Imperialism II PBEM

[Northerner]

In exchange for peace the British Empire is prepared to concede any territory not populated by subjects descendants of colonists from the British Isles.

This is a generous offer, and one France cannot possibly lightly brush aside. The British have taken terrible losses in this war, and will hardly be a threat to France in the near future, if ever, should British territories be handed over.

This offer of peace is final.

Europe

Brest retaken. A small force heads inland and attack Lyon, the city judged most likely to be lightly defended. The gamble paid off, although the mass of partisans spawned might make the whole endeavour more beneficial to the defender than to the attacker.

Africa

Siege of Khartoum broken. A lightly held Djibouti retaken.

On the High Seas

Some moderate successes against single French ships.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

The French would not have expected the British to offer such a significant territorial concession so soon after the war began. The French will prepare an armistice proposal on the basis of the British offer.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

A few parts of this agreement still need to be specified, but here is what I have so far. As long as @Northerner agrees to section 1, I can play my turn (by transferring the cities instead of conquering them). France is willing to entertain counter proposals on the specific details of this agreement.

Armistice Agreement Between French And British Empires

1. Immediate Obligations

The British shall immediately return Brussels, Brest, and Lyon to French Administration. (The section 4 payment provisions do not apply to these cities.)

2. Hostage Cities

Britain shall remove all troops and other units from the following cities:

Plymouth, Southampton, Birmingham, Newcastle, and London.

France shall remove all troops from the following cities:

Ambovombe, Tananarive, Diego-Suarez, Sofala, Sao Sebastiao, Noumea.

Troops may be kept in ships near these cities to ensure that they remain empty, and may attack and capture any of these cities that stations a unit inside. Units may still be produced in these cities, but they must be moved out during the turn.

3. Surrender Procedure

In the territories which the British Empire agrees to surrender to the French Empire, the British will specify certain cities as "Evacuation Ports." All units in the surrendered territories shall travel to an Evacuation Port as quickly as possible, and all other cities shall remain empty. France may send patrols and station troops to make sure this is being observed.

The number of evacuation ports should be approximately 1 sixth of all surrendering cities (or fewer).

Once units are withdrawn to the Evacuation Ports, France and Britain shall agree to de-mobilize (i.e. return to the house rule for waiting a turn after a war declaration). The demobilization shall not apply to the hostage cities.

Britain will not be forced to surrender cities to French administration until she has had a chance to deliver all supported trade units and re-home all other supported units to a city which Britain shall retain after the completion of this agreement.

France will deliver sea transport capabilities to the Evacuation Ports to speed the departure of British Assets. These shall be returned to France, unless kept as payment as specified in the next section.

4. Payments for Surrendered Cities (to ensure buildings are not sold, cities are not starved)

France agrees to pay Britain 1.3 gold per shield of production cost for improvements remaining in surrendered cities. This payment shall occur immediately upon city transfer.

Britain may retain evacuation shipping capacity provided by France at the rate of 20 shields per citizen surrendered. Britain may accept a payment of 35 gold per citizen instead, or 45 gold if France did not provide sufficient transports to pay for that citizen. This payment shall occur after the final city is surrendered.

5. Cities to Be Surrendered

Exact list to be specified, but general idea

Definitely to be surrendered: India, British Middle East, British Egypt and Sudan

Definitely to remain British: British Isles, All Territory in America and Atlantic Ocean Islands, Australia, New Zealand, British South Africa, some islands near Australia.

6. Exceptions and Additional Obligations

More might go here based on a closer look and the course of negotiations.

Chengdu: Britain shall have the option to give this city to the French, or to the Japanese (for whatever payment or concessions Britain can get) or to grant the city its independence (i.e. give it to the Independent Civ).

For the duration of this agreement, the British Empire agrees not to research, or acquire from others, the technologies for Steel Alloys or Large Calibre Guns.

7. Trade

Britain and France shall return to the trade relationship that existed before the war. Britain shall not have the right to embargo French goods until the surrender of territory is complete. France shall not embargo British goods without first lodging a complaint that the British are in violation of some part of the agreement, or that the surrender of territory is taking too long. After such a complaint, the British will have at least one more turn of access to French markets, providing time for the disagreement to be resolved.

 

[Northerner]

The French expectations are irrational at best.

This ends when every last Frenchman has been relieved of his arms, and every last French ship has been hauled to scrap.

Long live the Empress!

 

[Prof. Garfield]

Sorry that I've been delayed in responding and playing.

The French foreign ministry appears to have misunderstood the earlier communication from the British, and mistook an offer of some of the specified territory as an offer of it all. Hence we drafted an agreement of a major surrender from a power that has attempted to annex our territory and has attempted to force the rest of the world to boycott our merchants. We will admit to the international community that the "hostage city" scheme was unreasonable, especially given that the surrendering cities were to be vacated during most of the agreement length.

Perhaps history will blame this misunderstanding for the deaths of millions of men, but the blame should more probably be on Napoleon III, who would not have accepted a modest territorial concession even if he understood that that was being offered.

Is there anything that the British did last turn that was done on the basis of opening a good faith negotiation, and which, therefore, it would be dishonourable for the French to take advantage of, given that such negotiations failed?

 

[Northerner]

Opening with an offer of peace on the turn France loses her naval supremacy is something of a show of good faith. To be honest I do not know if it really counts for anything at all.

The French expectations - that is, Egypt, India, and some more territories, are possibly the most valuable territories of the British Empire. They are well developed and will take little work to develop towards their greatest potential. The addition of any single one of them could have gone far towards making France the unquestionable supreme power.

I do think that the French Empire gaining control of all of these immediately and without bloodshed would effectively decide the game, if it hasn’t been decided already.

Perhaps it would be better to end the game sooner rather than later, but the fact that have I such precious little idea of what the French counterattack might be is very exciting. Will my position be irredeemable next turn? Or will I hold out for three more? Or will I, by some stroke of luck - skill alone cannot possibly turn this mess around - end up prevailing?

I understand perfectly that France would not accept the peace, but given my massive initial losses against French battleships I thought my offer would condiered in some depth. Perhaps I was massively unfortunate in the first turn of the war, expwnding some 60 armoured cruisers and gaining very little.

(I seem to recall that after veteran status is calculated numbers are rounded down. Is this correct?)

 

[Prof. Garfield]

I wasn't trying to imply that the British offer was in bad faith or anything, just that the expectation of negotiation might have put the British at a tactical disadvantage somewhere, given that we can't negotiate as the battle is raging or anything. I was actually thinking of Valletta, which seems to have been abandoned. That seemed like an odd decision from a tactical point of view, given the defensible nature of that island, but would make sense if there was an expectation of having to hand over that territory in a peace settlement.

The French expectations - that is, Egypt, India, and some more territories, are possibly the most valuable territories of the British Empire. They are well developed and will take little work to develop towards their greatest potential. The addition of any single one of them could have gone far towards making France the unquestionable supreme power.

I do think that the French Empire gaining control of all of these immediately and without bloodshed would effectively decide the game, if it hasn’t been decided already.

I agree that the surrender of all the territory I thought Britain was offering would have decided the game in my favour, and although the surrender process itself might have been interesting, I wasn't looking forward to playing beyond that. Short of attacking someone else, there wouldn't be much for me to do. I was actually considering giving over a lot of territory to the independents to try to balance up the game a little, but I was also thinking that it wouldn't be all that fun to play after giving up a lot of territory that I worked to integrate into my empire. I suppose it wouldn't be fun for you to give up that much territory without a fight either. I was actually thinking, however, that it might have made strategic sense for the British to salvage their army, ship it all to Canada, and fight the U.S. instead. (Not that I'm encouraging that kind of aggression against the U.S.)

I understand perfectly that France would not accept the peace, but given my massive initial losses against French battleships I thought my offer would condiered in some depth. Perhaps I was massively unfortunate in the first turn of the war, expwnding some 60 armoured cruisers and gaining very little.

My balance of power calculus has been mostly made under the assumption that with uninterrupted trade, it should be possible at this stage to rush something in every city every turn. I've been doing this for quite a while (I always leave a 60 shield structure unbuilt in each of my cities so that a rush from scratch is just 120 gold more), and for a while the British were achieving one tech per turn, so they seemed to have the wherewithal to do this also. So after a few turns of peace, I figured that any war losses would be insignificant to the overall balance of power. I do acknowledge that there are other elements that go into the balance of power, like how contiguous the territories are.

During an active war, regular trade is much less certain, and recent losses much more important in the calculus of power. Hence why a moderate gain in territory doesn't seem worth it to end the war. In some sense, this seemed like the only chance France would get to beat the British, with a slight lead in military tech and a moderate advantage in units.

Perhaps it would be better to end the game sooner rather than later, but the fact that have I such precious little idea of what the French counterattack might be is very exciting. Will my position be irredeemable next turn? Or will I hold out for three more? Or will I, by some stroke of luck - skill alone cannot possibly turn this mess around - end up prevailing?

The war is interesting for me also, since Britain is still a large and dangerous opponent. I don't know how long the game should go on after this. If Britain and France exhaust themselves completely in a long and drawn out war, then it is conceivable that others could rise to power in the mean time, and the game would be balanced. However, if there is a decisive victory, then the game might be effectively over once the war is finished anyway.

I think I'll resign as leader of France after the war with the British is concluded (I'll stick around if someone thinks this would seriously hurt the game). If the other players that have invested in this game want to continue, they can either leave France as an AI power or dismantle it to restore balance and get someone else to take over. Now is the time to decide if the Franco-British war "should" spill over into a world war. I'll tip my hand a bit and say that I've been courting an ally since shortly before I decided now was my opportunity to attack the British. Since I've made some payments with cheat mode recently, this may not be too surprising.

(I seem to recall that after veteran status is calculated numbers are rounded down. Is this correct?)

Regarding the veteran status calculation, while civ 2 division does round down, I believe that unit combat strength is multiplied by 8 before bonuses and penalties, so the rounding down is of little or no impact.

 

[Broken_Erika]

I do think that the French Empire gaining control of all of these immediately and without bloodshed would effectively decide the game, if it hasn’t been decided already.

Perhaps it would be better to end the game sooner rather than later, but the fact that have I such precious little idea of what the French counterattack might be is very exciting. Will my position be irredeemable next turn? Or will I hold out for three more? Or will I, by some stroke of luck - skill alone cannot possibly turn this mess around - end up prevailing?

Unless Germany and Japan get involved. and if they get involved, might as well involve everyone else. The game cannot end until after WW1! And now would be a great time for a war to end all wars!

 

[JPetroski]

Well now that you mention it there is an ongoing dispute over a railroad in South Africa that still needs to be sorted....

 

[Broken_Erika]

How would sides be drawn? Or maybe just have everyone at war with everyone else with no alliances of any kind?

 

[McMonkey]

I would like to continue playing. I've put a lot of time and effort into this scenario and for it to all end after a couple of turns of combat would seem a real shame.

I can see France's dilemma. The logical thing to do would be to push home the advantage and claim the title of undisputed hegemon of the world. However, this may well lead to the game fizzling out. This was the kind of scenario I was seeking to avoid with the limited war (regional wars) rules, but I can see the flaws in that concept.

The idea of Garfield being declared the first victor and then handing over France to a new player & giving some of its territories back to the AI may actually allow the game to continue. It could actually be quite interesting for the rest of us with two of the current superpowers shrunk down significantly to balance the power more evenly. If Garfield was willing to do this and we could vote on the motion then I would cast my vote in favour of such an idea.

On the other hand, it seems like a poor prize for Garfield - 'Congratulations & goodbye'. I guess there are no cash prizes for winning and we're all playing for the pleasure of building our empires so to some extent we make up our own notions of victory & defeat.

 

[Broken_Erika]

France vs. everyone else?

 

[Prof. Garfield]

On the other hand, it seems like a poor prize for Garfield - 'Congratulations & goodbye'. I guess there are no cash prizes for winning and we're all playing for the pleasure of building our empires so to some extent we make up our own notions of victory & defeat.

Well, at the moment, my current "prize" is to play long, extended turns, which sometimes takes away from other things I'd like to do (like lua stuff), so I don't mind leaving the game at this point. I'm also likely to be short of time to play pretty soon. Being able to declare victory and not have to manage the French Empire would be a bit of a prize. I might find it interesting to take over a weaker power, but I wouldn't want to do it with a dispossessed France. Perhaps I could take over the independents and see if it is possible for Brazil to stand up to America.

 

[JPetroski]

I can see France's dilemma. The logical thing to do would be to push home the advantage and claim the title of undisputed hegemon of the world. However, this may well lead to the game fizzling out. This was the kind of scenario I was seeking to avoid with the limited war (regional wars) rules, but I can see the flaws in that concept.

As I haven't played the entire time or even paid attention the entire time, did any colonial wars erupt? It seems like the map was gobbled up very well but did anyone fight over an area?

I think that your idea to try and generate them was a good one because the problem with these scenarios is there's always this big build-up period and then this almost anti-climactic world war. It's as though every game turns into a worst-case scenario from a comic book or "The Man in High Castle."

I think lua could be used to good effect to prompt more local wars. If I ever break ground with the Cold War 1947 scenario I've been thinking about for years, one thing I'd like to do is basically have a system where there's some neutral or pro-west/pro-east civ, and when the Soviets or US or anyone else goes and attacks certain cities for that civ in a certain region (for example, South Korea), or even makes a decision via tech acquisition or other mechanism, the other players get a dialogue box on their turn asking them how they'd like to react to it:

Everyone might get this pop up (it could even be turn based):

TITLE: Local Conflict Escalates!
Text: North Korea launches an assault on the south! So and so many soldiers are streaming across the border! How will the international community react?

Each individual nation might get these options:

Option A: Do nothing; this is not our business (nothing happens)
Option B: Fund resistance fighters! (money is deducted from the treasury, the assaulted Civ is bolstered by other units that the assaulted civ controls)
Option C: Directly intervene (state of war between intervening party and aggressor potentially with a deduction of funds and creation of some units that the intervening party controls--this is done to get people fighting then and there).

If America and Russia both chose Option C, they'd get a pop up alerting them that a local conflict is now brewing in Korea and that their volunteer forces will be combat with each other, but due care should be taken to ensure this doesn't spill over elsewhere.

If naval and air units (the ones most likely to accidentally bump into each other elsewhere on the map) were all 'k units,' then you could have two parties in a technical state of 'war' without having incidents left and right as trade ships or other vessels run into each other by accident. I would think that most of us aren't moving ground forces places where they're particularly likely to accidentally contact something.

I think a system like this would allow for little mini-conflicts that would keep the game interesting and frankly more accurate as wars that involve the entire planet and are a fight to the death (thankfully) don't happen very often.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

I may have come up with a psychological trick for peace talks in an "epic" PBEM: propose peace right after your opponent plays. I'm mostly past the "fun" assess damage and counterattack phase, and more into the think several turns ahead in order to make sure the logistics work. That phase is fun for a moderately sized civ, but is getting tedious over so many cities and units (again). I'm much more open to peace than I was before I started playing. Part of that may be that I'm more familiar with the situation and have realized that the long term power balance now already favours France, and a moderate territorial concession would swing it significantly further.

I don't know that I'd accept, since even peace turns are kind of long and I'd kind of like to "conclude" France's "story," but it is more tempting now than earlier.

As I haven't played the entire time or even paid attention the entire time, did any colonial wars erupt? It seems like the map was gobbled up very well but did anyone fight over an area?

No, the "Uganda Crisis" was the first serious attempt at a colonial war/annexation/whatever.

I think that your idea to try and generate them was a good one because the problem with these scenarios is there's always this big build-up period and then this almost anti-climactic world war. It's as though every game turns into a worst-case scenario from a comic book or "The Man in High Castle."

I did try to propose a points system where food caravans could be delivered for points (so there would be some other goal besides simple conquest) and where troop losses cost points, but that wasn't taken up.

Part of the problem is that once you build up your economy and civilian infrastructure, there is little to do besides stockpile units. In some sense that means that if you can win a war, there is little down side to waging it, since otherwise your units will just sit around collecting dust. It also means that in the long run, the side that can produce the most units will have a bigger and more capable army, and be almost guaranteed to win the war.

In order to have a limited war, both sides have to want a limited war. If one or both sides are patiently stockpiling units for the Great War, then at least one side will probably want a general war (as I did in this game). Maybe if all the territory was claimed, but trade, research, and infrastructure still had to be developed, there might be an incentive to fight a colonial war to gain some territory but keep it from escalating so that you can still trade and research.

I think lua could be used to good effect to prompt more local wars. If I ever break ground with the Cold War 1947 scenario I've been thinking about for years, one thing I'd like to do is basically have a system where there's some neutral or pro-west/pro-east civ, and when the Soviets or US or anyone else goes and attacks certain cities for that civ in a certain region (for example, South Korea), or even makes a decision via tech acquisition or other mechanism, the other players get a dialogue box on their turn asking them how they'd like to react to it:

Everyone might get this pop up (it could even be turn based):

TITLE: Local Conflict Escalates!
Text: North Korea launches an assault on the south! So and so many soldiers are streaming across the border! How will the international community react?

Each individual nation might get these options:

Option A: Do nothing; this is not our business (nothing happens)
Option B: Fund resistance fighters! (money is deducted from the treasury, the assaulted Civ is bolstered by other units that the assaulted civ controls)
Option C: Directly intervene (state of war between intervening party and aggressor potentially with a deduction of funds and creation of some units that the intervening party controls--this is done to get people fighting then and there).

If America and Russia both chose Option C, they'd get a pop up alerting them that a local conflict is now brewing in Korea and that their volunteer forces will be combat with each other, but due care should be taken to ensure this doesn't spill over elsewhere.

This could do it, since you are forced to act now if you want some territory or advantage. If the only way to gain territory or influence outside of a general war is to respond to a crisis when it happens, both sides might have some incentive to have a local fight, but not have it spill over globally. I think there might have to be some sort of "domestic politics" or "national prestige" system to make this work. Otherwise, one side might just "surrender" each time, and quietly build up an army of doom.

If naval and air units (the ones most likely to accidentally bump into each other elsewhere on the map) were all 'k units,' then you could have two parties in a technical state of 'war' without having incidents left and right as trade ships or other vessels run into each other by accident. I would think that most of us aren't moving ground forces places where they're particularly likely to accidentally contact something.

You can change the treaty status between civs via lua events, so I think you could have a trigger that sets status to "war" if a unit is activated inside the war zone, and to "peace" otherwise. That would probably minimize the likelihood of accidents.

 

[Northerner]

If it is at all possible, I’d like to this game going as it is for a little while longer - even if only a few more turns.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

If it is at all possible, I’d like to this game going as it is for a little while longer - even if only a few more turns.

If you find it fun, I'll keep playing. Winning a war isn't that bad, all things considered, and there are still chances for reversals, especially where combat is going to take place inland. But don't feel the need to keep playing to allow me to "enjoy my victory" or anything like that.


News: (I haven't separated this into geographic regions this time, so this is pretty much chronological)

The French appear to have underestimated the Muslims, as some appear to have moved towards Brega across the desert rather than attack the nearer British.

Some native warriors beaten in Africa.

Lyon, Brest, Brussels re-captured.

An empty Southampton re-captured.

The game is showing me a Steam Frigate in Plymouth, which means I can check the size of the stack there. I can also do this for Khartoum and Djibouti. I'm not sure why it does this for certain cities but not others. I originally thought the cities had to be within 2 squares of a city you owned for this to happen, but it is not so clear now, since I could see Plymouth from the start of the turn, and I can't see London now. Maybe it has to do with if a unit attacked from inside the city? Except that I've been able to see the number of units in some cities since the beginning of the game.

I mentioned this "feature" in the Soaring Spirit game, so this shouldn't be completely new to @Northerner, but I mention it again since it isn't behaving as I would expect it to.

The French receive intelligence that 17 units are in Plymouth. Efforts are made to attack the city, hoping to kill units damaged while on the French side of the channel. Plans go ahead, with an unease that perhaps this is a trap and the damaged units have been pulled back to Birmingham. The attack is a success, with several damaged highlanders in the city (though the ones that defended at full health come very close to taking out marines, even when not fortified-- that 3fp counts for a lot). Plymouth Captured.

British Armoured cruisers sunk near Valetta and Benghazi.

French marines attack Alexandria but are repulsed with 6 units of losses to no kills. Battleship brought in to defeat 2 units. Armoured cruisers brought in also, 1 or 2 defeated, but defenders are killed. Another battleship brought in, kills some trade units. Light cruiser brought in to defeat ships in harbour. Alexandria Captured.

Cruisers sunk near Granville and Accra. 3 Armoured cruisers sunk in the Indian Ocean. 2 French Armoured cruisers and gunboat sunk near Singapore, 5 British armoured cruisers sunk also. Rifleman killed outside Taiping.

Marines attack Al-Mukalla, 2 killed on the beaches. Battleship brought in. Al-Mukalla Captured.

Aden attacked, 1 marine killed on beaches. Warships brought in for extra power, and kill many ships and trade units. Aden captured.

Djibouti recaptured. Some units in the open in Sudan/Etheopia killed.

2 British cruisers near Aden sunk.

Calcutta assaulted by marines. Surprisingly, a fortified native army unit is defeated by a single marine (I thought they have 7 defense; I guess that extra fp of the marine is helpful). More surprisingly, the next 7 marines all die on the beaches, and a battleship only manages 1 kill. Next 3 marines win 2, lose 1, but damaged units start appearing, so the attack is pushed forward. Next 3 have more success, but a light cruiser only makes 1 kill before being sunk in return. 3 more marines are successful, and an armoured cruiser is brought in to kill trade units. A battleship finishes off the last defender. Calcutta captured.

An empty Valetta captured.

Light cruiser sunk by battleship east of Phillipines. Armoured cruiser sunk near Durban.

Highlander and Armoured Cruiser defeated near Cayenne by battleship. Steam warship sunk near Ascension.

Heraklion bombarded by battleships. Turns out there is only one highlander (and some trade units) defending the city, though the highlander leaves a battleship with only a sliver of HP. Heraklion captured.

 

[McMonkey]

RUSSIAN EMPIRE July 1874

I think Garfield's solution sounds good (Taking over Independents, negotiating a division of French territory & finding a new player for the French). We've all put too much time & effort into this scenario to let it end like this, just as we're getting to the interesting part. France/Garfield has clearly bossed the first chapter & congratulations to him as he played it like a real champion. I think we'll all be able to learn a thing or two when we look back through the old saves when the game does finally end.

Negotiating a peace settlement could be fun and it may be an opportunity to boost some of the nations that are currently lagging behind a little and set us up for a fun second chapter.

 

[McMonkey]

Just to let you know, I'm heading off to Italy on Sunday for a week of skiing. With the pace of the game recently I shouldn't hold things up too much, if at all. I'll try to check in on my phone in the evenings to see what's being discussed, provided the apres ski hasn't rendered me incapable

 

[Patine]

An error with Civ2. I've seen it before several times, and fixed it several times. I just can't remember off-hand what it was. The answer is in the Civ2 Tech Support forums. I'm going to quickly troubleshoot and post, hopefully, tomorrow or the next day.