying that Britain and France can not be allies. Period. Perhaps even hard code it. Wouldn't that accomplish at least most of what we're looking for here?
Jim
Jim Voege
Bourbons
There shouldn't be anything wrong by just punting....
list as a special rule for NWOL3 that Britain and France cannot ally and evaluate post game how it affected play and there is more time to study the rule to keep play somewhat balanced.
Robert
Bourbons
What is it about the British/French alliance that has everyone so worked up? An Austrian/French alliance would be much more powerful.
If you are going to mess with RAR (which I think is a mistake) then make it so no major can ally with France. That is much more historical than just picking on the British.
-nick
An Austrian/French
Actually this would be a problem if you follow the following argument.
If France allies with Austria, then the French can win by getting a VQ of Britain and two of Spain, Prussia and Russia. The logical choice of France would be Spain and Prussia - just easier.
I think a British/Spanish/Prussian alliance would be at a disadvantage to a French/Austrian/Russian alliance.
Therefore I would suggest the French winning conditions to be the four Continental majors or Britain plus two of the Continental majors, BUT THE TWO CANNOT BE Prussia and Spain (one of the two is OK).
The likely alliance would then be France/Austria/Prussia against Britain/Spain/Russia which seems to me to be more balanced - if we are trying to accomplish a balance situation.
John Vanvark
Bourbons
Nick
We've seen a Franco-Russian alliance. That created an interesting game. Franco-Prussian or Franco-Austrian would probably do the same. A Franco-British alliance however, was really weird and led to something that didn't look at all like history.
As far as pure gameplay, A combination of the strongest naval power and the strongest land power and vast financial resources makes it mandatory for Holland, Spain and Portugal to join this alliance. This gives the alliance about 2/3rds of the income on the board together with its other manifest synergies. A Franco-Austrian combination, for example, has much less wealth, little seapower and probably only draws in intervening frags, the most Italians being very vulnerable to enemy seapower.
Further, it would not be historical to forbid alliances between France and any major. Both Austria and Prussia were allied with France in 1812. Before that Russia was also an ally at least to the extent of its half-hearted participation in the continental system. Also, remember that Spain is now a major and it was allied with France for extended periods of time. The only major that never allied with France was Britain.
Overall, I'd say our focus on Britain is appropriate in all the circumstances.
Jim
Jim Voege
Bourbons
The notion that because it didn't happen it couldn't happen is a logical fallacy.
If Britain lost at Trafalgar and the French capture London, the French can't force the British to sign a treaty of alliance?
I personally have no issue with the concept of a French/British alliance. Nothing that happens in RAR has made any historical sense thus far. We either need a massive overhaul where everything has to make sense in the 1793 context or let it be non-historical free for all. I think half measures because something doesn't "seem" right will hurt more than it helps.
-Nick
Bourbons
The other line is that if you discard and start from scratch something that merely needed a tweak -- there too you have done more harm than good.
I suggest we work with what we know. We know that a more or less permanent alliance between Britain and France is not a Good Thing. We can therefore have reasonable confidence in the notion that if we inhibit that we will make an improvement to the game. The rest of it is all just speculation which if acted upon could be the proverbial medicine worse than the disease.
Jim (I actually think RAR works pretty well) Voege
Jim Voege
Bourbons
I think we should wait and see if the new "Britain is worth 2 out of 4 VQs" rule is enough incentive to keep the French and British at each other throats. This will mean that it can't be France/Britain/Spain alliance so a NWOL-II repeat won't be possible.
-Nick
Bourbons
What we need is a mechanism where France and the UK can't finish 1 and 2. When you are scoring entirely based on VPs then i don't see a way of actually doing that though.
This should be easy....... if the intention is that Britain and France can never ally; then state as British diplomacy was based on destroying the French Revolution, then if France wins Britain finishes last.
Robert
French victory
I would extend this to say that if France wins then everybody else finishes tied for last. Britain was no more anti-Revolutionary than everyone else (actually considerably less), they were just never forced into a siding with the French.
-Nick
Bourbon rules are in
I do not fully grasp the Bourbon concept. What is it really trying to accomplish? It fully seems that any Bourbon host state is in a straight jacket.
I do understand that the Bourbons were a force of political concern in this time; but in comparison to other factors in this time are they too politically powerful?
The Bourbons start under British control:
1.6. …British monarch who controls the Bourbon state normally, except that the Bourbons start the game at war with France, and may never make peace with France, nor ally with a nation allied to France. The British retain control of the Bourbons as long as they do not sign a peace treaty with France, are not vanquished by France, and do not spend one game year (four consecutive seasons) without going to war with France. If either of those things happen, the Bourbons change come under control of a new state
3.1 …The game begins in Spring 1793 with all nations at peace
Oops this statement must be false as the previous statement in 1.6 says the Bourbons start the game at war with France.
What does this do to the initial season? Bourbons are at war with France…. Thus there can never be a peace season or do the Bourbons not count?
If the Bourbons are a viable political force there will never be a peace or truce season.
4.8. A major nation that loses control of the Bourbon state loses VPs equal to one-third of its starting score.
This is a hefty penalty especially considering the following:
5.4. A nation which concedes a VQ by agreement loses 5% of its starting score if France does not hold a city of the nation giving the VQ, and by 2.5% if France does hold one or more cities of the nation giving the VQ. France gains the same number of VPs that the nation giving the VQ loses.
From the above:
A state, hosting the Bourbons, can never make peace with France once at war and can never be at peace for more than 4 consecutive seasons. Thus how does the host of the Bourbons prevent war exhaustion? The only unmentioned status is Truce. Is this what a state that has the Bourbons can do to not be at war with France? As the rule for Bourbon hosts also states that they cannot be vanquished..... is this to mean that a nation hosting the Bourbons that goes to war with France and loses pays the vanquished penalty and the penalty for losing control of the Bourbons?
We have several strong statements of penalties to a host for not going to war with France. What benefits are there for having the Bourbons as part of your home state does the host get? I can’t see anything listed.
Robert
Bourbons
The Bourbons are, indeed, intended at least partly as a straightjacket. There have been many concerns about the failure of the British to be anti-French in previous NWOLs. The Bourbons are a fairly strong incentive to the British to be anti-French. They don't compel the British to be anti-French, but they cause fairly strong complications if the British are not. This should have the effect of forcing the game into at least somewhat more historical channels. It still gives the British some options. They can delay their entry into the war if they want for up to a year (as they actually did for about six months), or they can have a paper war with the French without any active operations (as they did for some periods) or they can dump the Bourbons at considerable cost - not so much to the nation as to the government that did it, which would become very politically unpopular.
Will change rule 3.1 appropriately, and the question of a peace season is a good one. The Bourbons are not a separate state, so they would not request initiation of a campaign unless the controlling major wanted one. If the controlling major wanted one, they could request it themselves anyway, so I don't think we lose anything here. There are some possible shell games where a major which was not itself at war would be able to use the Bourbons to request a campaign it didn't have the ability to request itself, but I think that's not a big problem and it is a bonus you get for having the Bourbons, which as Robert noted are not so many.
But that is not the point. The Bourbons are intended to act as a constraint on their host nation which requires it to be more anti-French - really, anti-Revolution - than it might otherwise want to be. I think this describes Britain's position in 1793 reasonably well. And it will certainly place a constraint on Britain, in a relatively elegant way, that quite a few people have requested in the wake of the last game.
Steve
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
Bourbons
Steve,
The rules appear to suggest that once at war with France, Britain must stay at war until the end of the game or lose one-third of its VPs. As you know a complete absence of breaks in the war is not historical. Furthermore, as I think Robert was alluding to, if Britain has to stay at war then everybody has to stay at war. Could you then please elaborate on how truce turns fit into all of this and confirm specifically that the reaching of a truce agreement would not constitute a "peace treaty" within the meaning of the Bourbon rules.
Also, surely there are some historical advantages to controlling the Bourbons. Intelligence from inside France, for example.
Finally, will any effect be given to the historical monarchist regions such as the Vendee and Toulon? There should be at least some impact on the ability of the French to raise militia in these places.
Jim
Jim Voege
Bourbons
Steve;
statement:
The Bourbons are not a separate state, so they would not request initiation of a campaign unless the controlling major wanted one. If the controlling major wanted one, they could request it themselves anyway, so I don't think we lose anything here.
response:
We seem to be creating a new type of state that should now be defined in Rule 1 to go with Major, Minor, Fragmented. Now we seem to have a stateless State. Apparently they differ from the aforementioned states in that while they may be at war they do not cause a war season.
Fully defining this and other aspects of these ‘stateless states’ is important as the difference between a war, peace or truce season is important for economics and the pace of the game.
Robert
Bourbons
I can understand much of your worries about having a 'player' assume the role of the Bourbons.
Such a plyer has no power except to email his host to death. The host can ignore this drain on their time or if not sympathetic the conversations can become nasty, especially with:
leverage the Bourbon player has is to threaten to jump to another major (assuming for the moment we let him choose his new host, which I think we want to do) and knock down Britain's score by, say, 25% of its VPs.
.... this seems that this is a road to not go down no matter how 'historical' it may be. Thus keeping the role as a non human factor seems to be best. It may be better that each season that the 'host' is not complying with the wishes of the Bourbons that the Revolutionary French Government recieve 1VP. Perhaps it should come from the VP score of the host.
Such a small token award will not unduly influence the political environment but will keep the agenda of the Bourbons in the mind of the Host.
Robert
Bourbons
Steve,
You are starting with two false assumptions, that the Bourbons would start with no troops and no money.
There was an emigre army of around 15k that was around as early as 1791 that was planning on a liberation of France, as soon as it could get some support.
It is true that there would be no income, but the emigres were not totally broke either. They will need to find a sponsor soon, but should have funds for a season or two.
-Nick
Bourbons
.... even presuming that Nick's suggestion is something you consider worth adding.... it does not need using a human player as a full time Bourbon:
having a small automatic non player but event driven segment in where the state that controls the Bourbons, initially Britain, has incentives and penalties for supporting the 'historical' Bourbon position will keep a focus on the Bourbons....
Thus whomever has the Boubons:
positive effects - several already formed Bourbon units to control for going to war against France
negative effects - small penalty such as shifting or losing a VP each season for not going to war with France
Bourbons seek better sponsor - major penalty to sponsor for allying with France
In this whatever affect the Bourbons had on politics can be adequately impacted with no human player.
Robert
Bourbon VP penalty?
I am confused as to why you would lose VPs for not doing what the Bourbons want you to. I would imagine there are segments of each nations population (lesser nobility, merchants, the church etc) that have their own interests, all of which would have more influence on the government. However if you act against these groups interests there is no loss of VPs. Seems odd why you would include one group as a factor, but not the other, more important ones.
-nick
Bourbon VP Penalty
If you want to look at history, there is no such thing as VP's. It is a gaming device to push player actions in desired directions. Thus historically the Bourbons did not increase nor decrease VP's as VP's were non-existant. Then also having a VP penalty was only a suggestion to use to push player actions or attention to historical issues.
If we want to say that the Bourbons were an issue in the diplomacy of the time then their 'issues' need to be reflected somehow. A player could represent them and their issues but there are some dangers in doing that. Thus a gaming device can also be used to represent their politics. A reward and penalty system can easily represent the overall affect of their diplomacy. VP's do not represent anything tangible in historical events but do help measure performance of modern day players in relation to historical events. Thus having a penalty/reward ratio helps keep the political issue of the Bourbons in a players mind. If the issue is so unimportant as to not deserve any penalty or reward for ignoring the issue; then the issue is not worth be represented in the game.
Robert
Bourbons
Any time I see a discussion of this length between two players such as Nick and Robert, I know it is a genuinely difficult issue with many good points to be made on both sides.
That said, on reflection I am leaning pretty strongly towards not having a Bourbon player. The reason is simply that I think it is unwise to put one player in a position where they can reduce Britain's VP score, or that of some other major, by 20% or more, without much larger consequences for themselves than I think the Bourbon player can have. A human Bourbon player would have to have a very large stick and I can't see any way to give the player the proper incentives for its use. (Nor can I guarantee that they would act on those incentives if they did have them.)
I do want to find some way to trigger the departure of the Bourbons automatically if their host nation is not sufficiently hostile to France, though I am a little wary of the possibility of the host declaring a paper war on France to avoid it. (Though perhaps that should be an acceptable tactic for the host to use? We'll have to think it over.)
I would, personally, prefer to have a Bourbon player, but I think the risks of disaster are too high to attempt it.
Steve
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
Mini-Bourbons
Steve,
While we are on the subject of the Bourbons, do you have any proposals for what the powers of the mini-Bourbons are going to be, i.e. the royalist ex-monarch of now Revolutionary states. Can they raise emigre armies, can they sponsor rebellions in their former territory ect?
I think if we develop a good enough set of rules for dealing with deposed monarchs (which we will need for NWOL-III) we can have it apply to the Bourbons as well, with the only difference being scale.
-Nick
Bourbon powers
They will indeed be parallel to a deposed monarch of a frag. They can raise troops in French cities. I might be willing to give them one emigre brigade at start, but I think not much more than that. The brigade would probably disband if the Bourbons changed masters, and I might allow it to reconstitute under control of the new master.
They should probably be allowed to sponsor uprisings, since there were several Bourbon uprisings in fact. Those uprisings shouldn't go very far unless they have British naval support, which will tend to locate them on the Atlantic coast where they did, in fact, actually happen. Whatever rule I introduce to prevent multiple attempts at uprisings in the same city will apply here too. I could also require the presence of a British ship in the coastal waters of a port city attempting to rebel, or something like that, though for the sake of clean rules design I'd kinda prefer not to. However, Bourbon revolts will have to be outside the usual manpower rules, otherwise the French could just raise and inactivate all their militia and poof, no more uprisings.
They won't have any particular diplomatic powers; just the usual ones as exercised by the controlling monarch.
Steve
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
More thoughts on Bourbons
The question is still somewhat open in my mind as to whether there should be a Bourbon player or not. The main reason to do it is to have someone in the game who is a voice for overthrowing the Revolution. The main reason not to is that that player may not have a lot to do. At the start of the game won't control any cities, so he won't have any units or any income. Presumably he'll command units for the major power which is hosting the Bourbons, but he has no way to ensure that he does. (He could, of course, command units for any other power if they wanted him to do so.) Whereas if the Bourbon monarch is also a major player monarch, then there is no extraneous person standing around to not have a command, and the Bourbons will always serve the interests of their major power host (possibly through being passive).
I would really like to have a player in that role, but I can see tensions arising. Say we start the game with the Bourbons in Britian, and the British want to keep out of the first war and let events develop for a while before they jump in. The Bourbon player, of course, wants to go after France immediately. The only leverage the Bourbon player has is to threaten to jump to another major (assuming for the moment we let him choose his new host, which I think we want to do) and knock down Britain's score by, say, 25% of its VPs. Is that going to cause Ugliness that it will be hard for the game to contain? Or should we just figure that that's how it's going to be, and I need to make sure I get a reasonably diplomatic person to play the Bourbons?
I would like to try the Bourbon player and risk it, but it makes me nervous.
The Bourbon player would, of course, have to have certain rewards and restrictions. The restriction would be that he must always be at war with France. He should gain VPs for forming alliances with major powers at war with France, and the major powers should probably get some kind of bonus for it too, though one would want to have some way to avoid giving VPs for pro forma alliances. Perhaps any nation allied with the Bourbons cannot be allied to France, same as the rule will be for the host. But we want to make sure that major powers that work towards the Bourbon restoration are not penalized for doing so.
Comments welcome.
Steve
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
Bourbon Frag
I'm a little concerned about the Bourbon frag and the notion that Britain would incur a significant VP penalty if they "dumped" it. As I recall during the revolutionary/Napoleonic wars the Bourbons accomplished exactly nothing and only rode back into Paris on the coattails of the Prussians/Austrians/Russians/British. Prior to that their activities never constituted more than an irritant -- sometimes an enduring irritant such as in the Vendee and sometimes a short-lived dangerous irritant such as the revolt at Toulon but ultimately the only real impact the Bourbons had was to draw off some resources from France and to provide a training ground for recruits and rising officers, such as Napoleon himself.
So I'd be concerned that should the Bourbon frag sputter along, as it did historically, this should be VP-neutral for the British. Certainly there should be no VP penalty for the failure of the Bourbons to take or hold French territory.
Jim
Jim Voege
Bourbon frag
The Bourbons can't harm the British as long as they do nothing. Primarily
what they do is give the British (or whoever controls the Bourbons, if the
British dump them to another power) the ability to raise French troops
in France, and earn full income in captured French cities. In short, a positive
incentive to be hostile to France. However, if the British choose to ignore
that incentive they lose nothing. They can keep the Bourbons on ice
indefinitely and suffer no harm.
I have not yet defined the conditions under which the British would lose
control of the Bourbon state and thus pay the VP penalty. I am working
with three options at the moment:
1) Britain starts at war with France (as do the Bourbons) and loses control
of the Bourbons if they make peace with France. Or
2) Britain starts neutral to France (the Bourbons still start at war) and loses
control of the Bourbons if they either ally with France, or go to war with
France and subsequently make peace.
3) Same as #2, but the British only lose the Bourbons if they ally; they can
go to war and make peace and go to war again, as long as they don't ever
ally with France.
The problem with the first one is that I don't really want to force Britain and
France to start at war, though maybe I should.
The problem with the second one is that it gives Britain a strong reason
never to go to war with France, because they can never lose the Bourbons
if they don't.
The problem with the third one is that it's very weak, the British can do a
great deal to assist the French without an active alliance.
I am looking for ways to strengthen the conditions, maybe that Britain
can never be allied with France or with any nation that is allied with France?
Don't have a good solution just yet.
I could also give the Bourbon player the option to move out of Britain if they
don't do what the Bourbons want (which it seems to me will surely be to
get some French cities under Bourbon control) and have Britain pay a smaller
VP penalty if the Bourbons dump them. That would mean it would be the
Bourbon player who was the goad to the British to be hostile to France,
which is as it was historically, at least up to a point. However, since the
Bourbons in exile were in reality pretty powerless, the cost to the British
of having the Bourbons flee should be fairly low. Also if the Bourbons leave
France, they should perhaps be subject to a penalty too.
Comments and suggestions are most welcome.
Steve
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
Some work in progress
The code can now produce this: let me know what you think. FR1IN is a French brigade on the Bourbon side; FR2IN is a regular French brigade. In theory this should work out perfectly parallel to the way different German or Italian brigades fight each other. That's the theory anyway...
Steve
Battle at G6-T4, 7-7
French forces:
Front line: FR2IN (2000-0)
Second line:
Rear line:
Bourbon forces:
Front line: FR1IN (2000-0)
Second line:
Rear line:
Battle front is 1 mile long
Giving 5 experience points to FR2IN for a total of 5
Giving 5 experience points to FR1IN for a total of 5
Firing Segment
Firing strengths: 1120 French and 1008 Bourbon
FR2IN loses 69 men and 0 batteries.
Retreat chance is 0.0189 and rout chance is 0.00945
FR1IN loses 116 men and 0 batteries.
Retreat chance is 0.0378 and rout chance is 0.0189
Melee Segment
Melee strengths: 1081 French and 950 Bourbon
Odds are 1.137895:1
Attacker's chance is 59.56902 and random number is 54.2872
French side wins the melee!
FR2IN loses 93 men and 0 batteries.
FR1IN loses 161 men and 0 batteries.
Retreat chance is 0.2378 and rout chance is 0.1189
FR1IN moves from 7-7 to 6-6
FR1IN fails morale check and retreats
Total Combat Losses:
French: 162
Bourbon: 277
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
Bourbon Nominclature
Steve,
I find confusing the naming of Bourbon units the same as French. I think everybody would automatically know that, say, "BO" units are French in origin while remembering that FR1IN is not in fact French would be rather more difficult.
Jim
Jim Voege
Naming the Bourbons
Jim has a good point but there are Coding Reasons why doing it the other
way is difficult. We'll have the same issue with Revolutionary Dutch troops
if they ever get created. However, it will surely be less confusing than the
issue we currently have with GS and IS troop names (since there are many
different states under those nationalities, not just two) and we've always
managed with that. I will make sure that Bourbon troops are always
identified as FR1IN (Bourbon) the same way that German troops are
GS1IN (Saxon), and I think that'll clear it up. The Bourbons and French
will also tend to be different colors on the map, as long as they are allied
to different powers, and that'll minimize confusion as well (and that is
also a benefit we don't get with the Germans who are often on the same
side).
Steve
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
Bourbon ratings?
Would the Bourbon units be rated the same as the French i.e. VG infantry, the way that all Germans are rated the same? My understanding was that many of the emigre units were nothing to write home about. if they have a different average quality could you recycle the FR or would you need to codify it differently?
-nick
Bourbon quality
They're going to have to be rather lower quality than the republican French - no elan.
Now, after they've been aged 12 years, then we can think about their quality again ;)
Steve
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS