The 'I cant win' effect

The 'I cant win' effect (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815

Message

Sardonic -> The 'I cant win' effect (1/1/2007 2:41:09 PM)
Often in this game, after say 36+ turns into the game....... It becomes obvious to even the dullest of players that he is NOT going to win, unless the other players delibretly throw the game to him. The causes: The #1 cause of this situation is BIDDING TOO HIGH. Sometimes with delibrete intent. Alot of people simply dont wish to play Spain or Turkey. They bid high to NOT be forced to play those powers. Some people are ONLY interested in playing France or England. The problem is that you can easily bid yourself right out of the game. So we assume that this situation now applys to you! Most players simply quit, or go inactive. They dont get asked to play again. Some players simply attack random other players to kill time. The wisest course here....is to identify who it is, that is preventing you from winning. That is not always the point leader. Once you identify who that is, you HURT him. Knowing that you cannot win, give you incredible freedom of action. You can do anythimng you want. Unrestrained by sanity, because you know you wont win anyway. The victim of this attitude can only blame himself, for making the game 'un-fun' for you. You can literally fight it out to the last man, and it wont change the outcome (for you) at all. Some players hate this so called 'spoiler' strategy. My answer then is, 'Force me to surrender then, because I am attacking' At the very least, you make this person hesitate doing this to you again, in the next game.

Will_L_OLD -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (1/1/2007 5:02:16 PM)
I've seen this happen in a few games that I've been involved in though it didn't occur because a player overbid for their position. Generally it has happened with the Prussian player when we've had an extremely aggressive and vicious French player who chooses severe peace conditions. Spain and Turkey have always been among the more popular positions to play in the groups I've been in for their "fun" value, my preferences are Russia, Turkey and Austria. It is true that some people only want to play France or Great Britain and their bids get very high (36-44 for France, 26-32 for Great Britain, saw a 60 bid for France once at a convention) but they've always done pretty well because we did projections during the game so players would know where they were relative to others, what they needed to average to stay the course, how many vp they were behind the leader(s), and when they would reach their victory total. So if someone started to get ahead they usually got their chain yanked and dragged back to the pack. If faced by an enemy that won't quit you just have to force them to peace, seems to me that it backfires most times to be a gadfly in this manner because everyone starts to jump on the bandwagon for cheap political points the second and third time the war comes around. I agree with you that declaring a vendetta against a player that has crippled your position, for the remainder of that game only, can sometimes be an effective deterrent to them doing it again in other games.

Camile Desmoulins -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (1/2/2007 9:48:05 AM)
I'm according with you. This is has a delicate balance between players, and some players, if a player it´s not a good player or only play to win immediatly and see that it's impossible, play only for his own amuse and break the game for the other players. A solution for this problem is limit the amount of bid, or home rules. People that don´t want continue must say and transfer his place to other gamers. Of course, there are the blacklist solution, but it's a sad solution. Camille

iamspamus -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (1/2/2007 9:53:55 AM)
I agree that this is a big problem. It is compounded by the factor of having a weak player. So, at a time when all need to gang up on FR or GB to take them out, one player will be talked out of it and give FR or GB the game. I would say that the biggest "flaw" in EiA is "the rotation". France beats AU and PR then gets 6 or 18 months difference in their ability to attack. So, beat AU again in a year, then PR 6 months later, then SP, then AU etc. Especially, with a weak player (or newbie who doesn't understand), it can be exceedingly frustrating, especially for a game that lasts so long. What have you guys done against this? Jason

Will_L_OLD -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (1/2/2007 3:18:26 PM)
As far as fighting the Au/Pr rotation in our groups its usually been a large coalition against France the second time around. We've also been lucky in that the groups have had French players who don't particularly enjoy the rotation once they've done it. It's kind of a been there, done that kind of thing.

malcolm_mccallum -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (1/3/2007 3:46:46 AM)
A solution to this effect that my playgroups have found on other multi-player games is to set up a system where the winner is not a single player but rather, as the game progresses, players declare their co-winner if they win. In EiA it would have to be someone that the winner is allied to at the time. This also prevents the gang-up on the winner problem that develops in games where there is no incentive to work with the one in the lead. You can change who your co-winner is (not second place. equal co-winner) at any time prior to the end of the game but that allows pettiness, diplomacy, and integrity to come into play. It also rewards the idea that the game isn't just about winning militarily. If you are in bed with the winner, you win.

montesaurus -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (1/3/2007 5:58:39 AM)
In regards to the "I can't win effect" if I remember correct more than one player can be a winner in EIA. There is of course the overall high point scorer, but at the end of the game when a player has achieved the points necessary to win, then all the manpower points, etc are figured in, this would allow any player who achieved the necessary victory points for his nation to be considered a winner. Correct me if I'm wrong, but to me this gives players an incentive to keep playing, even though they might not be the overall winner. I've also experienced players who because they are not doing well lose interest in the game, much to the dismay of the other players. If a player's ego is so fragile that he can't remain a good sport when not doing well then I suggest he never start the game in the first place. It's extremely frustrating for all when one player quits or loses interest because his plans didn't work out.

McGuire -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (1/3/2007 12:32:10 PM)
Well, actually I don't remember one single game where my plans worked out! A plan works well - until you see the face of the enemy... Just my experience! But more to the point: Is't adjusting to a new situation one of the real funs in the game? There is always an alternative - though it might not be obvious! @Sardonic I am one of the haters of your "spoiler strategy". Because you messed up you spoil the game for someone else! And if YOU bid wrong - YOU messed up! If I would see this happen (and not be the victim), I would gladly ally with all other players just to kick that one out! Even if it meant surrendering uncontitionally to GB/FR if I was FR/GB. From my point of view: Ruining a game is worse that simply quitting! I'd give a quitter another chance - but someone who did a thing like this: NEVER!

iamspamus -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (1/3/2007 3:31:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: montesaurus In regards to the "I can't win effect" if I remember correct more than one player can be a winner in EIA. There is of course the overall high point scorer, but at the end of the game when a player has achieved the points necessary to win, then all the manpower points, etc are figured in, this would allow any player who achieved the necessary victory points for his nation to be considered a winner. Correct me if I'm wrong, but to me this gives players an incentive to keep playing, even though they might not be the overall winner. I've also experienced players who because they are not doing well lose interest in the game, much to the dismay of the other players. If a player's ego is so fragile that he can't remain a good sport when not doing well then I suggest he never start the game in the first place. It's extremely frustrating for all when one player quits or loses interest because his plans didn't work out. Yes, you can have two (or more) players win in EIA. I've done it as Russia with Austria. Quick Synopsis... Basically, we started the game as allies and secretly vowed to win togther. Without knowing this, Prussia decided to sit out the first war with FR...(dumb ass) and so, predictably, when we went to peace with Fr (him winning, but not overwhelmingly), PR was crushed. Fr then tried to get a coalition against England, which was fine, but at the same time AU/RU cleaned up on Tu (gaining Ru the needed provinces for Dominance). Eventually with TU currently neutered or even anti-fr (I forget), it was au, ru, en, pr and maybe tu vs. fr and sp. All spain had to do was hold ONE fr city to satisfy his committment. He marched very slowly up to the fr border and half-heartedly held one city until chased out of it. Meanwhile, even with Au/pr capitals held by Fr, the coalition had fr down to a couple of cities. Sp pulled out and headed for madrid. fr surrendered and then au/ru, then gb/pr, then fr/tu or fr then tu each fought and took a peace (or piece) of Spain. Funny. Good thing we played with the keeping three provinces rule. After that it was payback for Prussia. We took the stuff for Poland. Immediately thereafter, Au surrendered to me giving mee the province needed for dominance. I became dominiant with no enemies in sight (except gb), and immediately in one year, we re allied and fought off the splintered coaltions that formed to win. hurrah. So, it can be done! Jason

iamspamus -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (1/3/2007 3:49:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: McGuire Well, actually I don't remember one single game where my plans worked out! A plan works well - until you see the face of the enemy... Just my experience! But more to the point: Is't adjusting to a new situation one of the real funs in the game? There is always an alternative - though it might not be obvious! @Sardonic I am one of the haters of your "spoiler strategy". Because you messed up you spoil the game for someone else! And if YOU bid wrong - YOU messed up! If I would see this happen (and not be the victim), I would gladly ally with all other players just to kick that one out! Even if it meant surrendering uncontitionally to GB/FR if I was FR/GB. From my point of view: Ruining a game is worse that simply quitting! I'd give a quitter another chance - but someone who did a thing like this: NEVER! It still stinks to have a long game die in the middle. On that note, however, I have killed a game… Basically, au/pr/ru (me) decided to kill France. (I just love killing the Fr in EiA. I mean it’s like fighting the Americans in ASL. They have the morale, movement, dominance, gd, art, nap…whine, whine. I always paint a target on them early, except if sp, tu) So, au (a newbie) backstabbed us early. Pr/ru surrendered to fr and attacked au. Now there is that point when a war is more expensive than it’s worth. You only have a few inf, gd, cav in an army that is about to get smacked or whatever. Au got to that point and wouldn’t surrender (even conditionally). Ok, so we continued on. Each turn we asked about a surrender. No dice. So, I said that if there was no surrender, we would “go to town” on them. Snickers and such, especially from France. (We needed to really begin to gear up for our next fight.) So, with about 3 factors left in any au space, they were finally forced to surrender. Don’t have a map here, but I annexed Galicia Hungary and maybe Illyria or something else. Anyway, it split Au into like 3 or 4 pieces that DIDN’T TOUCH. They also lost all of their cav, gren, inf, everything. All the other players sucked in their breath, but thought that it was justified. Needless to say the game died at that point. Too bad, but… Jason

Joisey -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (1/3/2007 7:29:31 PM)
Limiting a countries' losses to only 3 provinces, maximum, keeps everybody in the game. Having a bidding cap can also save players from themselves. In the event of a tie at the ceiling cap, make the players roll a die for the tie breaker.

Camile Desmoulins -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (1/3/2007 9:51:36 PM)
There is a similar problem: the quick victory or broke power player. A typicall french player that in january 1805 declare the war and in march are fighting against a powerful alliance. Defeated in september, deserted teh agme in december 1805. A year, many efforts and 7 players without game. Nobody want's France without possibilities of victory, perhaps without Napoleon... The same question with Great Britain (delicate great power for a newcomer... you can't lost the fleet!), for instance. Some players are most dangerous than a unconditional peace agreement. Camille

Joisey -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (1/3/2007 11:41:48 PM)
Only a year into the game, just reset it and start over.

morvwilson -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (1/4/2007 2:39:31 AM)
I have to agree with Joisey here, the fun is in the contest. If it is clear who is winning and who is not, crown the victor and start again with different countries.

Norden_slith -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (1/4/2007 11:21:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Camile Desmoulins There is a similar problem: the quick victory or broke power player. A typicall french player that in january 1805 declare the war and in march are fighting against a powerful alliance. Defeated in september, deserted teh agme in december 1805. A year, many efforts and 7 players without game. Nobody want's France without possibilities of victory, perhaps without Napoleon... The same question with Great Britain (delicate great power for a newcomer... you can't lost the fleet!), for instance. Some players are most dangerous than a unconditional peace agreement. Camille I agree! This one I tried 3 times in email-games, all ended after soemone was soundly beaten after 1 to 1½ years. What I wouldnt give to have 6 fellow players with the right attitude for this game. The worst game I had was a French player who didnt back down against a large coalition RU/PR/AU/GB after losing 2 large battles. Instead he first whined and then accused everybody to play for Russia, his wording getting more and more insulting. I like the limit to a countries losses, good rule. The bidding cap makes not much sense, as a bidding with a maximum is illogical. Instead one could average all bids for a country and if someone gets too far away from the average, his bid is ignored. This wouldnt work with lowbid countries, of course, so a minimum acceptable bid should be in place, like 10 points, perhaps. Norden

malcolm_mccallum -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (1/4/2007 8:11:45 PM)
There is a strange benefit to all this psychological balancing that is required. If I crush Austria too much in year one, the player will likely quit and the game is ruined so..... I need to take his whining and 'immature' playing into account when I look at our 'map of Europe'. Keeping everyone interested in the game, hopeful of winning and having fun is a necessary part of a successful plan to win the game. The length of the game demands that the players treat each other as playmates more than as foes. That is a great aspect of the game. That is what sets it above Risk, Axis and Allies, or Diplomacy. This game actually requires, GASP Diplomacy.

Sardonic -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (1/4/2007 8:31:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: McGuire Well, actually I don't remember one single game where my plans worked out! A plan works well - until you see the face of the enemy... Just my experience! But more to the point: Is't adjusting to a new situation one of the real funs in the game? There is always an alternative - though it might not be obvious! @Sardonic I am one of the haters of your "spoiler strategy". Because you messed up you spoil the game for someone else! And if YOU bid wrong - YOU messed up! If I would see this happen (and not be the victim), I would gladly ally with all other players just to kick that one out! Even if it meant surrendering uncontitionally to GB/FR if I was FR/GB. From my point of view: Ruining a game is worse that simply quitting! I'd give a quitter another chance - but someone who did a thing like this: NEVER! OK? What is your point? I ally with the winner? Never. In any case, I dont bid high, so it isnt an issue. But if you imagine that a player who realizes he cant win, will play the same, as a player who CAN win.... your deluded.

Will_L_OLD -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (1/5/2007 12:14:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: malcolm_mccallum There is a strange benefit to all this psychological balancing that is required. If I crush Austria too much in year one, the player will likely quit and the game is ruined so..... I need to take his whining and 'immature' playing into account when I look at our 'map of Europe'. Keeping everyone interested in the game, hopeful of winning and having fun is a necessary part of a successful plan to win the game. The length of the game demands that the players treat each other as playmates more than as foes. That is a great aspect of the game. That is what sets it above Risk, Axis and Allies, or Diplomacy. This game actually requires, GASP Diplomacy. Not only diplomacy but Tact as well [:)]

McGuire -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (1/5/2007 3:19:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardonic OK? What is your point? I ally with the winner? Never. In any case, I dont bid high, so it isnt an issue. But if you imagine that a player who realizes he cant win, will play the same, as a player who CAN win.... your deluded. First: My point is: Noting is worse than spoiling a game! To ruin the fun of the game for someone else is .... low! Second: Someone can't win - and plays differently! Absolutely crystal clear! All I'm saying is: You spoil a game - I try my very best to kick you out! Even if I'm not your target! And last - but not least: Yes I am deluded! How can you tell? Surely not from my posts - because when I have delusions, they're the really big and satisfying ones! Like delusions of godhood! [&o]

Sardonic -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (1/5/2007 6:25:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: McGuire quote: ORIGINAL: Sardonic OK? What is your point? I ally with the winner? Never. In any case, I dont bid high, so it isnt an issue. But if you imagine that a player who realizes he cant win, will play the same, as a player who CAN win.... your deluded. First: My point is: Noting is worse than spoiling a game! To ruin the fun of the game for someone else is .... low! Second: Someone can't win - and plays differently! Absolutely crystal clear! All I'm saying is: You spoil a game - I try my very best to kick you out! Even if I'm not your target! And last - but not least: Yes I am deluded! How can you tell? Surely not from my posts - because when I have delusions, they're the really big and satisfying ones! Like delusions of godhood! [&o] Well by doing that, you allow him to control your play. So he still wins. And I doubt a pugnacious player is going to 'learn' any lesson from you. Even if you 'kick' someone 'out', you just gimped the game. You cannot avoid it.

morvwilson -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (1/5/2007 9:39:52 PM)
I always thought that EiA (as well as any other game) was supposed to be a game among friends. Would you deny a friend a chance to save face? It is a lot easier to be a good sport on the losing end if the others are not rubbing your face into it. For instance in one game the GB player had Welly facing off against the TU and kept rolling 1's in every combat roll except when he was trying to outflank! That's the time you laugh at the luck of the rolls not rib the guy for his bad luck!

Joisey -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (1/5/2007 10:07:16 PM)
Indeed, I've seen friendships end over people being treated shabbily in an EIA game.

Sardonic -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (1/6/2007 1:03:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: morvwilson I always thought that EiA (as well as any other game) was supposed to be a game among friends. Would you deny a friend a chance to save face? It is a lot easier to be a good sport on the losing end if the others are not rubbing your face into it. For instance in one game the GB player had Welly facing off against the TU and kept rolling 1's in every combat roll except when he was trying to outflank! That's the time you laugh at the luck of the rolls not rib the guy for his bad luck! I am not the person advocating tossing a player out of the game. It is a game among freinds, and in reality, if I could not win, I would side with the person who had treated me the best, and do what I could to make HIM win. But free will exists.

morvwilson -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (1/6/2007 1:11:43 AM)
Not accusing you or anyone Sardonic, just trying to illustrate a basic point in life. Life attracts, death repels.

Grand_Armee -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (1/7/2007 12:21:59 PM)
THe worst 'I can't win' affect I ever saw was when everybody with fleets ganged up on England because he was in the lead and viscious when it came to going after anybody else with a fleet. He bailed when he was left with only the England province. Kinda killed the game.

megalomania2003 -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (1/7/2007 1:14:12 PM)
I would not regard ganging up on GB as a "Cant win effect", rather as a "He is winning effect". When I am to the point where winning is impossible I tend to look for (not necessarily in this priority): 1. How can I do better in terms of position and land. 2. How have the other powers been behaving in general (abusive, breaking agreement -even if not with me - subtracts) 3. How "nice" have they been towards me. Even if I have been at war with them (and I lost) I might not let it count against them, depending on why they went to war, how they conducted it and what surrender terme I was offered. Then I decide whom to help

ktotwf -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (1/8/2007 7:18:07 AM)
I don't get what you guys are complaining about. Everyone ganging up on England so he doesn't coast to victory makes sense. France whipping everyone by setting up the AU/PR rotation is good strategy, and somewhat true to history.

McGuire -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (1/8/2007 11:46:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardonic Well by doing that, you allow him to control your play. So he still wins. And I doubt a pugnacious player is going to 'learn' any lesson from you. Even if you 'kick' someone 'out', you just gimped the game. You cannot avoid it. He wins... So what? He's done everything right! I made a mistake! I bid too high (at least that was YOUR scenario)! So why should I mess up HIS game? There is no lesson to be learned! Apart from my own lesson! Next time I surely won't bid too high!

iamspamus -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (1/8/2007 1:00:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ktotwf I don't get what you guys are complaining about. Everyone ganging up on England so he doesn't coast to victory makes sense. France whipping everyone by setting up the AU/PR rotation is good strategy, and somewhat true to history. In my opinion, these are different scenarios. Everybody ganging up on the leader is good (and sometimes difficult to arrange). However, due to game restraints (ie. the enforced peace or whatever) NOT being able to do that is the problem in my opinion, especially when playing with at least one or more newbies and/or a weak player. And maybe you guys are lucky enough to play with friends and the same guys over and over, but I've not had that luxury. So, the problem is that for such a long game, the latter rotation or even someone getting their own country trashed and then quittting, can cause a tremendous problem for such a long investment of time. Someone else mentioned having to coddle or prop up a player to keep the game alive. This fragility (and the huge monster stacks...another issue) are the main problems that I've seen with the game. Overall though, it is one of my favorites. Jason

Russian Guard -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (1/11/2007 2:28:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: iamspamus quote: ORIGINAL: ktotwf I don't get what you guys are complaining about. Everyone ganging up on England so he doesn't coast to victory makes sense. France whipping everyone by setting up the AU/PR rotation is good strategy, and somewhat true to history. This fragility (and the huge monster stacks...another issue) [snip] Jason Yeah, monster stacks...uugh. But that's another tired argument, there's still players out there who believe they aren't optimal... I've played literally dozens of campaigns over 20+ years, of EiA. I have seen everything in this thread - players quitting because they are so behind in VP they can't possibly catch up. Players quitting because other players do "bogus" things (like mutual flechette pounding for cheap VP). Players quitting because of arguments about rules interpretations. Players quitting because another player - who can't win - starts acting irrationally (useless wars, etc, the "spoiler" type). Newbie or weaker players relentlessly manipulated by stronger players...the list goes ever on. I love the game but stopped playing it when I realized it caused more grief than it was worth. I know of two friends who haven't spoken for 5 years because of this game. I'm hoping the computer version (if it ever comes out) will allow me to play the game again, with an intermediary - the computer!

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

4.902344