I don't really prowl this forum (forgotten my ID/password) but thought I would contribute.

Firstly, this is an excellent approach, FFG, very inclusive and consultative, and the basic concept (provinces hold rings) is very nice, a clean implementation of the Enlightenment victory legacy. I am stingy with my praise but this adopt and core idea is very good, even if it needs to address various issues as I see it.

I'm going to be very lazy (late here in the UK) and link you to my alter-ego's post on cardgamedb (the relevant posts are #7 and #10 in the thread).

http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/39770-official-multiplayer-rules/

Hope this may have contributed positively in some way and good luck with the development.

I read those.

most likely too complicated, but did like some parts. The treaty card between players. So it is easy to remember what treaty it is. I would maintain the system so that the attaker lose the fate and the defender gains nothing (except what he invented to The treaty. That prevents kingmaking!

so each player invest fate to the treaty and get back each turn or only when treaty has bee proken when attaker loses his investment and defender gets back his investment.

for attaking when selecting ring, use normal rules but you have token that shows what attack you have allready done it that turn. So you have military toke and political token, and when you make one, you take that token away. And in clean up put the back for the next round.