[PON] Conflict in Europe - Diplomacy & News Thread

[unclejoe]

Statement of Ottoman Foreign Minister Ali Ben Ali Oct. 1874
A new administration and advisory team has been invited to confer with Sultan Abdulaziz. We are examining our agreements with other Nations. We note we have Defensive Agreements with : Italy, Germany, Russia, Persia, and Egypt. And we are presently at War with France. Our past administrators had some deals in the works with Italy and Russia. We will be taking a look at them and considering our best interests.

We are at Egypt's doorstep......with the Prussians....we have treatys of defense with both. We ask them now to make Peace.
Our diplomats are enroute to France to talk about Peace. Our troops are standing in support only, as of today. European battles really have little to do with us.

[Lindi]

By Egypt Gouvermant

The great Friend Ottoman are not in the doorstep, because Suez is in Egypt, so you are in Egypt...

The Egypt gouvermant recall Ottoman position against this war is neutral so I need explication why you are in Suez in why you not move for your country?

The Egypt gouvermant recall also this war is only war for Islman, so The Sudan can are all go to Ottoman if Ottoman with the great army of Ottoman are ready to defence this area.

Also I have letter of your gouvermant when you said the Islam ally is most important againist other ally (except Russia), so you see your Friend Egypt have all economi destroy and you said nothing?

I am sad when I see the reaction of Ottoman, but it's my brother in Islam, so I never hated the Ottoman, but why Ottoman not talk with Prussia About civil of Egypt, is civil of Islam my Brother...

[Lindi]

From Egypt

List of Civil Private Economic the Prussia are Destroy only in Alexandria and Quairo :

3 Cotton platantion
1 Cerial Farm
1 Textil Shop
1 Mechanic Shop
1 Arm Shop
1 Ammunition Shop

For Egypt this is almost all economic, with not trade fleet is also very to hard to buy the ressource for build, for only this economic Area I thing the Egypt need 20 year to all re build.

The Civil of Prussia are attack by Egypt?

So the world now know the situation for civil and Egypt the factory in live in Egypt is 0.

[bjfagan]

Germany has offered to rebuild lost structures in Egypt as part of its surrender terms.

[Lindi]

1 rebuild or all? rebuil but keep for Private men of Germany or Factory lead by civil of Egyp? Paid all ressource and cost of private mony? and other question why rebuild, why destroy?!

[lukasberger]

I feel bad about this whole mess. I don't want to make the game less than enjoyable for Vezina, or anyone else, or take advantage of an exploit.

With that in mind, I took the time to look up the previous vote about the neutral troops blocking an advance. It's entitled "French-Russian situ" in the Old Proposals folder

It was 4-6 in favor of it not being an exploit and that the neutral troops shouldn't have to immediately leave. Full disclosure, one of the four votes saying it was an exploit was mine.

Of the six not voting that the neutral troops should leave immediately, most thought granting a cb to the attacking country was the best option, though the votes were split among several options.

So I don't think it was conclusively determined that this was something that shouldn't be done, rather the opposite seems true.

However that doesn't answer the question of the appropriateness of the Austrian about face.

I've presented my reasons for doing what I have. However if a bunch of players feel as Vezina and coolbean do, that this tactic is inappropriate given the situation, then I'd be willing to move my troops out.

What do people think? Is this a big problem given all the circs?

I really don't want this to turn into a big fuss, with feelings hurt and people losing their joy for playing, as I will, if this keeps up.

I'm willing to be reasonable and avoid that by modifying my actions if that's what's generally felt should happen.

[lukasberger]

Lukas, don't worry too much about your policy as Austria toward other nations. It is a bit of a shock to other players who have been playing along, but it is new to you as you step in with a fresh look. This isn't the first and won't be the last time, I wouldn't worry about it too much. I only pointed out the violent flip flop in policy in order to prove a point to Kensai's point: that if you want to go on a case by case basis, I would argue this case is weird. That's why I would say this tactic should be illegal and the punishment should be on a case by case basis (i.e, was it intentional or by accident, is the defendant in the process of trying to forge a CB, etc...). I'm sorry if I gave bad info regarding Austria-Italy. It was quite hectic in the 24 hours I controlled Austria, as you can imagine. I only wanted to manage the economy post-war and not deal with negotiations. Anyway, stuff happens. Also, I wouldn't just assume Italy is so close to France. Italy is "allied" and "close" to both France and Germany, but I suspect listens to neither, which is pretty much what I would do if I was Italy . Also, I wouldn't get too caught up with the relations screen. As Vezina says, pretty much the impression that has been used in the past is that it is irrelevant in relation to what you personally want to do with your country. At the end of the day, do what you want to do so you stay in the game and don't want to leave, do what you suspect is realistic, historical, or rational.

These are all very salient observations.

Especially those regarding Italy. It seems that part of my decision may have been based on a wrong impression.

However I did bring those concerns to Vezina, he didn't really correct my wrong impression so I assumed it was correct. If it wasn't and I made a decision based in large part on my misunderstanding of the situation, I apologize.

[Sir Garnet]

OOC: Don't blame the French for not controlling Italy. "No one can control Italy - not even the Italians."

[Kensai]

The relations screen is what the population and intelligentsia think. It's not what the ruler (and his "spirit", the human controller) feel. You might have cordial relations with a neighbor but deeply inside you claim and desire to annex their lands or colonies. So no, do not give too much attention to F9 relations although it is good to have them synced with your own agenda.

coolbean,
the game has rules that impose to the attacker the hard work of dislodging any problems. So unless lukas cannot be targeted because of diPeace, how can we even insinuate there is an issue here? I agree that Austria's recent turncoat behavior might be weird (I would have expected them to focus on the Italian front only) but perhaps we simply do not know the detailed agreements between nations.

In either case, the recreation of the Triple Alliance will have its own implications and the rest of avatar nations can take notice if this happens.

[Jim-NC]

Open Letter to the Austrian/American Governments

It is Britain's formal request that Austria remove her neutral troops from the combat areas in and around France/Germany, or declare war on 1 or the other parties. France and Germany need to settle their differences without out undue interference.

We also ask formally that America keep neutral troops from the combat area as well.

We consider these to be misconduct by the neutral nation. Either join the war, or stay out.

Britain stands ready to aid in the removal of "neutral" troops, even including force if necessary to achieve this. We do not take war lightly, but believe that certain rules of engagement are beneficial.

Signed
The Marquess of Hartington, Spencer Compton Cavendish

[unclejoe]

By Egypt Gouvermant

The great Friend Ottoman are not in the doorstep, because Suez is in Egypt, so you are in Egypt...

The Egypt gouvermant recall Ottoman position against this war is neutral so I need explication why you are in Suez in why you not move for your country?

The Egypt gouvermant recall also this war is only war for Islman, so The Sudan can are all go to Ottoman if Ottoman with the great army of Ottoman are ready to defence this area.

Also I have letter of your gouvermant when you said the Islam ally is most important againist other ally (except Russia), so you see your Friend Egypt have all economi destroy and you said nothing?

I am sad when I see the reaction of Ottoman, but it's my brother in Islam, so I never hated the Ottoman, but why Ottoman not talk with Prussia About civil of Egypt, is civil of Islam my Brother...

Ottoman Statement To Egypt and the World:
Orders have been sent to our troops in Egypt. They have been ordered to return to Jerusalem. This will begin as soon as they can pack and make all preparations for the journey.

[bjfagan]

Open Letter to the Austrian/American Governments

It is Britain's formal request that Austria remove her neutral troops from the combat areas in and around France/Germany, or declare war on 1 or the other parties. France and Germany need to settle their differences without out undue interference.

We also ask formally that America keep neutral troops from the combat area as well.

We consider these to be misconduct by the neutral nation. Either join the war, or stay out.

Britain stands ready to aid in the removal of "neutral" troops, even including force if necessary to achieve this. We do not take war lightly, but believe that certain rules of engagement are beneficial.

Signed
The Marquess of Hartington, Spencer Compton Cavendish

Is this a new British foreign policy direction... "We will declare war on neutral nations, to enforce their neutrality?"

[nemethand]

Open Letter to the Austrian/American Governments

On this issue, we must fully and unconditionally concur with the British government. A battlefield is for belligerents. Supposed, declared, reserved and all other kind of "neutrals" should refrain from entering or even approaching war theatres.

Or, if they happen do, they must face the consequences.

[Sir Garnet]

IMPERIO DO BRASIL

With respect to the chaotic circumstances in Europe, it is worth remembering that a force with passage rights in a country has more right to be present than that of an invader, whose presence is enabled but not vindicated by might. The non-belligerent faces the normal risks of the invader cutting off supplies, declaring war, or close proximity raising incidents that spark a fresh war with the former non-belligerent.

[Sir Garnet]

OOC: Brazil is at peace so can't supply at foreign ports and therefore can't go after pirates, which are proliferating. Isn't there a minor, like Chile, who will attend to these villains?

[Kensai]

Tokyo, Japan, October 1874

JAPAN'S ROLE IN THE WORLD

Japan is growing day by day and it needs a healthy global trade system to prosper. A potential involvement in a European war would have been unthinkable only 5 years ago, yet now, it is the perfect opportunity to show the world we care about peace and stability. We do not know who the final victor will be, but Japan will work together with other major powers to reopen the disturbed commercial routes of Europe. The aggressors have been warned...

Nippon is willing to mediate in a peaceful solution and become the guarantor of this new peace. Now, before more blood is spilled.

[Ech Heftag]

Since there was none though, and given the Italian situation, it was clear that France was not entirely committed to Austria. Surely if they were, there would have been a DA between the two nations?

I think France was trying to walk a tightrope between appeasing Italy and Austria. It would have worked, if howdy had stayed, since howdy was willing to sacrifice Austria to hurt Germany. He left and France fell off the tightrope.

You are being wrong here.

I don't know if there were any deals between Austria and France, but I suspect there weren't any. There was, however, a deal between Italy and Austria. Italy would take a passive stance in the war against Austria, and in exchange, Austria would give the province of Venezia back to Italy.
Actually, later on, with Austria's problems becoming more visible, I decided to not declare war against Austria at all, but for some reasons there was still a dow issued (I've either forgot to cancel this order, or it happened due to some kind of bug, I'm absolutely not sure).

I must also say that I can absolutely understand the annoyance your recent actions caused to many other players. Imho, you were way too involved in the war against Austria to take over this country while still at war.

[lukasberger]

You are being wrong here.

I don't know if there were any deals between Austria and France, but I suspect there weren't any. There was, however, a deal between Italy and Austria. Italy would take a passive stance in the war against Austria, and in exchange, Austria would give the province of Venezia back to Italy.
Actually, later on, with Austria's problems becoming more visible, I decided to not declare war against Austria at all, but for some reasons there was still a dow issued (I've either forgot to cancel this order, or it happened due to some kind of bug, I'm absolutely not sure).

I must also say that I can absolutely understand the annoyance your recent actions caused to many other players. Imho, you were way too involved in the war against Austria to take over this country while still at war.

Really, what actions are those? Declaring peace when Austria was being overrun? Even Vezina said he understood and accepted that.

The neutral thing hasn't actually affected the French war effort at all as far as I can see, and I'm pulling those troops back now. So it was a misjudgement on my part, I admit it. Still it hasn't actually hurt anyone, except for Austria's standing in the world.

At least Austria isn't trying to fight on both sides of a war at the same time, like Italy has been for a while.

Either way the time to bring this up would have been at the time, when I asked if anyone felt that it would be a problem for me to switch sides. You didn't say anything then.

And did that "accidental" dow also force you to storm Venezia and Sudtirol and invest Trieste? Yes, I know you pulled back eventually, but that was 10 turns after the dow or something, when you knew a peace that allowed Austria to focus on you was likely. You'd call that taking a "passive stance"?

You're well known as a very opportunistic player yourself. That's fine, I have no problem with that, but I should think you'd be the last person to criticize me here.

If I am wrong it's partly because the info I received is wrong, as mentioned that could have been corrected by those in a position to know better, but never was.

I've apologized if I was acting on wrong info or made a poor decision. Beyond that I've made my reasoning in acting as I did abundantly clear. What more should I do?

[Kensai]

You are both wrong, so do not fight for no reason. It was not the Austrians or Italians fault the Germans passed from neutral Belgium. Where can I get a copy of the peace agreement that knocked out Belgium out of the war? The question was and still is: did Belgium "forget" to cancel its passage rights with Germany? If this happened indeed, we have had a major breach in the abstracted realism we wanted to portray.

[bjfagan]

Tokyo, Japan, October 1874

JAPAN'S ROLE IN THE WORLD
The aggressors have been warned...

Oh thank God!!! Japan is finally going to punish France for its aggression and assist Germany. Where was Japan many months ago?

[Soulstrider]

You are both wrong, so do not fight for no reason. It was not the Austrians or Italians fault the Germans passed from neutral Belgium. Where can I get a copy of the peace agreement that knocked out Belgium out of the war? The question was and still is: did Belgium "forget" to cancel its passage rights with Germany? If this happened indeed, we have had a major breach in the abstracted realism we wanted to portray.

Treaty of Maubeuge, 1873:

-Belgium admits fault and bad faith in its attack of France.
-War reparations paid in the sum of 250 state funds to the Kingdom of Italy to compensate for war materiel expended.
-Belgium will make every effort to improve relations between France and Belgium and align strategic policies indefinitely to the mutual benefit of Belgium and France.
-In return, France will continue to guarantee Belgium's independence and the union between Flanders and Wallonia and will attempt to normalize relations as soon as possible between France and a unified Belgium.

Mostly was the line boldened, it pretty much meant I would have to side with France in most of the diplomatic stuff, not becoming an satellite per se but helping France and not helping France's enemies when needed, which implies not letting France enemies pass through my territory like unfortunately happened, I thought I cancelled everything with Germany but actually only cancelled the Defence agreement and supply rights.

[bjfagan]

You are both wrong, so do not fight for no reason. It was not the Austrians or Italians fault the Germans passed from neutral Belgium. Where can I get a copy of the peace agreement that knocked out Belgium out of the war? The question was and still is: did Belgium "forget" to cancel its passage rights with Germany? If this happened indeed, we have had a major breach in the abstracted realism we wanted to portray.

After many discussions with Soulstrider trying to sweetalk him, twist his arm and even drop a few veiled threats to keep the border open (since I know the game cannot understand realism), I am pretty sure it was an accident that passage rights were not cancelled after peace with France. But then their peace treaty did not dictate any cancellation or prohibition from working with Germany. However, there was no plan beforehand and no discussion with the Belgians until after German troops had already entered Belgium.


If we want to talk about realism, Germany could have just marched through a weakened Belgium anyways and dared them to DoW on Germany to stop the march. There is no invisible wall in the real world and no way to stop German troops unless Belgians actually stand in the way and fight. The game mechanics of access to a country is based only on whether passage rights have been given in-game, yet in the real world this is only based on respect of diplomatic treaties. When a country is in a fight for its survival, that respect could be disregarded.


We had a similar discussion to this when Greece and Britain thought they could trap Prussian troops up against the Greek/Ottoman border and destroy them. But passage rights allowed them to move into Ottoman territory without Ottomans stopping them. What were the Ottomans going to to do, send over an army to attack Prussians?

[Kensai]

Both in this case (Belgium) and the previous one (Ottomans) I had suggested a declaration of war to that weak part as a convincing and realistic action to consider a nation allowed to march on a bullied nation's lands. This is the most objective way to do it, in the same way I consider objective the DOW for a neutral nation that sits on regions.

It's not that I want to be strange, but both these methods do not allow for misunderstandings, that's why they are ideal for an imperfect game engine. Anyway, if it wasn't on the peace deal we are cool, but if it was and Soulstrider "forgot" to cancel it we have a repeat of that unrealistic bull we had in the Balkans.

(Soul, accidents happen, I am not shooting at you, I just want to make people understand it's not the correctly abstracted way)

The thing to remember is, even if the other part is superweak you NEED to declare war or have passage rights. After all, in case they are so weak they won't even engage, but there must be the legitimacy to march. I cannot think of any other way to abstract this without resorting to subjective ways.

[Vezina]

And if we're talking about realism, the entire civilized world would be in an uproar over Germany blatantly disregarding the sovereignty of Belgium and proper diplomatic protocol in your scenario. But we all know that wouldn't happen in a game.

The peace treaty obviously states "aligning strategic policies to the mutual benefit of France and Belgium." That means not having policies that hurt France, like giving passage rights to an enemy. It was an honest mistake by Soulstrider that he didn't cancel it because he cancelled the defensive treaty for the same reason. The reason there was no discussion beforehand is because neither of us realized the rights were still there. They should have been gone the turn of the peace treaty.

That's why when you moved through, he immediately told you to stop. You weren't supposed to have those rights. He didn't cancel them without warning because he wanted to give you the chance to march back without getting cut off. But you did the opposite - you moved the rest through instead of doing the honorable thing of not taking advantage of a player's accidental mistake. Whatever it takes to win and however you have to rationalize it, right?

[bjfagan]

And if we're talking about realism, the entire civilized world would be in an uproar over Germany blatantly disregarding the sovereignty of Belgium and proper diplomatic protocol in your scenario. But we all know that wouldn't happen in a game.

The peace treaty obviously states "aligning strategic policies to the mutual benefit of France and Belgium." That means not having policies that hurt France, like giving passage rights to an enemy. It was an honest mistake by Soulstrider that he didn't cancel it because he cancelled the defensive treaty for the same reason. The reason there was no discussion beforehand is because neither of us realized the rights were still there. They should have been gone the turn of the peace treaty.

That's why when you moved through, he immediately told you to stop. You weren't supposed to have those rights. He didn't cancel them without warning because he wanted to give you the chance to march back without getting cut off. But you did the opposite - you moved the rest through instead of doing the honorable thing of not taking advantage of a player's accidental mistake. Whatever it takes to win and however you have to rationalize it, right?

My initial discussions with Soulstrider were all in character. Not until late in the discussion did he point out that he had stated to you OOC he would cancel those agreements. My contention was that since no statement was in the final treaty then it did not matter. Bureaucratic snafus can happen. Belgium was going back and forth as to which side to align with. Germany just used this time to move more troops. We were asked to vacate Belgium, we were never told which direction to exit.

If this situation had presented itself in the real historical world of our game, I am certain Germany would have executed the same maneuver, even if Belgium disagreed from the beginning. All kinds of scenarios could have been used as a ruse to buy time for German troops to march into Belgium until someone in the Belgian government called them on it. Which is exactly what Soulstrider did. He called Germany on its movement and then diplomacy started. This is all entirely possible in the real world.

As for world condemnation, Germany (or any country for that matter) would have risked being condemned over violating Belgian neutrality if it meant saving itself from French destruction. Once you started destroying German factories and mines, the strategic war calculations changed immediately. It was no longer a war of movement and attrition, but a war of survival. Something had to be done very quickly to prevent further destruction, by either recaputring all occupied provinces in a turn or two (an impossibility) or capture French cities so Germany could cause the same damage in return. A kind of Mutual Assured Destruction policy so to speak. The second option presented itself when I realized I could reach Paris in two or three turns if I race around the French lines into the unguarded French rear area. The move could only win if I was to also cut the lines of retreat immediately behind the French lines, which were lightly defended. It was an extremely bold move that paid off.


Don't try to mark me as a dishonorable player. This move was perfectly plausible in the real world and there was nothing dishonest in its execution in our game.

[Vezina]

Mutually assured destruction, my &$@! You ruined Egypt. Go back and look how no structures were destroyed in Germany until a couple of turns ago. That was a turn or two after Lindi told me you cleared Cairo. Anything I destroyed was payback for you firing first. Notice how nothing else has been destroyed even though I still control the Rhine. If I wanted mutual destruction, wouldn't I still be clearing structures?

Despite this having nothing to do with what's going on, there is no way your strategy would work in real life. No country would ever attack without knowing that it had secure supply lines. German armies stuck in the middle of France with no lines home would be screwed in real life because they would not continue to receive supplies and especially not replacements. Thanks, game engine. Furthermore, France's armies would still receive upkeep even with Paris gone. Its not like cutting Paris destroys the entirety of the logistics of France. The only thing saving you right now is the wonkiness of how the game engine has to handle conscripts through the capital. Do American recruits go to Washington in reality? No, but that's the only way the game can handle it.

Only in the most twisted way would someone read a demand that says "Leave Belgium" when you are moving through Belgium to get to France as "Continue Attacking." If you have no reading comprehension of the English language, that is one thing. I know better than that about you, though. Considering that it was your side that came up with the neutral interference BS, I really shouldn't be surprised. WWII-era Germany would've been proud of your rationalizations.

This seriously reminds me of someone playing something like Axis and Allies that wouldn't allow another player to place his reinforcements because he already picked up his money. You might be technically correct and can twist it any way you want to make it sound good in your head, but it doesn't make you any less of a freaking dick for doing it.

[Kensai]

Guys, relax, it's a game. Mistakes happen, in and out of character. The thing is, if we strive to have these "frustration factors" decreased to the minimum, we have to have some soft rules regarding what is permitted in game and what not. That's why I am insisting on a lesser realistic but objective method, than a totally subjective one. No game engine is perfect, let alone ours, but we need to try at least to set aside any possible exploits and exaggerations.

[Lindi]

(It's a game, only game, when I list my destroy list is for role play and for said to world, help me! So possible to resolve that with vote in DropBox? I propose return on the turn before error of playeur of Belgique and if the Germany use always the Belgique area for move he need delcare war to belgique and fight belgique Army or the rest of Belgique Army. )

[bjfagan]

Moved to General Thread.

[lukasberger]

Guys, relax, it's a game. Mistakes happen, in and out of character. The thing is, if we strive to have these "frustration factors" decreased to the minimum, we have to have some soft rules regarding what is permitted in game and what not. That's why I am insisting on a lesser realistic but objective method, than a totally subjective one. No game engine is perfect, let alone ours, but we need to try at least to set aside any possible exploits and exaggerations.

As one of the ones who needs to relax, Kensai speaks with wisdom.