It is certainly not required to have rules for things like this. That is why we have a
GM. If things are coordinated beforehand we could, for example, have the MoS state our
main offensive is against the Spanish and then Greg can use the battle results to
craft a suitable result.
Steve Nicewarner
aka Renald leBlanc
"Joel M. Halpern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was truck while reading some of the recent MoS email by a quandry in the
game.
In order to permit the game to function, the war(s) actually have no
consequences. To get the full consequences of the war(s) would requiring
modelling the whole rest of the world, which is clearly not something
interesting for the game.
The other side of the coin is that there is no way to actually accomplish
any military or international political objectives. This is because as the
game was designed the appointments were placeholders and role playing
hooks, not real activities.
However, this leaves it impossible to discuss before or after the fact
whether we (France) can liberate the Netherlands, or can persuade the
Hapsburgs to be more cooperative, or ... All these things make good role
playing. It would be nice if there were a way to somehow have them have an
effect.
It also strikes me that it would be nice if the summer campaign results
actually mattered. Other than using them as an excuse to make snide
remarks, they don't have any significant long term effect. In practice,
losing or gaining territory could have significant impacts.
I am not sure that there is anything we can or should do about either of
these issues, but I thought I would mention them to the rest of you since
they have been bothering me for some time now. [The obvious solutions are
way to complex to be worth doing.]
Yours,
Joel
