Allow Separate Peace

[Marshall Ellis]

Makes sense to me.

[pzgndr]

Currently I find that many people do not understand the function of this setting and the majority of times when alliances have been broken have been mistakes rather than the intention of the player in question. i.e. Most people are going "Whoops, sorry about that" when it happens.

If anyone has suggestions for how to better describe the selection of surrender conditions and separate peace in the manual, speak up. I'm guilty of being a little confused and wondering what the optimum conditions should be. The documentation could be improved to provide better guidance.

[DCWhitworth]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Currently I find that many people do not understand the function of this setting and the majority of times when alliances have been broken have been mistakes rather than the intention of the player in question. i.e. Most people are going "Whoops, sorry about that" when it happens.

If anyone has suggestions for how to better describe the selection of surrender conditions and separate peace in the manual, speak up. I'm guilty of being a little confused and wondering what the optimum conditions should be. The documentation could be improved to provide better guidance.

I'm reasonably confident I know how it works. Anything specific you want to know ?

[gazfun]

We had something like this, France and Turkey are allies, the box wasn't ticked therefore not allowing a seperate peace, with Austria, then France ask for an Unconditional, and Turkey went for a Conditional, as a result there was a -2pp against Turkey and a Broken Alliance.
That doesnt sound right to me!
Anyone?

[Cunctator]

It is not right at all!
The broken alliance event happens only if an ally is a victor, concluding a separate formal peace vs. a common enemy, while the other ally REMAINS at war.
The victor suffers a -2 pp result in this case and only if the MP who remains at war did not check the "allow separate peace" box.
Any other outcome is a bug or a deviation from the original eia rule.
C.

[pzgndr]

[quote][I'm reasonably confident I know how it works. Anything specific you want to know ?
/quote]

David, I sent you a PM a couple days ago. Any suggestions you or other veterans have for helping to explain things better, I'm all ears. I can clarify things a bit more in the manual, but I don't have the old board game experience to offer helpful tips.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: gazfun

We had something like this, France and Turkey are allies, the box wasn't ticked therefore not allowing a seperate peace, with Austria, then France ask for an Unconditional, and Turkey went for a Conditional, as a result there was a -2pp against Turkey and a Broken Alliance.
That doesnt sound right to me!
Anyone?

There are two cases in your example: France is denied the unconditional and remains at war, or France is granted the unconditional. (In either case, Turkey will automatically be granted the conditional.)

In the case where France remains at war with the box unchecked, the alliance should be broken as described.

In the case where France is granted an unconditional, the alliance should remain intact regardless of whether the box is checked.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Cunctator

It is not right at all!
The broken alliance event happens only if an ally is a victor, concluding a separate formal peace vs. a common enemy, while the other ally REMAINS at war.
The victor suffers a -2 pp result in this case and only if the MP who remains at war did not check the "allow separate peace" box.
Any other outcome is a bug or a deviation from the original eia rule.
C.

Gazfun has not given us enough information to make such a determination. We have to know whether France is granted the unconditional surrender.

[ndrose]

Gazfun has not given us enough information to make such a determination. We have to know whether France is granted the unconditional surrender.

I know that a couple of versions back, there was definitely a bug whereby if peace was made with multiple nations, the game would examine them serially in determining whether to break an alliance. That is, whoever was first in the diplomatic *order*, even if peace was made the same month, would be counted as having made a separate peace, and would have to break alliances if the boxes weren't checked. I thought that was fixed, but I may be wrong about that.

There are really several separate problems we're discussing here:

1) Peace made the same month counting as separate peace. If this is still happening, it is a major bug, and should be quashed with highest priority.

The remaining problems are not bugs but are inaccurate reflections of the boardgame:

2) Inability to distinguish between conditional and unconditional peace in deciding whether to grant separate peace.

3) Inability to distinguish between light and harsh terms in deciding whether to grant separate peace. The boardgame allowed you to see the peace, then decide.

4) Inability to demand different terms in separate and general peace. Right now we just have one ordered checklist, which we have to prepare without knowing whether we'll be the only one surrendered to, or will be dividing spoils with allies. That too should either be decided after surrender (as in the boardgame) or dealt with by separate checklists.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: ndrose
The remaining problems are not bugs but are inaccurate reflections of the boardgame:

2) Inability to distinguish between conditional and unconditional peace in deciding whether to grant separate peace.

3) Inability to distinguish between light and harsh terms in deciding whether to grant separate peace. The boardgame allowed you to see the peace, then decide.

4) Inability to demand different terms in separate and general peace. Right now we just have one ordered checklist, which we have to prepare without knowing whether we'll be the only one surrendered to, or will be dividing spoils with allies. That too should either be decided after surrender (as in the boardgame) or dealt with by separate checklists.

I would call #2 a bug, not just an inaccuracy.

For #3, the boardgame didn't allow you to see, either. However, the humans playing the boardgame typically allowed conditions to be negotiated. This makes sense historically. Surrendering with no knowledge of the conditions about to be applied happened only rarely. Usually, there was plenty of negotiation, even if it was behind the scenes.

#3 should be turned into an enhancement for EiANW over EiA (in other words, I agree that it is an issue). I would strongly favor allowing two, three, or even twenty steps be done for peace requests. Having to select them in advance is basically absurd, from a historical perspective, and adds very little to the game. Considering that peace comes only relatively rarely in the game, I would support dragging that process out quite a bit. We do this with battles already; why not with peace?

I also agree on #4. I suspect 3 and 4 can be combined. We probably should have a thread opened to discuss exactly how we would like to see things. It's going to be a big project to change just about anything, so we might as well have all the cards on the table before Marshall starts typing code.

[ndrose]

For #3, the boardgame didn't allow you to see, either. However, the humans playing the boardgame typically allowed conditions to be negotiated. This makes sense historically. Surrendering with no knowledge of the conditions about to be applied happened only rarely. Usually, there was plenty of negotiation, even if it was behind the scenes.

I think we must be talking about different things. You're describing what happens between adversaries: i.e., I surrender, and we've negotiated that the terms won't be too harsh. But you don't have to negotiate, and I don't have a right to see in advance what conditions you will pick. That's all true.

But what I'm talking about is what happens between allies. That is, in addition to distinguishing between conditional and unconditional surrenders in deciding whether to force an alliance break, you should be able to distinguish between, say, "my ally picked remove three corps" and "my ally picked royal marriage". In the boardgame, you saw what kind of peace it was, *including specific conditions*, before you decided whether to invoke an alliance break. It's really just an extension point #2.

[gazfun]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: gazfun

We had something like this, France and Turkey are allies, the box wasn't ticked therefore not allowing a seperate peace, with Austria, then France ask for an Unconditional, and Turkey went for a Conditional, as a result there was a -2pp against Turkey and a Broken Alliance.
That doesnt sound right to me!
Anyone?

There are two cases in your example: France is denied the unconditional and remains at war, or France is granted the unconditional. (In either case, Turkey will automatically be granted the conditional.)


In the case where France remains at war with the box unchecked, the alliance should be broken as described.

In the case where France is granted an unconditional, the alliance should remain intact regardless of whether the box is checked.

Yes the latter happened, and where France was granted a unconditional, but the France Turkey Alliance was broken with a -2pp to Turkey.
wierd.

But I would like to say, to try to negotiate peace terms is not easy especially over email, and there is a best time for this to happen also, and that is after all land movement is done, because possesions can change quickly.

And if I remember it was done in its current format to reduce emails, so therefore if that is still the wish, then perhaps there should be a breakup of peace in each section, Conditional terms considered either Light, Medium and Harsh, and the same for Unconditional terms Light, Medium or Harsh.
I am aware under the current terms of peace the levels as I described.
Makes it still simple, but still having a variety and speed up negotations, for thats where this can bog down a bit.
I just thought I would throw that in the ring, and see if goes anywhere.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: ndrose
But what I'm talking about is what happens between allies. That is, in addition to distinguishing between conditional and unconditional surrenders in deciding whether to force an alliance break, you should be able to distinguish between, say, "my ally picked remove three corps" and "my ally picked royal marriage". In the boardgame, you saw what kind of peace it was, *including specific conditions*, before you decided whether to invoke an alliance break. It's really just an extension point #2.

Yes, you are correct: Two different things.

I agree then.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: gazfun
Yes the latter happened, and where France was granted a unconditional, but the France Turkey Alliance was broken with a -2pp to Turkey.
wierd.

That would be a bug, then.

But I would like to say, to try to negotiate peace terms is not easy especially over email, and there is a best time for this to happen also, and that is after all land movement is done, because possesions can change quickly.

And if I remember it was done in its current format to reduce emails, so therefore if that is still the wish, then perhaps there should be a breakup of peace in each section, Conditional terms considered either Light, Medium and Harsh, and the same for Unconditional terms Light, Medium or Harsh.
I am aware under the current terms of peace the levels as I described.
Makes it still simple, but still having a variety and speed up negotations, for thats where this can bog down a bit.
I just thought I would throw that in the ring, and see if goes anywhere.

I agree. See the other thread I started on this. Anything we do will require some re-coding (at a minimum), so I started that thread to talk about what should be changed and what the options are.