| Welcome to Blut Und Eisen. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Enquiries regarding House Rules; Discuss Rules and Post Questions Here | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 16 2013, 01:19 PM (1,394 Views) | |
| SchFerreira | Oct 24 2013, 07:55 PM Post #31 |
![]()
|
Yeah, this doesn't seem to be the type of treaty that would a time-limit, I guess this isn't the treaty that was in mind when that rule was made. |
![]() |
|
| Magister Equitum | Oct 24 2013, 08:01 PM Post #32 |
![]()
|
The rules are clear in saying that treaties are valid for a session. Is this a treaty? Yes. Therefore it is valid for one session. The purpose of this rule is so that participants are assessing the situation weekly and not making treaty commitments for prolonged periods. Parties may be obligated by treaty to enact decisions etc. that could potentially occur. However, this obligation only exists as long as the treaty is valid. The treaty is considered invalid at the end of a session, but may be renewed. Other participants in this game don't have the liberty of "considering what to do with a rule" when conducting their diplomacy. I see no reason why the GM should exercise this right when his diplomacy runs afoul with the rules. |
![]() |
|
| SchFerreira | Oct 24 2013, 08:27 PM Post #33 |
![]()
|
Magister, I would actually argue that the rules aren't very clear (and not just this one), but whatever. Is your argument that the rule does apply in this case, because of the max date set for enacting the political reform? Because that is not the type of issue that I understand the rule to address, |
![]() |
|
| Faulty | Oct 24 2013, 08:43 PM Post #34 |
![]()
|
I think several treaties written so far would have been much different if the signatories had known this at the time
|
![]() |
|
| Magister Equitum | Oct 24 2013, 08:52 PM Post #35 |
![]()
|
The application of the rules is ultimately a decision for the GM. So Lotos will make the decision on what rules if any are applicable. Rule 22 states:
So, what is the Treaty of Corsica? Is it A treaty other than an alliance? Yes. The second requirement is requiring a time-limit. Consider the example of a non-aggression pact. This is not by nature a treaty requiring a time-limit yet it was included as an example. (Consider, hypothetically speaking, there is nothing about a non-aggression pact that denotes duration or other time-associated qualities.) This indicates that a time stipulation of any sort in the treaty terms is limited to one session. Now the Treaty of Corsica has a time stipulation. It has the 1860 date for enacting certain decisions. If the GM wanted it to be that only non-aggression pacts and alliances had a one session time limit, then it would have been far simpler for the rules to state that. However, the rules refer instead to “treaties other than alliances” It seems somewhat unfair to players who are already negotiating (with treaties already signed in some cases) for the entire framework in which they have been negotiating to suddenly be altered. However, if the GM wishes to alter the rules, that is his prerogative. |
![]() |
|
| SchFerreira | Oct 24 2013, 08:56 PM Post #36 |
![]()
|
Fair enough. Maybe the wording should be that is must be the very first political reform that I enact, that I have to get it done during the first session. |
![]() |
|
| LotosSlayer | Oct 24 2013, 09:34 PM Post #37 |
![]()
|
I'm not sure if that's possible though. I don't want you losing 75 prestige over a condition you can't even do. It could be, but I'm not sure when the first reform usually becomes available, and that depends, as well. I'll leave the rule in just because I don't want to change it after we already started. |
![]() |
|
| SchFerreira | Oct 24 2013, 09:40 PM Post #38 |
![]()
|
Or it has to be enacted as soon as it is available. I don't know, really. |
![]() |
|
| Magister Equitum | Oct 24 2013, 09:50 PM Post #39 |
![]()
|
Revised Treaty Text What about: If this reform becomes available during the time this treaty is in force, Two Sicilies must enact said reform immediately? (Which is not so different from: If France attacks Spain, Portugal will help defend Spain) Treaty Text as is And again, there is nothing that says that the treaty cannot remain in force as is. The rules just say that it becomes invalid each session. There is nothing that prevents France and Two Sicilies from renewing the terms. So, if Two Sicilies and France keep renewing the treaty each session until the specified date is reached (1860) then if the activity is not fulfilled, the penalty would apply. |
![]() |
|
| LotosSlayer | Oct 24 2013, 10:07 PM Post #40 |
![]()
|
Yes, my problem is stuff like that shouldn't be able to be renewed. There isn't a point to making it invalid after each session, it only takes away from diplomacy. When we did the rules, I didn't notice that it was for ALL treaties, me and you only talked about alliances and NAPs(from what I remember anyway). Anyway, we'll leave the rule. |
![]() |
|
| Magister Equitum | Oct 24 2013, 10:12 PM Post #41 |
![]()
|
Again, you're the GM. It's your decision what the rules are etc. |
![]() |
|
| Magister Equitum | Oct 25 2013, 06:19 PM Post #42 |
![]()
|
It has been a customary rule for players to be permitted to cross from home territory, through neutral territory, to allied territory. Example: France + Netherlands v. Spain. The Netherlands could request military access through Belgium to cross into France (as long as Dutch units were not directly attack Spanish units or moving into Spanish occupied territory.) Example France+Austria v. Russia. France could request Sardinia-Piedmont for military access to march troops through Sardinia-Piedmont, into Austria (as long as French units were not directly attacking Russian units or Russian held territory) Of course, at all times, Belgium and Sardinia-Piedmont have the right to decline military access (therefore, this is something to be negotiated.) The Rule as they stand do not prohibit this custom. I just want to clarify if this custom is in fact in place. Rule 48:
Could read: Troops going between home/allied territories may pass through neutral territories. Naturally, with the provisions of Rule 47 still in place. |
![]() |
|
| icendoan | Oct 27 2013, 09:53 AM Post #43 |
![]() ![]()
|
I can understand not allowing retreating into neutral territory, because it blocks pursuit, but I don't understand why we don't allow attacking from neutral territory. In the above example of France + Netherlands vs Spain, if Spain were to destroy the Dutch navy and occupy the Belgian-French border, the Netherlands would not be able to retake it with any armies in the Netherlands, which is a little silly. |
![]() |
|
| SchFerreira | Nov 9 2013, 07:53 AM Post #44 |
![]()
|
Lotos suggested that the anti-coalition rule (the Class A Powers one) changed at some given time (I think 1910), but I cannot find said change in the rules. |
![]() |
|
| am300307 | Nov 9 2013, 09:23 AM Post #45 |
![]() ![]()
|
On the class a powers thread Alliance Limitations Note: Great Wars and Crisis Wars are not subject to the Alliance rules. 14.The Top-5 Military Powers (Class A Powers) cannot be allied to one another. 15.In 1880, Class A powers will be defined as the Top-6 Military Powers. 16.Military power class is calculated by ranking all human player countries in order of soldier population. 17.Military power class is calculated and published prior to each session and remains in place for the duration of the session. 18.Japan will not be included in the Class A ranking, even if qualified to be placed therein, until 1880. |
![]() |
|
| SchFerreira | Nov 9 2013, 09:53 AM Post #46 |
![]()
|
That isn't what I meant. Lotos implied that the rule against coalitions no longer applied past some date. |
![]() |
|
| Erthel | Nov 9 2013, 10:24 AM Post #47 |
![]()
|
Well, Great Wars would allow for GP alliances. Crisis do allow that, too, but so far no crisis raised interest
|
![]() |
|
| Magister Equitum | Nov 9 2013, 07:17 PM Post #48 |
![]()
|
A few questions about the rules: Infamy Limit and Agreed-upon Territorial Transfer
Are players allowed to go over the infamy limitwhen enacting agreed upon territorial transfers? If so, would it also be possible at the GM’s discretion, if the infamy is negatively affecting a country, to have a quick infamy edit of a save-game (infamy edits take a few seconds) so the a player above the infamy limit does not face the negative in-game consequences of this (Ie. containment by AI, consciousness increase)? Colonial War Wargoal Limits
For colonial wars, does the two state limit apply per war or per participant in a war? As in, if France and Spain attacked the NGF in a colonial war, would the total limit for the colonial war be two states OR is it two states by France, two states by Spain? Non-Aggression Pacts There was some discussion as to what is meant by the term non-aggression pact. So, is it correct to say that non-aggression means not attacking a country directly and not attacking states within the country’s sphere of influence OR does the non-aggression pact treaty have to specify whether spheres of influence are also included? Furthermore, I’m guessing that a non-aggression pact does not apply to “allies” of the parties signing the agreement unless specified. For example, if NGF had a non-aggression pact with Spain, and if NGF was planning an invasion of France, but then Spain signed an agreement with France. IF the non-aggression pact between Spain and NGF did not specify that the signatories would not attack one another’s “allies,” what would happen? (My understanding: NGF would still be allowed to attack France. Spain would have to choose whether to participate to help France breaking her non-aggression pact with NGF (and bearing the penalty) OR Spain would decide not to help France (breaking her alliance with France and bearing the penalty.)) Declarations of War
Is the game in process during this time (60 seconds)? I'm asking because, I think, the last time there was a declaration of war, the game was paused for 60 seconds (as opposed to allowing the game to continue, with the country declaring war (via message) waiting 60 seconds before clicking the "declare war" button) |
![]() |
|
| icendoan | Nov 12 2013, 03:09 PM Post #49 |
![]() ![]()
|
Can I request a loophole in the "no use of the national stockpile" rule for the exclusive functioning of the bank of amsterdam? I understand why this rule is in place, but I think that having it just for the purpose of international trade is a worthy substitute, alongside with all of the diplomatic options it can bring. It opens the possibility of a Lend-Lease type program for support in Great Wars, and the support of actual material aid and provision for uncivs in different ways. If we were to just give uncivs money, they wouldn't be able to spend it on anything that is actually competed over, such as military goods, which may be well outside the interests of the supporting players. It also allows for loans and a route to using the large quantities of money we all accumulate for something that is good for the game. Furthermore, it allows for a minor form of embargo, by states exclusively buying and selling their goods centrally, especially for military goods. It doesn't make sense to trade things like coffee or opium, because the player has no use for it to sit in the stockpile, but trading materiel like arms and artillery is a useful political tool, and thus can only be helpful to the game. Notice that because this can only take place outside of sessions, that stockpiling cannot actually overwhelm the world markets, because you can only accumulate 2000 units of any one good. 2000 artillery is a lot, but 2000 ammunition isn't very much. It can only be to the longterm problem of a nation to stockpile military goods without the later intention of trading them: if they in a state of war, then the market is under such a strain already that they will immediately consume everything they are buying, and thus this cannot affect them. If they are not in a state of war, and do not intend to be in one later, then they are actively losing money by consistently buying materiel at wartime prices (ie, huge) and then depositing it into the bank, where if it isn't traded, becomes a deadweight. Even if they choose to trade these goods later, if it is to not be in the interests of whoever they are attempted to restrict from this good, they cannot sell it while they are involved in a major war. If they are only involved in a minor war, then this restriction of trade will not actively harm the market; there will be enough arms slack from the rest of the world to provide for a minor war. Only large wars are of any consequence. If they are not in a major war, then they are reselling at a vastly lesser price, and their sale drives the prices still lower. This in turn has effects on their arms industries, and can ultimately make them lose further still. Also notice that because they can do this only once per session, it's not possible for this to be used to any great or sustained effect during this session, so the war efforts of any one party cannot really be constrained to an overwhelming degree. However, for protracted or longterm wars, this sale through the bank allows for one side to continually prop up the other, through an injection of materiel, which can ultimately affect the outcome of the war, and thus it is still politically useful for more peaceful nations in a great war. tl;dr, it doesn't hurt the game to allow this. Let me have it. |
![]() |
|
| icendoan | Nov 12 2013, 04:23 PM Post #50 |
![]() ![]()
|
I'd just like to add that this rule would be completely unenforceable anyway, and the only one who's willing to go through the save with a fine-tooth comb to find offenders would be me, while I was doing bank transactions. If you want this rule to be enforceable, then allowing the bank to do asset trading makes it possible, as well.
|
![]() |
|
| LotosSlayer | Nov 14 2013, 01:38 PM Post #51 |
![]()
|
Yes, you can go over aslong as its a peaceful transfer, although you have to mention it in the chat so I can keep track of it. If you didn't mention it, it won't count. As for edits in-between sessions, that'd take too long, we can only do them after each session, so if a strong AI declares war you can blame the person who missed the session. ![]() As for the colonial war rule, it's per attacker. So, 2 states per attacker, not per war. That's for colonial war peaces, not for normal peaces/normal wars, there's no limit for those. To make the NAP situation clear: A standard NAP counts for the actual countries AND their spheres. Allies do not count for NAPs. Oh and, it should be paused, just so people have time to call their allies, etc. As for editing stockpiles or stockpiling, I'm sorry, we just can't do it. We don't know what kind of trouble it'll cause, and we can't have higher prestige nations stockpiling resources. Magister can try to convince me if he wants, but for now the answer is no. |
![]() |
|
| Magister Equitum | Nov 14 2013, 01:53 PM Post #52 |
![]()
|
Prestige, infamy edits do not take long. (I could be wrong, but I don't imagine players would object to waiting a few moments so that a country transferring land is not kicked out of secondary power status and therefore prevented from colonising.) The reason I ask is because we had a faulty crisis which set plans awry and I'm hoping that there can be some flexibility regarding edits which takes that fact into account. Although players planned transfers prior to the upcoming session, the bugged crisis prevented this from happening. Consequently, edits to prestige and infamy that were to occur prior to tomorrow's session were not possible. Bearing in mind that colonisation is coming up during tomorrow's session (where prestige is relevant) and land transfers are also pertinent to colonisation, I think speedy edits of the save game file should be considered. Again, I am not asking that we always allow edits during sessions. I am saying that given that we had a faulty crisis and given that actions prevented on account of the faulty crisis have implications on upcoming colonisation, I think edits may be justified. (Alternately, the save-game file could be edited for land-transfers in this circumstance.) |
![]() |
|
| Magister Equitum | Nov 14 2013, 02:41 PM Post #53 |
![]()
|
Stockpiling Rules should be re-examined The prohibition against manual adjustments to stockpiles has been “on the books” for a long time and has not been re-examined despite the changes to the Victoria II game. Dragonknight2, GM of The Gathering Storm (TGS) Series, having looked at the possibility of a stockpile prohibition, decided not to include a prohibition in any of the games. The prohibition on manually determined stockpiles was only introduced in TGS 7 (where Dragonknight2 copied the rules from the Age of Industrialisation series.) TGS7 was the last game in the TGS series to date. Naveed has been a leading voice in questioning the reasoning behind the prohibition against manual stockpiling. His position, made all the more pertinent in light of the decision by Paradox to remove the “buy from stockpile” check box, has been that artificially limiting stockpile purchasing unnecessarily constrains players’ ability to fully play the game. (We are, after all, essentially saying that the complexity of Clausewitz engine economics should simply be set to “automate”.) Leading Arguments for the Stockpile Rule The arguments in favour of prohibiting manual adjustments to stockpiling were implemented in the Age of Industrialisation Series. The reasons identified in those early rule sets were that manual stockpiling (1) prevents lower prestige countries from accessing goods (2) causes fluctuations in demand for goods. Naveed addressed these two points directly. (Note, the TGS rule set allows manual stockpiling while the AOI rule set does not). Point 1: Naveed made clear that lower prestige nations were prevented from accessing goods not because of the stockpiling rule but because of prestige. Naveed indicated that manual stockpiling can be used to increase demand which also leads to increases supply. Naselus, a member of the Paradox team, also uses manual stockpile. (Note: I can't find the statistics now regarding the impact of manual stockpiling on increasing supply. It was published in a game where I was playing Sweden and Naselus was the O.E) Point 2: He asked “what is wrong with fluctuations in demand?” (Our demand already fluctuates on the automate setting) Amsterdam Bank I think the idea of introducing futures trading to the game through the Amsterdam Bank is a new, interesting and good idea. If we are not going to implement that idea I think we should at least consider allowing players to use the mechanisms available in-game (ie. manual stockpile) to their full potential. |
![]() |
|
| icendoan | Nov 14 2013, 03:08 PM Post #54 |
![]() ![]()
|
I can certainly edit saves very fast, especially for things like infamy or money. Actual land, or stockpile edits, would take longer (and we're certainly not doing one of those, due to OOS). As for stockpiles, we have two counter arguments: 1) It might cause bugs. I'm going to test this later, with the addition and removal of certain items, and I'll report back, but as, once bought, stockpiles are somewhat static, I very much doubt there will be an issue (the analogue would be the 'goods' command in single player, which does what I will be doing to the save, and doesn't cause any instability. It bugs with addition of negative goods, but only when subtracting more than there is in the stockpile). 2) We can't have it, for game balance. Ok, I'm going to be very clear: I don't give a damn about AI countries. They can all be annexed and deprived of resources, for all I care. This brings us to lower ranked players. The goods that will actually make a difference to stockpile (coal, iron, timber etc are all sold in such high quantities that it doesn't make a difference if we stockpile or not; if #1 stockpiles timber, it eats the market for ~2 days, and then things return to normal. Likewise if #1 sells his stockpile) are ammunition, small arms, artillery, machine parts, clippers, steamers, rubber, and later the electrical goods. These can be divided (quite cleanly, with the exception of tanks and planes) into two categories: I'm going to interrupt with a brief note about how the markets work in this game: if you produce something, and you need it (and you're not sphered) you will get at least your internal supply. Always. (With the exception of sphering, but I'll get to that later). Also, goods are bought in order of total rank, not of prestige (this was a mistake in the manual, I think it was Johan or Podcat who cleared this up on the forums). i: Military goods. If a country finds themselves in the position where they are attempting to field industrial armies, but cannot even start to internally support these troops, they are not in a good way, historically and strategically. IRL, it is a major security flaw if you are not in control of at least operational levels of military supply, and I don't see why it needs to be any different here. If you're still unciv, then it sucks, and you're stuck with unciv armies until you can build factories. Pretty realistic, I think. Even if you're not, and have the reforms for infantry, an unciv country is so far down the rankings that they are lucky to get the small arms necessary anyway, and certainly won't when there are major wars going on (*). This encourages diversifying your supply of arms, which is something that is diplomatically sensible in the real world, and since we're all trying to be statesmen here, I think it's a good facet to add to the game. ii: Industrially significant, but non-military goods, such as rubber, or machine parts. Firstly, as above, we note that it's only the low-ranked players who are not going to be able to make their own. I would consider machine parts and cement factories to be a staple of any industrial nation, and so, again, I would expect that all nations trying to industrialise will have a factory that produces them, and so they are not going to be completely bereft; if they are still struggling, then they have an internal market and can expand their factory. As for rubber, or oil, or something else which turns up and is very scarce, these things are scarce even among great powers, and even if we didn't have this system, nobody who doesn't own a rubber producing province will get any anyway, since it is always eaten up for those delicious factories in the country who owns it. This is what happens every game, no matter what we do. Even other GPs are going to be deprived, regardless of whether we do this nifty trading system or not. (*): If there are major wars going on, and a great power (who is not in that war) has a vested interest in one side of an unciv war, then through this, we can provide a system of giving concrete military aid. The GP who supports this unciv, without putting any boots on the ground, can eat up their own supply (this isn't going to affect the GP/GP war that is also going on, because they are incentivised to build their own supply) and transport it to the other nation, either in preparation, or if the war goes on between sessions, during the war. In this situation, there is no slack in the market, other than provided by the supporting GP; it goes to the ongoing GP/GP war, because they are the highest ranked. The unciv player (and I've previously said I don't care about the AI) who can negotiate for trading agreements is left strengthened, to no discernible harm to the rest of the world. If you're a player and your sphered, then you have negotiated yourself into it, and it's your fault. You can talk your way out of it, and if there's resistance, well then you've just lost out in your diplomacy. Sucks for you, but that's why we like this style of game. The major harm here is if the GPs do nothing but eat their own supply. There are two things that are raised from this: firstly, that this is causing some major diplomatic tension. If we can see that the world supply of small arms has dropped to near zero because Germany is stockpiling 2000 units for later, then it is something to talk to Germany about, and conduct diplomacy (yes, it's why we're here, and it's fun!) with them and get them to open their supply of small arms back to the world again. In fact, the near total embargo of things like rubber, or oil, or artillery, or steamers, would be something to go to war over! Humiliate is probably the CB you want for this. Negotiating trades and who supplies what and where it goes is yet another facet to the game that we like, and further emphasises good use of the forum. Secondly, let's put this into perspective. How often can a GP do this, and how much can it destabilise the market? They are able to stockpile without release 2000 units every session, which is roughly 10 years. That's a long time for 2000 units to be unable to be replaced, even with difficult resources like rubber or oil, that aren't traded in huge quantities (coal, timber, iron etc are all traded in the 100s a day). And it can only make a difference when literally every GP does this, all at once. This isn't going to happen, and here's why: when you buy something for your stockpile, you pay for it. If there is such a market shortage that it is to the concern of the GM (and not a usual thing, like there never being any clippers, for instance), then the price will skyrocket. This leads to the players paying more (possibly more than they wanted to, in their contract - they ought to be careful!) for the same good. If you were a sensible player, and producing more than a marginal supply, it is optimal for you to open your share to the market, and have the pops trade at this artificially higher price that the other players are generating for you. It is more profitable for your pops, and that means more taxes, and so on and so forth. Let me reiterate: while some other player is constricting the supply, it is sensible for you to sell on the world market, and stockpile later, because then you'll be able to take advantage of both the temporary spike in prices and then sell/stockpile on the normalised market later (which is what you'll be predicting from for trades, anyway). What does this lead to? A mexican standoff. No player wants to be the chump to drive up prices allowing for everyone else to sell high, so the player either tries to stockpile as little as possible, or tries to time it so there is market slack. In either of these cases, the harm that the action does to the game is negative; we can get better diplomacy without affecting the market prices massively, as players are silly to constrict goods. TL;DR: the two points you raise about why this is bad idea have been defeated, because nobody gives a flying fuck about the AI, and players are sensible and try to take advantage of the market, and this leads to a stable situation. Furthermore, we get an increase in player diplomatic options, which can only be good for the game. Trades, and using loans and a lend-lease type situation for major lategame wars will be quite interesting, and it doesn't hurt the game. |
![]() |
|
| Faulty | Nov 14 2013, 03:20 PM Post #55 |
![]()
|
Not that I care about the issue itself, but this is not a compelling argument. Withholding trade is done for strategic reasons, not for profit. As has been pointed out previously, money itself isn't particularly useful, resources are, and restricting rivals and enemies from acquiring resources is far more important than a few thousand pounds. |
![]() |
|
| icendoan | Nov 14 2013, 04:05 PM Post #56 |
![]() ![]()
|
The argument itself is against a marginal case; I very much doubt that all GPs are going to withhold trade all at once. It makes monetary sense not to, but you're quite right in saying that's not a compelling argument. More importantly, when you withhold trade strategically, you withhold it from everyone until you're done, which could be very damaging for your allies. Anyway, it falls in the face of "you should probably sort out your supply" as an argument. Anyway, I've done my tests, and it all seems to work as expected (and the edits are very simple). This is only single player, though, but I very much doubt that OOS will come from it. |
![]() |
|
| am300307 | Nov 14 2013, 07:52 PM Post #57 |
![]() ![]()
|
Participation in Ongoing Wars 42. If two Class A powers are at war, a third Class A power cannot directly declare a simultaneous war on either of the Class A combatants. But can one of the Class A powers at war, declare a separate war on another class A power. For example Germany(Class A) or Russia(Class A) attack each other, Russia or Germany wants to attack Austria(Class A) for whatever reason. Is this legal to voluntarily start a second class A war with separate class A powers? Note Austria is at peace and isnt at war with any Class A powers. |
![]() |
|
| Erthel | Nov 15 2013, 01:33 PM Post #58 |
![]()
|
My intuition is that yes, you can declare war on as much as A powers as you want. |
![]() |
|
| DEFAULT | Nov 16 2013, 10:15 AM Post #59 |
![]()
|
I know nobody cares about South America but imagine for a second I am talking about European countries. The rules are clear that alliances need to be posted in the forums before a session and cannot be created during a session.
The last quote is the last official talks I can see between Brazil and Chile. It talks of "hope", a "defensive agreement" and of course "soon" but does anyone see where it actually is? I hope I have just gone temporarily blind and the signed treaty was posted somewhere but on the off chance I havent, what is going on and why are they allied and attacking me? Or have I lost my abilty to comprehend the English language and the alliance rules actually mean something completely different. If thats the case then I have bigger problems to worry about. Anyone? |
![]() |
|
| LotosSlayer | Nov 16 2013, 10:23 AM Post #60 |
![]()
|
Yeah, something will have to be done about this. Tell me what you lost in the war, Peru, and how much prestige you lost. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Age of Diplomacy (AOD.I) · Next Topic » |












American-Chilean Defensive Pact, 1863 (read text)
Treaty of Santiago, 1863 (read text)
Chilean-Spanish Non-Aggression Pact, 1863 (read text)

1:52 AM Jul 11