"The 18th Century Imagi-Nations Campaign" Topic

The intentions for turn 6 were rather unambitious and no moncarchs attacked each other so we had no table top battles to resolve. I was able to dispose of all the intentions and oders by Umpire fiat or a simple die roll. I then called for new orders and intentions which are being sent in now.

Many of the players were a bit concussed by the three big battles we had, and started to look around for alliances. Many of the new players, the remote players as I call them, were also feeling their way and submitted rather restrained orders and likewise were shopping for allies. This caused me to make a circular letter of which I reprint most of it now to familiarize all with SOME of the possibilities.

I am presently waiting for intentions for turn7, which should be in by this evening, but I let them go a day or three because I'm not that kind of an umpire.

Anyway here for your edification and enjoyment is some commentary on the game.

Dear List
OK many of you guys in he game are setting out to make alliances. That's good. You can do it here, or do it privately I don't care and there's no rules against either. UNLIKE the IWG I had made, there are formal rules for alliances in this new campaign and the terms and operation of each is largely up to all of you.
This will mean contacting other players and developing a working relationship with them.
In this age of the internet, or as I call it, liars poker, we are loath to "reach out and touch someone" as Ma Bell used to tell us because we are phobic about getting on someone's solicitation list and being flooded with advertising calls and even far more dangerous, identity theft and fraud. Some people no longer even have phones and rarely answer them. This is going to be a big problem for you guys wanting alliances. Likewise, almost no one gives out their home addresses any more, again, too dangerous with identity thieves about. All of these things are proof of the perfect idiocy of the net and how it is strangling and not helping us communicate.
Several people have asked me for e-mails and or phone numbers and addresses of various people. I do not give these out, but I will help. For example when Bob and Cleo wanted to speak to the leaders of Bad Zu Wurst, and Gulagia, I contacted those persons and asked what level of contact information they wanted released. In those cases they were amenable. From then on it's up to the gamers. Sending a blanket message here or in your intentions is not going to do it as many of the people do not come to this forum directly but rely on e-mails and as far as the latter goes I have no way of knowing (but suspect that they simply ignore such requests) because they don't want to be bothered. This is a problem as personal communications of skullduggery can be a lot of fun to carry on.
My own preferred method would be by mail. Not e-mail, I mean postal mail because players have to write things down and my subtle and convoluted mind enjoys writing. However many do not and so getting people to respond to e-mail will be like wrasslng the greased pig to the ground.
BUT A FEW REMARKS
First off everyone is looking for an alliance, but you have to face clearly what you can in the game DO with such an alliance in the game. The present iteration of "Functionaries, Flunkies and Munchkins" (the name of the campaign rules) does not have a formal diplomatic system, and it has NO trade or monetary system so there's not much you can do with the usual babble of trade deals and economics players like to piddle around with. You are really down to the question of the BIG deals of aggression or non aggression pacts.
The other BIG thing of the game is that what I call the "Sociopathic Symphony" of war games is not available. This is the Symphony of four movements which is basically "You and I and he and she will band together and take out him. Tthen You and I and I and she will take out he. Then You and I will take out she. Then I will take out you." That won't work because it is in fact, impossible to take out anyone. All you can do is beat them in battles and that requires going to the table top, and that will require you to win your points the hard way by winning battles.
I think there's a certain justice in that.
For the "remote" players" even though you won't be able to fight the battle, don't worry, the people we have eagerly will fight for you. They like the table top game and no one remembers they might be valiantly slaving for their enemy against their ally.
The other reason for alliance is the defensive move, of "You and I are in an alliance and if anyone attacks you, I will attack him-- Next turn. Oh you can attack together and as in the recent case of the Ikean War, three ganged up on one. There were four but no one picked up on that. The fourth was Swinnland who did not attack Ikea, but was a member of the alliance, who was angling to help by using his special ability.
In this game Swinnland is one of the only powers who has an ability to actually transfer value in some way to another player. Swinnland's special abilities are first, highly defensive terrain, and the second is that he gets TWO revivals. He can revive one of his units as all other players can, but he can also revive another unit of another player of his choice. So for example he COULD have revived say the Ikean Brigade, or the Spamish Army for that sovereign, but no other sovereign picked up on this at the time. What Pete as the King of Swinnland was attempting was "You cook up something to give ME a victory point and I will revive one of your units free. Well Ruffino IV of Swinnland is a disgusting miser and loves money and gold so if some other player, say Gulagia, wanted to get an extra revival, he could have done a little role playing with his sovereign, to get some fabulously costly object to give to Pete in return. For example "the Empress Sophia sends to Ruffino the fabulously jeweled and illuminated manuscript, 1001 ways to cook borscht! ". As this is inventive and funny I almost certainly would have allowed it, and Pete would have revived an additional unit for Sophia. Of course Sophia's sovereign would have gone to the bank, but she would get the army back, which might have been more valuable at the moment. Later she could revive the sovereign.
So to get back to it, one other option is the defensive alliance. Sweeta, the Colonies, and say Hungland might form a defensive alliance pledging to attack any assailant of any of the alliances and to work on concerted spite and malice attacks against anyone who attacks them that way, and of course if the other guys are part of an alliance too, we could get into real Donny-brooks. These will form the "grand cat-fights" that are so redolent with possibilities of purple prose reports. (and lots of battles!)

Now one of my old time friends will squak and say that I have done the same thing as I did in another game, where War did not pay. In that game, no, it didn't and war never pays, the victor almost always (especially in the 18th century) loses as much as loser. But he's wrong. War is in this game fact the Only way to GET paid, in victory points over an enemy defeated. if you achieve an "Austerlitz' on the battlefield you could win the whole campaign in one battle, garnering 12 victory points, ending the game and giving the guy who won the battle most likely the win. But what Michael would object to is that there is no way to knock out an enemy and forcibly win the game. This is true. The other guy must have a chance to survive and play. No one in the game can be reduced to helplessness, as even Ikea was not.

The reason for this is quite simple.. The person reduced to helplessness will lose heart and give up. If there is nothing you can do to defend yourself or aid in your own defense, why play the game? it does not matter if you have been put in this position by your own mistakes, it still is not an activity anyone will want to play. So the game is framed for balance, but again, the main means of victory is by winning battles. Is that not the essence of a campaign?
So bear these strategic cautions in mind when you talk about alliances, and open up your imaginations to other ploys.
Foe example, consider the intention put out by Cleo Liebl of Saxe Burlap und Schleswig Beerstein. she is obviously offering an alliance for a simple bribe of a glamorous and gorgeous red dress for the Grand Ball. Or is she?
One might respond to that rather open request for alliance by responding with
"Send the Princess the dress, set with rubies and garnets and pearls, and four Dances by Mozart to dance by."
or
"Our seamstresses are not up to the task, but our jewelers are and here is a pair of ruby slippers."
or
"Here is the dress, made to do the dance of the seven veils for her amusement with her Consort."

When Cleo said "Hmm, that last one is interesting!" I said "Ok you're pregnant." That choice was then right out.
Oh by the way, you can't use any of the three above now. You have to figure out one of your own.
Happy Intriguing.
Oh by the way, often in these things players use these intrigues to try and sandbag or get around the umpire. Good luck with that
Another benefit of cooperation with allies could be the construction of special attacks. For example the King of Sweeda has a Siege brigade that will invalidate the defense by a fortress.
Example- The King of Brobdignag is attacked by the King of Lambrusco with an army and a Brigade. The Borbdignagian can respond defensively, with a fortress and send both army and Brigade to the Bank and of course the fortress would go as well, but he would not be attacked.
On the other hand if the King of Lambrusco had made a deal with the King of Sweeda to use his Siege Brigade with a Lambruscian army then the use of a fortress by Brobdignagia would be ineffective. The fortress would go to the bank easily taken by the Sweeda Siege Brigde, and the Brobdignagians would have to defend with whatever forces they had, and if they had none--- then an unopposed attack suffered.
Or, assume the Lacrimosians attacked the Prelapsarians with two brigades. The latter might feel this is a good idea to defend with an Army and a Brigade, thus assuring definitie superiority on the field. However, if after the action in the next turn the Lacrimosians, Pantagruelarins, and the Oxymoronians attacked Prelapsaria each with an army and a brigade they would be in sore straits.
Thus attacking a superior enemy with a single brigade might not be as suicidal as it seems.
Or consider the Colonies. They have the revolutionaries which allow them to send one resource of THEIR choice of an enemy to the bank. This could for example be a kingdom's fortress, which will prevent him from fending off an attack, The masked Ball allows the holder of the card to do the same. So a coalition NOW of the Colonies and Princess Trixie could disarm Neverneverlands of both fortresses while their army is still in the bank. Thus rendering him able to be defended by only his four brigades. Jameson retains his revolutionaries but the Princess loses her Masked Ball card to the bank and might not get it back again.
On the other hand, one could conspire with Ikea to attack an enemy by taking the army of one power and matching it with the Native Levies to give one side a huge amount of troops (admittedly some of them of poor quality) to attack another person.
On the other hand One might consider that of the seemingly puny, worthless, useless, four brigades one has, you can choose any of the available brigades when you use them. One of these might be an engineering brigade.

Or one of you could try and develop a NEW brigade with new abilities.
OR a new personality with new abilities. For example the Grand Duke of Gorgonzola could, taking inspiration from "Les Contes De Hoffman" attempt to create the mechanical doll Olympia and send it to the Angosturian Court to bewitch and becharm the sovereign of that land into "sending himself to the Bank" for a turn (or two) while he dallies with her until she runs down or breaks. Or you could sic her on one of the sons of the King of Spam.

Or consider Bad Zu Wurst. Part of the Alliance might be to use King Faustus with a Gorgonzolan army and a Sweetan Brigade in an ability to get his military genius abilities working on your side.

The key to the game, and to fun is imagination, which is why we call them Imagi-Nations.

Otto, you could make life easy with communications by setting up a number of free gmail or yahoo email addresses, named for each monarch and giving them and their passwords to each relevant player, as well as the overall mailing list of players and the monarch email addresses. They can intrigue away to their heart's content without having to waiting for the post and if a player drops out you change the password and give it to their replacement, who also gets to sort through previous correspondence and provide some continuity. As there is no need for people to reveal personal details there should be no need to risk of the loss of sensitive information.

On another point, in the interests of making a simple game to run, you seem to have taken away a lot of the motivations that would have influenced foreign policy and I'm surprised that when a player identifies an option that piques their interest you immediately ruled it out, inventing a condition they were not aware of. It seems far more like a random battle generator with limited player input than an actual campaign system and possibly contributes to some of the problems regarding engagement. If player actions ultimately make no real difference to the bigger picture, then what really is the point in people investing time outside of playing out battles that you could arrange yourself? It was something Games Workshop seemed to make a habit of with their big campaigns.

Wherever did you get those ideas? I don't rule out anything, I was in the post above just giving advice on the existing rules and the possibilities of strategy. I never rule anything out, in fact I encourage it. The battle generator part is not random either, each player gets to control most of it. All of the above was advice BEFORE the fact, and most of the examples I gave were my own.

I attribute your misreading of the game to your not having read the rules, and your personal animus towards me, which is well documented here.

In any case, the avidity with which the players are engaging in, especially the "remote" players, belies your criticisms.

I have carefully reviewed the post and can find no instance of where I prevented or ruled out a-posteriori, an intent by the players. One other point I said my preferred method of doing these things is by the post. That is MY preferred method when I'm a player. But as the umpire I leave all these intrigues to the players hearts content as you urge, by e mail, which I have facilitated by checking with players if they wish their e-mails released for this purpose, which all have so if A wishes to contact B I simply check with A and B if they wish to do so by e-mail, and if they do, then I give the eamail of each to the other and they can do what they will. I don't need to be involved.

Once again, you are speaking wrongfully.

Otto, I got those ideas from actually reading what you wrote as it was on the Game Design board. If you don't want to discuss design, why is it here?

I was referring to the example you gave of Cleo, where having identified a preference you immediately ruled it out: 'When Cleo said "Hmm, that last one is interesting!" I said "Ok you're pregnant." That choice was then right out.'

As for the rest of the second paragraph, you started the letter by highlighting the fact that people's orders are late in arriving (which doesn't suggest everyone is 'avid'), but telling them it doesn't matter (which I find just further encourages lateness). You regularly tell us that in your experience people don't want to invest in campaigns. I would agree that it's not for everyone, but I am merely pointing out some of the reasons way that might be the case in your game as read:

'the campaign rules do not have a formal diplomatic system, and it has NO trade or monetary system so there's not much you can do with the usual babble of trade deals and economics players like to piddle around with.'

I would hardly say that trade deals are piddling matters when we're dealing with national interests and there are abstract ways to handle that and help guide players and give them things to care about, which can encourage engagement without overloading them.

Finally, I did suggest a simple method for you to allow better communication amongst players, to achieve an outcome you desired (or you wouldn't have sent the letter). Any thoughts?

Dear Ben

Ah, I see the problem is you have had a quadruple humor bypass. The dialogue with Cleo was about possibilities and with Cleo I was joking, The choice of that being right out was Cleo's not mine. I was of course joking with her as to the efficacy of the red dress with the prince consort. Of course in a game like this the pregnancy of the Princess would be of little concern, and might actually involve rather interesting game possibilities. Crowned heads are always looking for more heirs. Cleo's an old friend of over 20 years. I used it as an example of what might be tried, NOT as a refutation or rejection. The phrase "your pregnant" was one of the humorous possibilities of unintended consequences. Besides, what could be wrong with a princess becoming in a family way to her husband.

Don't know if I'd actually rule that.

As for your comments on me allowing a dispensation on the orders. You're sputtering. You're trying to throw the fault back on me, when there is in fact, no fault at all. There are several new players in the game feeling their way out. I tend to be kind and solicitous to them and help them out. They are setting up the communication networks between them through the extremely difficult and dangerous method of e-mails, and so I give them a lot of slack. Their interest is high and they all will respond. So there is no problem there. When I get upset with players it is with those players who turn toxic. I understand that people have lives and this is only a hobby, and besides they will respond and it's only a week, so a little lax time is OK as they get used to doing this.

Indeed, the game is designed to even allow advantages to players who send in no orders. The "roving" resources, pirates, masked ball, papal nuncio, bank loan and worldwide disaster are distributed to players who have sent in NO orders by a fixed schedule. So even doing nothing can be helpful.

As for trade deals and diplomacy they are piddling matters. These are things handled by "functionaries, flunkies and Munchkins" not kings and generals and I won't go into it here but these are not usually switched around at will like armies and fleets. They depend on things like the need of one country for the products of another. Second, you are forgetting something. "National interest" in the era of the 18th century is largely the interest of the king. and the politically significant elites around him. What they determine to be important is not what we consider today. Besides, the game is focused on the role of Kings and Generals and the formation of high policy. In the age of absolutism, if the king wishes it-- it is-- for example the "Diplomatic Revolution" or "the reversal of alliances" where France and Austria became allies was in the worst interest of France. Yet King Louis wished it, he "considered this a good thing" and so the DucDe Choiseul had to obey. Why? Because Frederick the Great couldn't keep his mouth shut and Madamme DuPompadour was incensed over some of the saucy comments he made about her. Louis ruled France and Pompadour ruled Louis. Such my children , is the influence of sex on history.

The Queen of Spain was obsessed with seeing all her sons on thrones as monarch, and that was the policy of Spain, which led to ruinous wars in that of the Austrian Succession.

The game gives the players plenty of things to care about. So far they seem to want to get their daughters and sons married off, achieve some security, find friends to back them up and give security, and when they wish, wage a war or two. They also like to work in a little of personal glory and horn tooting, which from what I see, they are doing. Dealing with money and trade and what you call "national interest" is dreadfully boring and serious.
As Mozart said.

"Be honest your majesty, wouldn't you rather listen to your hairdresser than Hercules."

As for communication, they seem to be doing that quite well. They are all sending me copies of what they are sending each other, and some of it is very good. Some of it is hilarious.

I'm not your kind of umpire. I'm kind and easy going and let players do what they want. The only players that don't seem to work well under that environment are the unimaginative.

I posted this on the game design board because it is a system that is working and it contains several new ideas, and there might be some bits and snippets others might look at and say 'Hey, that's interesting! It works there, maybe I can use that" or cause people to think about different ways to do things.

All I can say is I have 12 players all playing more or less avidly, they are having a good time, they so far have had seven table top battles, (and it looks like I'm about to have two more) and done lots of things and indulged their fancy and imagination, all of this and record keeping that takes about half an hour to do, and another half hour to post, electronically to each player a synopsis of what happened last turn, the battle reports, and a record sheet of all their resources.

As for the communication method they seem to be doing it all on their own.

My thoughts are the same as in the last post. This is not the type of game for you and your criticism springs more from personal animus to me than any real interest in the game.

Otto, emails are not an 'extremely dangerous and difficult world' when their sole content is related to a fictitious gameworld. I have suggested a solution that would have involved less than an hour of your time and saved waiting until 6 turns into the game before communication needs to be addressed.

You may or may not choose to use it in future, but others might. I learned it during the pre-planning for a day-campaign, which involved a couple of dozen players exchanging hundreds of emails and I noticed several had set up email accounts specifically for the game and in character.

As for the late orders issue, there is a world of difference between contacting individuals to check if an issue has arisen and a blanket announcement to all that tells those who have put orders in on time that they needn't have bothered. It's nothing to do with kindness, just good manners.

I play in games and campaigns which deal with high level politics (and indeed lots of roleplay) but there are bargaining chips to be had and 'balance' is usually enforced by players. The 18th century is indeed an interesting time for absolute monarchs but to suggest that those bargaining chips and deals are entirely irrelevant in decision-making is nonsense.

As for 'sputtering' and me putting the fault on you, you put – 'The only players that don't seem to work well under that environment are the unimaginative.' It does seem that if people don't game your way or appreciative your humour the fault lies with them. I merely suggested that there could be other reasons why these players are perhaps not working well in your environment.

You and I will never agree on certain issues, but your post highlighted that certain aspects of the game needed further clarification to players or were not working as you had intended. I am sure that your players enjoy fighting the battles, but that isn't the issue you were talking about.

Yes Ben, it's perefectly a failure because it doesn't do what your want. I fully understand that. Once again, the reason it's six turns into the game is that we have taken on a lot of new players and these had to be addressed, as the other six already knew it and understood it from the start. Please, I understand, you are perfect and your view is perfect, and your sort of fun is the hugely complicated, ponderous grist mill that grinds a game to powder.

The players I deal with want a light breezier game where they can do what they want to do.

As for this I have gotten all the moves in and the results have now been decided. Here is the latest. It seems that they were clarified. I'm sorry that this issue of clarification is not working out for you but you are one of those types of gamers that would ask for more clarification if the rules were 1,000 pages long. You wouldn't get it because you don't want to get it. Games to you have to be dreadfully serious, ponderous and over defined things, whereas the players in this game seem to do it with a simpler spirit.
You want data not drama.

RESULTS OF TURN7 Surprise and cleverness, and "L'affairs of the Red Dress!

The Intentions for Turn 7 are in. Interest seems high! We also have engendered several battles. Below are the orders both in the strict 20 word format, and with some ancilliary notes.

King Mark of Hungland (Bob Liebl). Bob did some canny planning in the rules and decided, of all things to send in "no move" as he realized that the Pirates, which he lost last turn to an attack by President Jameson of The Colonies was the FIRST floating resource card that would be re-assigned from the bank. He therefore determined to be the first person to send in a "no move" and they would thus fall right back into his lap. This is indeed what happened or what will happen when the revivals are done.

Gulagia,(George Deppner). George is waiting till his resources are complete after making his theme park for the Battle of Picknickov. They will be this turn He picked NO MOVE as well, but was engaged in diplomacy with Hungland. He replied to an attempt at Diplomacy from King Mark of Hungland who wanted to seek mutual protection against the evil powers of the earth the following note. "To Hungland We here in Gulagia are what some believe to be the evil meanies, but we are misunderstood. Empress Sophia has decreed our cookies and mittens should be spread among the less fortunate, and they should all be members of our church ( for their own good). We may be open to some forms of cooperation as they say, it is in our anthem

I love you,
you love me,
we're a happy family,

with a great big hug and kiss from me to you)
George
What that can portend only a genius can imagine.
Note that George had picked NO MOVE. He is the second player who did so, and as the Ikeans are cashing in their "Bank Loan" this turn, by the rules of the game this will almost certainly fall to George in the Revival phase.

The Kingdom of Flounce (Billy Smith) wrote. Since my wall was a bust….
"We are going on another picnic! IKEA has beautiful parks. Taking 1 army and 1 brigade."
What this means is that Flounce will attack Ikea, so shortly rescued from one war, with an Army and a Brigade. There will be one table top battle.

The Kingdom of Spam (Mike Lorenzo). Mike, has decided to take up Princess Trixie on her "say yes to the dress" hunt. His orders were

"Most intelligent son sent to private audience with Princess Cleo wearing Spam's most extravagant red silk ball gown, and a marriage proposal.

When I cautioned Mike that the Princess was already married he said that a collateral heir would do. A close relative would be fine. And if successful I would send an array of florists, hairdressers, performers for the wedding, and as the eyes and ears of Spam in the court of Saxe Burlap. Also, I would expect missives from my son on his observations there and his carefully worded impressions of the demeanor of the royal household there, as well as from visiting nations, with regards to their dispositions towards Spam. "

The umpire ruling on this is that as a ruse to grubb a victory point it is worthwhile (and rather humorous to think about Fernando or Hernando or whoever trucked out in silk gown, pomade, hairdo, and slippers, and that he has certainly played to his monarch's character in trying to find thrones for his sons. So he will get 1 VP for this. As to the rest we shall have to see what the Princess of Saxe Burlap und Schleswig Beerstein does with the several offers she has.

Saxe Burlap und Schleswig Beerstein (Cleo Liebl). Her formal intentions were "Unsuccessful at getting the attention of old Faustus of Bad Zu Worst.Sitting at home, pouting." Well this is nice but as part of a diplomatic ruse we shall have to see what matures from the attentions of President Jameison of the Colonies, or Mike's son all dressed up.

Sweeta, (Dennis Largesse) Dennis has decided, on his own, to go to the aid of Ikea, and ordered his army and two brigades and the siege brigade to move there. Here he will "stand firm" with Ikea, and place his forces under Ikean control. This is fortunate as vis-à-vis the attack from Flounce, if Ikea wishes and I have to confirm this with him. The Seetan forces of an army and a brigade could be used to respond to the attack of the Flouncean army and a brigade. The other brigade and siege brigade will be there to help Ikea next turn.

Ikea (Ian Richardson ) Ian has decided to strike back at the Neverneverlands. He has ordered "Attack Neverneverlands with Army and Native Levies. Barbarian Allies to plunder Spam. Cash in Bank loan." Ian has crowded three actions into his turn. He is attacking one of his former assailants with an army and a Brigade. The Neverneverlands has only four brigades to his roster, of which he could respond with two brigades to the attack. OR he could use one of his two fortresses to frustrate the attack. I still have not heard back from Norm on which he wishes so we shall see. But Ikea is now itself attacked by Flounce, and he would have had to use his fortress to meet the attack were it not for the intervention of Sweeta, which gives him a huge and unexpected ally. He might decide to use an army and a brigade of Sweeta in defense, or he might still use the fortress, using Sweeta for attack or defense next turn. If he uses the fortress, it will be revived by the Bank Loan. Ikea has also sent the Barbarian allies to devastate a province of SPAM, which will reduce the VP's of that monarch by one. If Ian chooses to use the Sweetan forces there will be a second battle to resolve, and a big one.

The Colonies (Ken Hall) " I offer Saxe-Burlap an extravagant red silk ball gown, accompanied by a Letter of Earnest and Sage Advice". Letter follows: :"Your most esteemed Majesty, It is my pleasure and privilege to offer for your consideration the enclosed ball gown. While I doubt not that it will enhance your Majesty's noteworthy appearance, think you: Would it not be better, both for you and for your position as sovereign of your people, to set an exemplar of probity, sobriety, and circumspection, in a gown of more serviceable and prudent cut and color (buff, for instance)? Of course, the choice is Your Majesty's, but may I say that we are happily supplied in the Colonies with skilled seamstresses, accompanied by (may I say it) a surfeit of sturdy and sober, yet flattering to both figure and character, honest republican cloth to assist you should the spirit move you to look with favor on an impertinent suggestion. Anticipating your reply, with the best will in the world, I have the honour to be,Your ob'd't servant,Pres'd't Jameson"

I am impressed. Ken has produced a nice sober, and utterly boring letter just as President Jamieson would do. I will give him one Victory Point, especially for killing two birds with one stone.

The Grand Duke of the Grand Duchy of Gorgonzola( Joe Saur) Joe and the Neverneverlands are involved in the toils of the internet trying to set up a marriage alliance. As that was both their intentions I am letting them go at that. Joe has provided capsule bios of his children.
I have three sons: – George, the eldest, is my heir, and is currently serving with the army as an AdC to General Young. He sings bass, and has had leading roles in two operas. – Alfred, the middle, is serving as a junior officer in the navy; he will be his brother's Minister of War. He has a fine baritone voice, and has been known to sing his orders to the helm! Robert, the youngest, is a junior aide to the Minister of State, and will eventually assume that position in his brother's government. He sings tenor. In addition, I have three daughters: – The eldest, Julia, is lively, an excellent rider, and a very good artist. She would be an excellent choice for an active leader who loves to hunt. She sings soprano, and is an accomplished pianist. – The middle, Madeline, is more of a cut-up, pert, and very pretty. She would be delighted to organize and conduct the kingdom's social scene. Julia plays the harp, and has a sweet contralto voice. – The youngest, Brigid, is studious, serious, and has the most mature outlook regarding her place in life; she would make an excellent partner for his heir. Brigid sings alto, and has been known to play the glockenspiel.
As a consequence of the union(s), we would mutually pledge armed support between Neverneverlands and Gorgonzola should any other kingdom threaten our domestic tranquility.

Neverneverlands (Norm Thime) Norm's real life daughter is moving into her new home with her husgand and Norm is dealing with his real-life fatherly duties and so his time cannot be spent on the game. He is choosing "no move" but actively interested in the alliance with Gorgonzola. He wants to wait until his army is repaired.
Bad Zu Wurst (Sean Thorne) is involved in switching jobs and he wants to wait till he gets back hius special ability and his army till he becomes belligerent again, so he has sent in no move.
The geopolitical remifications of this turn are interesting, even with the many "no moves" we have two big battles in the offing and the formation of several coalitions. So there you have it, a wide range of actions, all independent, all unimpeded by me, and it seems people doing what they want. There is the very serious attempt to form a coalition between the Neverneverlands and the Grand Duchy, and some rather humorous ones between the other forces.
We shall see what transpires. I wonder what people will do now in reaction to the full might of Gulagia backed by ample finances.

email addresses can be keys to private communications. I believe in excessive caution with other peoples data. As you have no conception of the game your suggestions are not helpful. You still do not understand that these reports are analytical reports of what has happened when we have tried various things, meant to be a help to other as an interesting example. You also continue to manufacture criticisms like putting out a blanket e-mail that they might not have bothered. Nothing like that was ever said, but you have the ability to manufacture such tings in your mind.

Anyway, this is the last time I will respond to you about the game as I consider your observations biased, invidious and invalid. You are looking for trouble and shall be ignored. the game is turning out to be very pleasant and a lot of fun for its participants and I really don't care to deal with someone who is attempting to harm other peoples pleasure.

Do you feel better for that Otto?

Can I suggest that in future you don't post on the Game Design board if you don't want to have comments about game design in a thread?

One player clarified his orders and now Sweeta will be attacking Spam. That's OK. He didn't see the other players orders. I misinterpreted what he said. Interesting that several players are now getting plans for turn 8. We have three battles to resolve. So much for "give peace a chance"

I also had two people contact me and ask if they can play. I don't want to make up two more positions and have this thing grow to unmanageable sixe, but I am toying with the idea of minor states, or non state players. I probably won't do it though. I want to keep the cadre fixed for a while. Still, it's encouraging.