RE: The 'I cant win' effect (Full Version)

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



Message

montesaurus -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (4/4/2007 2:12:57 PM)

One way to control the bidding wars would be to create a max number of points that can be used during bidding. Say, 7 points. In that way no one will over bid, and when there are ties you just roll the dice to decide who gets to play that country. With 7 points as a max you prevent players from bidding unrealistically high for any one country, which is how EIA says ties are to be handled. Plus it helps prevent those who "just have to play a certain country" from spoiling it for the others by paying absurdly high bids for countries, and then finding they have no chance to win. It also prevents players from participating in suicidal wars just to get Political Points to help them overcome their deficit.
Montesaurus



rod -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (4/4/2007 6:29:46 PM)

7 point max makes the game way to easy for the 3 "big" nation GB, france and russia. If you really want to have set point, then set a point for each nation, and roll to see who picks first, but anything under 30 for GB or france is to little. In the games i played GB and france have allways gone for min 40 point, and done ok or won the game. But has allso allways been experienced players that know how to play.



Frank McNally -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (4/9/2007 5:16:46 PM)

So what happens in this game if France loses its first war because Austria/Prussia/Russia and GB stand together?  Can France recover from even and informal peace after loing a year with little net PP? Any chance if she actually surrenders?  I'd love to hear stories about games where France was rebuffed in 1805 but did manage to win or get back into competition.

I assume the outcome of this type of event is that GB is in a very strong position.  And a grand alliance against Britain would be very hard to make work, espacially since Britainn could selectively inflict VP penalties. 



Mark Breed -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (4/9/2007 11:34:10 PM)

As France, if I find myself starting the game at war with Prussia, Austria, Russia, and, of course, Great Britain all at once, I try to quickly engage the enemy main force in battle, on enemy soil. If as a result of that I find myself being on the losing end of that battle (one, which I could actually have won, but lost too many troops). I surrender immediately to Austria and Prussia. I take my lumps and, then, go around and try to gobble up all of the minors that have not been touched because everyone was too busy worrying about my invasion. I have actually come out stronger in the long run, because I ended up with many more minors (and political points), which enabled me to rebuild my army.

If I am winning the battles, favorably, I continue to fight to build up the political points before seeking a peace.

Also, while all of this fighting is going on and during the peace, I keep the diplomacy going on with Prussia trying to convince him that it is far more profitable to be an ally than an enemy.

Rarely have I seen a situation where France's early defeat has kept him from coming back. It only happens when Napoleon is too stuborn to know when to surrender and to who.

Regards,
Mark



iamspamus -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (4/10/2007 2:21:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank McNally

So what happens in this game if France loses its first war because Austria/Prussia/Russia and GB stand together? Can France recover from even and informal peace after loing a year with little net PP? Any chance if she actually surrenders? I'd love to hear stories about games where France was rebuffed in 1805 but did manage to win or get back into competition.

I assume the outcome of this type of event is that GB is in a very strong position. And a grand alliance against Britain would be very hard to make work, espacially since Britainn could selectively inflict VP penalties.



France needs to be beaten two or three times or very BADLY to be out for good. Well, or perhaps, bidding an outrageous sum. For me, playing France is the fun. I mean you get all the toys. Anyway, as Mark said below.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Breed
Rarely have I seen a situation where France's early defeat has kept him from coming back. It only happens when Napoleon is too stuborn to know when to surrender and to who.

Regards,
Mark



I think that this is the key for any power. KNOW WHEN TO SURRENDER. But back to your original question. Once France has taken one defeat, then the pirhana (sp?) start to circle and slash at each other. I've rarely seen an anti-French coalition survive the first victory, much less the first few battles. Of course, I as Russia, usually insist on it as a condition of my entry ... oh and Poland. :-)

Hope that helps.
Jason





iamspamus -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (4/10/2007 2:25:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard
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.


Hey Russian Guard,

BTW: The Napoleonic Russians are far and away my favorites...

Anyway, I just noticed your examples of cheez, so I thought I'd relate one of mine. Brits are allied with Prussians and move to pick up the Full up Prussian I, II, III corps, to help defend Britain or something and proceeds to dump them in the North Sea (not adjacent to land)! Wow, did that NOT go over well. Sheesh.

Jason



Mark Breed -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (4/10/2007 8:44:24 AM)

"Brits are allied with Prussians and move to pick up the Full up Prussian I, II, III corps, to help defend Britain or something and proceeds to dump them in the North Sea (not adjacent to land)!"

Even though the rules do not specifically address this type of gamey play, one would think that this would be impossible as the soldiers would surely resist. Sounds like we have a very gamey player on our hands and one that I would not play with again and would probably walk away from that current game. Mind you, not because he backstabbed me but how he used a loop hole in the rules and gamey tactics to do so.[:-]

It will be interesting to see if the computer rules allow this particular type of play or requires the player to move in such a manner as to be able to disembark the troops when required.

Regards,
Mark



iamspamus -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (4/10/2007 6:27:46 PM)

Yeah, this was in the group before I got there, though there was still plenty of hate over it. The person left the group. They changed the loophole to disallow that.

Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Breed

"Brits are allied with Prussians and move to pick up the Full up Prussian I, II, III corps, to help defend Britain or something and proceeds to dump them in the North Sea (not adjacent to land)!"

Even though the rules do not specifically address this type of gamey play, one would think that this would be impossible as the soldiers would surely resist. Sounds like we have a very gamey player on our hands and one that I would not play with again and would probably walk away from that current game. Mind you, not because he backstabbed me but how he used a loop hole in the rules and gamey tactics to do so.[:-]

It will be interesting to see if the computer rules allow this particular type of play or requires the player to move in such a manner as to be able to disembark the troops when required.

Regards,
Mark




fvianello -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (12/6/2007 11:55:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: McGuire

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!




Maybe I don't remember well the bid rules, but I agree with McGuire.
A player bidded high because he wants to play France? Good, go ahead. Show us how good you are. I'll take Turkey or Prussia (well, maybe NOT Spain ;) ), but I'm not going to bid 50 on France just because i know someone will bid 49.

Of course, if YOU too bidded high because you TOO want to play only France or England.....your problem! Go ahead, show us how good you are :)



dude -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (12/6/2007 4:18:43 PM)

When I use to play GB (I haven’t played in close to 17 years…) my 'fun' strategy was not to always go for the “win” in vp like everyone else but sometimes to just make sure no one else won… since GB wins if no one else does by the end of the game.  This generally made me less of a target since I wasn’t in the lead for VP but could play “spoiler” in any war if I felt someone else was getting too far ahead.  It also meant I could bid high for GB.  If I bid too for a vp win then I would always adopt this strategy.

This also allowed me to give my opponents reasonable surrender terms since I didn’t want them crippled allowing someone else to get easy points for beating them.  It also allowed me (on rare occasions…J) to surrender if things didn’t look promising using conditionals surrenders.

My French opponents usually hated this strategy but the others generally worked with me at one point or another to get my support.  The worst case were two games where the Spaniards wouldn’t admit defeat and conditional surrenders even when it was obvious to everyone else I was about to wipe out his fleets.  Why someone fights to the last man in this game is beyond me.  (Oh and in both case this was not late in the game where it was obvious that the players were going to lose… both were within the first 18 months!)

If you aren’t interested in playing any longer... then quit and use the UMP rules (or the AI in the computer version.)




Jimmer -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (12/6/2007 5:19:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: McGuire

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!


I'm of the opposite perspective, but for this game only. Most games, I agree. However, the boardgame EiA takes a year to play. If someone quits 1/4 of the way through, the whole game is ruined (unless it was the player playing Prussia -- the one major power that the game can afford to not be played).

The thing about playing spoiler, again, in this game only, is that it's historically accurate. When von Blucher came out of retirement, he had one goal for his life: Get rid of Napoleon. He managed to talk his country back into war, when there was no sane reason to do so. Same thing with Austria, although she had a decent set of reasons for that second war (1809).

Napoleon's reasons for attacking Spain and Russia bordered on insanity (two bouts of insanity, no less)!

So, playing ones country "in period" or "historically" might actually lead one to perform some very poor tactical or strategic moves, but what is history without idiotic choices made during war?



JudgeDredd -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (12/6/2007 5:31:54 PM)

You know, this thread kind of puts off people playing multiplayer....especially newcomers to the game.

Am I correct in thinking what's effectively being said is, if a player doesn't play fair then he should be dropped/ganged up on?

As a new player to the series, I'd be way too nervous to play with you bunch just in case my lack of knowledge of "your way of playing" was construed as deliberately destroying peoples chances of having a fair game.

Seriously, I think you might want to listen to yourselves, 'cos I could pretty much gaurantee, out of fear of being branded and banished, that I wouldn't want to play in your clique when and if I do get the game.

If there are "spoilers" within the game, then the game mechanics should perhaps deal with it and prevent it. Not have the other multiplayers chasing you out of town.

This post sounds a little harsher than I meant it to be, but you should really re-rad what your saying...new players would not want to play against you!



Monadman -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (12/6/2007 5:47:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

You know, this thread kind of puts off people playing multiplayer....especially newcomers to the game.

Am I correct in thinking what's effectively being said is, if a player doesn't play fair then he should be dropped/ganged up on?

As a new player to the series, I'd be way too nervous to play with you bunch just in case my lack of knowledge of "your way of playing" was construed as deliberately destroying peoples chances of having a fair game.

Seriously, I think you might want to listen to yourselves, 'cos I could pretty much gaurantee, out of fear of being branded and banished, that I wouldn't want to play in your clique when and if I do get the game.

If there are "spoilers" within the game, then the game mechanics should perhaps deal with it and prevent it. Not have the other multiplayers chasing you out of town.

This post sounds a little harsher than I meant it to be, but you should really re-rad what your saying...new players would not want to play against you!



Judge,

Yeah, you should be very careful whom you join up with to PBEM this game. First off, nothing beats personally knowing who the other players are but, if that is not possible the next best thing is to have an idea of what they might be like, based on their past posts (as you have done). However, do keep in mind the beauty of this game (computer version), that the host plays a very important role in PBEM games and if he/she, or the majority of the playgroup, are convince they have a “spoiler” (one that indeed is ruining the game) then the host can boot that player and either replace him/her with another human player or let the AI control that major power.

Enjoy

Richard




JudgeDredd -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (12/6/2007 5:58:17 PM)

But that's what I'm saying really. My particular playstyle may well prevent me from continuing because someone thinks I'm deliberately spoiling the game or because someone doesn't like the way I'm playing...and the risk of that happening is quite high, being new to the game.

Also, not only does it make it very difficult to convince myself to play online, but also it makes it even more dificult knowing that people will be scrutinising your style for signs of "not playing properly".

And war is never fair anyway. Hitler was hardly fair when he said he wouldn't do anything and stormed all over Europe....when he signed a pact with Russia, knowing full well he was going to invade at some point.

Maybe it's because I don't understand the ways in which the game can be spoiled and I'm assuming that any strategy I employ will be "under the looking glass"....but it is off putting to new players, of which I may well become one (one day).





Jimmer -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (12/6/2007 6:05:46 PM)

I probably should clarify my last post a bit. The gaming crews I played with were of somewhat of a "noble" kind of gaming mentality. To a man, every person would agree to "This game is NOT Diplomacy!" Or Machiavelli. People did not backstab other people simply because it was the second turn of the game (which is common in Diplomacy and somewhat common in Machiavelli). No, we all perceived that this game was a game among friends, and the goal was NOT to shaft someone. It was to have a year's worth of fun and then do it again. I've been friends with some of those people for over 30 years.

So, if someone quit (without a good reason), it was really tough to handle. We LIKED each other, and wanted to KEEP liking each other. So, there was always a significant pressure to keep playing, even a bad position. We even once changed the rules for a player in a particularly bad position. What we did was make two games for him: One with his original bid, and another with a new, negative bid, that took into account his bad position at the current time. As I recall, he won with the changed rules, but the original bid came very close to winning as well (i.e. his fortunes turned around rather dramatically.

I've found the NEVER is a player totally out of it, unless the player bid too much for France, Great Britian, or Russia. And, I don't mean 25 VPs. We had an odd fellow play with us once (exactly once), and he really wanted to play France. So, he bid 85, I think. Being a rookie, he was very quickly at a point where he could not win. That's the one game that we didn't either finish or agree on who would have won (so we could move on to the next game).



JudgeDredd -> RE: The 'I cant win' effect (12/6/2007 7:45:03 PM)

I'm pretty sure you aren't getting what I'm meaning...

If I bought this now, then I am a new player to this game...never set eyes on it before. If I then hooked up with however many others you can do.

So, I start to play and play "my way"...whichever way that may be. I might decide to dump alot of diplomacy and go charging around the map...it may get me somewhere, it may not. The point is, you "grognards" who have played the boardgame to death and now play the computer version may well think "He's just pissing around...lets kick him off or end it quick and get a new game without him"...doesn't seem right to me that in a grand strategy game involving several players (be that 2 or 200) that some players can decide that someone is "not playing right" (and again, what constitues right? The fact that I don't play a certain way makes it incorrect?"

As I said, it could be that I do not understand the mechanics of it...but hey ho.

It's a moot point at present anyway, 'cos I do not have it, but what I'm trying to say is this thread has really put me off PBEM with it with anyone of any knowledge of the game.

As that is, I will leave you to enjoy your game...god knows you've waited long enough for it. [;)]



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.796875