Drake001 wrote:What I am suggesting is not a what if at all but a mechanism for what actually occurred and gameplay. It isn't really an alternative.
That you very much for explaining this. I am afraid I misunderstood your original post and I apologise if my reply appeared as anything less than courteous.
Drake001 wrote:The point actually isn't in giving Prussia Hanover, even though Napoleon did it twice (once in 1801 and once in 1806) without a formal alliance. (Amazing how when faced with the choice of resisting the revolutionary orge or gain territory what choice Prussia made, twice). Also, if Napoleon himself didn't believe the loss of Hanover would result in a massive NM and VP hit, why would you? More proof? In 1806 Napoleon even offered Hanover back to Britain when Fox took over and that was the closest they came to signing a deal. Proof? When it fell apart, Fox showed the document/offer to the Prussians - that Napoleon was taking away Hanover - and that was the final straw on the Prussian camel's back. I don't think he was much concerned about what the French populace would think even if they did care at this point which is doubtful. Losing Westphalia later? Probably more then.
I knew about Hanover being a bargaining chip, but I forgot the specific details, especially the Fox incident. You are also right, Westphalia would be a more serious hit to French morale than early war Hanover.
Drake001 wrote:I am not sure why they - France and Prussia - would need to be allied. They weren't historically. What Napoleon (who was a bi-polar diplomat) did was by giving them Hanover was to obtain an assurance of neutrality in the upcoming conflict with Austria and Russia and throw Prussia into conflict with Great Britain. No alliance needed. Don't know where I mentioned an alliance with Russia as well or where you got that notion. Giving Prussia Hanover doesn't necessarily mean alliance.
The main point is gameplay and historical (and gameplay reason is most important). Your what-if scenario will not be what if in a PBEM (and maybe not in single player as well I don't know)....it will be de rigeur. With 200 years of hindsight, the PBEM player of Prussia will join the coalition as soon as possible because it is the rational thing to do, rather than piecemeal fighting and taking on France alone. So the what if will happen whether you have it as an option or not (again, assuming there is no mechanism that I am unaware of). In that case, the game will start in a definitely unhistorical fashion, which isn't necessarily too bad...what will leave some players disaffected is how it will effect gameplay if France can never really get off the ground.
It is here, however, that we come to the main crux of this issue. As far as I know - although you should not consider my opinion on the game engine sacred, only the Philippes can pass final judgement on what can or cannot be done - the only way you could guarantee Prussian neutrality in spite of the new dynamic diplomacy system, is to have Prussia and France sign an alliance, even a defensive one. Only good relations will not prevent a war. Regardless, this point is moot, as there should be an event in place that fires up the Fourth Coalition. I also tested the first year or so of the Prussian GC and I can assure you that you will not find Prussia jumping right in into a war with France.
Furthermore, unless you have a cassus belli or are in an alliance with a Coalition member or are a Coalition member yourself, you cannot declare war on France. I only got that opportunity once, when Russia for some reason wanted a defensive alliance with me and that gave me a reason to declare war on France. Even this, however, was a fluke in an older beta version and I have not seen any reports from other beta testers that Prussia would enter the Napoleonic Wars before its allotted time.
This was also the reason why we created this What If scenario in the first place. As things stand, what you describe as a fait accompli for human players of Prussia is not at all written in stone. We added this Alternate History scenario because we wanted Coalition players to experience early Prussian entry and because some French players might want the challenge of fighting such a massive war at the very start. Ensuring an even more secure Prussian neutrality by giving them Hanover would then actually be counter-productive from a gameplay point of view. Remember, one of our What If scenarios is a defensive alliance with Russia at the start of the Grand Campaign. Imagine a player choosing both ensured Prussian neutrality (possibly some sort of alliance) and a Russian defensive alliance! Austria would be run over and Napoleon would be master of Europe. We could prevent the player from running both such scenarios, but I cannot come up with a real-life answer as why that would happen (some sort of balance of power thing could come into play, but we do not know enough about Paul I of Russia to speculate).
I hope that my post has alleviated any concerns that you might have had. I remain open to suggestions and comments, so please let me know if my response is satisfactory.
@ Franz Ferdinand
Thank you for your kind words. The scenarios already in-game and those we have planned will most certainly offer interesting possibilities to players and I hope an Alternative History Napoleonic Europe will attract more players to the game.