Problems with Winning The Game

Problems with Winning The Game (Full Version)

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

Message

Mardonius -> Problems with Winning The Game (10/12/2009 9:40:45 PM)
Gents: I have noticed by my own style of play in the computer game versus the board game version that there is a significant difference in how one wins the game in the EIANW computer version that leads to significant differences in how one should, optimally, play the game. In the computer game, one wins by accruing enough Victory Points (VPs), attained through Political Points (PPs) to satisfy its Victory Conditions. Fair enough. But there is a missing factor that really makes coalitions much harder to keep together and makes an optimal style of play be much more PASSIVE than in the board game. In the board game, once someone had proclaimed victory during the Victory phase of an economic turn, other players could add their Man Power from their home provinces, conquered minor countries (not Free States) and from other Major Power's ceded provinces. These Manpower Points were converted to Victory Points to see who else may have been a winner. See 8.1.3.2.3 The Final Victory Points Step (not an optional rule). Such a point schedule rewards aggressive, conquering behavior. As things are now, such aggressive play is not rewarded in the Victory determination. So, in most cases, unless you have a relatively high morale army or are GB at sea, aggressive behavior will cost you Political Points and, therefrom, Victory Points. Also, the Glue that holds coalitions together (think of the Congress of Vienna) is undone by the single winner concept. I urge that we reincorporate the Manpower Points = Victory Points, as is intended in the original game and which makes the game a lot more dynamic, exciting, and fun to play. best Mardonius

bresh -> RE: Problems with Winning The Game (10/13/2009 5:59:41 AM)
I do agree on this, manpower is supposed to be part. I havent actually finished a game, but does it only proclaim 1 winner, or is there a ranking list ? Regards Bresh

Mardonius -> RE: Problems with Winning The Game (10/13/2009 1:36:26 PM)
To my knowledge (I saw a screen shot some years back) EiA NW declares only one winner. I emphasize that it should be possible to have multiple winners (sure, you can easily rank them by percentage over goal) but there should be multiple winners to help congeal the idea of a selfless (realtively) coalition. Plus, the Manpower Points = Victory Points will tend to make games a lot more aggressive and fun.

pzgndr -> RE: Problems with Winning The Game (10/13/2009 2:12:21 PM)
Mantis #521?

Mardonius -> RE: Problems with Winning The Game (10/13/2009 2:32:17 PM)
Indeed, Panzergrenadier. Mantis 521. I had forgotten I had posted this back in May.... Probably due to the fact that I came to the realization for a need to revise this from a different angle this time: PASSIVITY (backed by a strong military) AND ECON MANIPULATION ARE THE BEST WAYS TO WIN ONCE YOU HAVE OBTAINED A GOOD SPOT ON THE VP CHART. Unless your military is a PP manufacturing machine like France or perhaps GB, it is best to stay out of most fights once you get in a desirable spot on the VP scale as you will, on average, lose Political Points from such engagements. So it pays to be passive. Which really sucks (pardonez moi) for game dynamism. For example, I have been sitting with a relatively strong Turkey in our Near Run Thing Campaign for six years of game time ( we are just starting 1811) and am getting bored out of my wits but can't change my strategy without undermining my first place position, which by rights of the original rules,I would share with GB and France if we added MP to the VP. For those who might be interested, here is the Mantis Posting... 0000521: Victory Rules not according to original game's intent and make coalitions much harder to maintain Description The Original rules from EiA made a joint victory much easier to obtain. See 8.1.3.2.3 The Final Victory Points Step: During a Victory Points Step when the announced total victory points of a major power has matched or exceeded that major power's victory level or, if the final month that will be played has been concluded, during the final Victory Points Step of the game, manpower levels are counted for additional victory points. 8.1.3.2.3.1: Each major power counts its total currently controlled manpower values in controlled home nation provinces, controlled ceded provinces of other home nations and conquered minor countries (none of the component territories of the new political combinations used in options 11.1-11.6 count as conquered). Controlled minor free states and/or controlled provinces or minor countries with capitals currently occupied by an enemy are not counted. Additional Information 8.1.3.2.3.2: These manpower values are added as extra victory points to the major power's victory point totals for determining a winner or winners. 8.1.3.2.3.3: For players controlling two major powers (see 14.2.2) to win, both of their major powers must match or exceed their victory level or the excess victory points of one of these major powers must be enough that, by adding these excess (not needed to match its own victory level) victory points to the other major power's victory points, that addition will be enough to bring that second major power to its victory level. Once someone declares victory, then the other nations should be able to add their Manpower (as above) to see if they too are winners

pzgndr -> RE: Problems with Winning The Game (10/13/2009 3:32:36 PM)
quote: I had forgotten I had posted this back in May.... Indeed. I posted Mantis #510 about naval proportional losses back in April and that issue has popped up again for debate. We do seem to be recycling the same old discussions and arguments over and over! Recycling is good, yes? Too funny. I believe once these rules are implemented we should have a much better game. I continue to be patient. [:)]

Jimmer -> RE: Problems with Winning The Game (10/13/2009 3:41:06 PM)
Agreed. What I did in the one EIANW game I really played in (from the start) was make sure we were house-ruling this. But, we shouldn't have had to do it, since it's part of the original rules. NOTE: This was NOT an optional rule, but the one and only set of victory conditions in the original game. Many have argued that they never played this way, but that is due to a misunderstanding of the rules, not an optional rule of any kind. The game is clearly laid out as having the potential for multiple winners. In fact, it is theoretically possible for all seven players to win. Such a game would be exceedingly rare. However, one of the board games I played had five winners.

Jimmer -> RE: Problems with Winning The Game (10/13/2009 3:42:18 PM)
Good point, Pzgndr. In fact, I brought up this issue back when 1.01 had yet to be released. It was lost when we shifted to using Mantis, though.

Marshall Ellis -> RE: Problems with Winning The Game (10/14/2009 5:41:12 PM)
I have seen this in Mantis but have not addressed this yet! I will look to see if I can squeeze this into 1.08 (MAYBE) :-)

Mardonius -> RE: Problems with Winning The Game (10/15/2009 6:45:50 AM)
H Marshall: That is great to hear. I will win a couple of bets if you do get it into 1.08. [;)] But, for the sake of game play between now and then can I confirm that you will makes this an Offical Rule? thanks Mardonius

Marshall Ellis -> RE: Problems with Winning The Game (10/15/2009 1:03:19 PM)
I will look and see what it will take since I will need to fix the screen up a bit.

Mardonius -> RE: Problems with Winning The Game (10/19/2009 2:15:26 PM)
AresMars had this quote in the ship design thread and I wanted to capture its essence here: "The important point to realize is that the winning and losing of the game is based on the effect of gaining and losing Political Points....and the VP collected from that effect.... " By overlooking the Manpower =VP equation, we are drastically altering the fiber of the game. Most games have not expereinced this,as they are in the early years, but as yhou reach the mid point of the game and proceed further it becomes critical. For example, Russias's native Manpower is 35. That is the equivalent of roughly 4 economic turns of good (not great) game positioning. If a Russian player knows that he has these points coming, then he will adapt a markedly different approach. Same for the other countries, of course. Over a ten year campaign, a Russian player can have close to 1 VP less per economic go, which equates to anywhere between 1 and (I believe) 3 PP and can lead to players being far more aggressive and less political point focused. Also leads to team play and coalitions, somethig which makes conspiring and the like all that more fun. TPer the rules, here can be more than one winner and I implore us to make this MP=VP part of the soonest revision. It will make the game better. best Mardonius

DCWhitworth -> RE: Problems with Winning The Game (10/22/2009 11:50:31 AM)
Of course when we played the board game, co-winning by MP addition was viewed as not being as good a way of winning as being first past the post ;-) It was viewed as finishing second in effect. None the less I do think it is a valuable part of the game, otherwise you end up with the 'all gang up on the leader' approach that so blights the latter part many other multi-player games.

Jimmer -> RE: Problems with Winning The Game (10/22/2009 5:03:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth Of course when we played the board game, co-winning by MP addition was viewed as not being as good a way of winning as being first past the post ;-) It was viewed as finishing second in effect. I recoil against this logic, for historical and game-play reasons. From history, who "won" the war of 1812? Or, the 1815 war? They were COALITION victories. In fact, much of the history of the Napoleonic period is organized by coalition. This applied to both the victories and the losses. It is essentially impossible to develop any kind of coalition if the game only allows one winner. In that case, one might as well play Diplomacy. While Diplomacy is a fine game, I have no interest in being involved in a game of EiA that turns into "Diplomacy on steroids". And, for that matter, nobody else should, either. This game is far too elegant to be turned into Diplomacy. When I play, I play like the leaders of the nation(s) I am playing would have. In all seven cases, this is primarily an honest, alliance-abiding way. Nobody backstabbed anybody else while involved in a coalition (with two possible exceptions: Napoleon against Spain and Russia "against" Prussia). In all other cases that I can recall, once a nation had "joined a coalition", they stuck by it until the end of that war.

DCWhitworth -> RE: Problems with Winning The Game (10/22/2009 7:03:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jimmer Nobody backstabbed anybody else while involved in a coalition (with two possible exceptions: Napoleon against Spain and Russia "against" Prussia). In all other cases that I can recall, once a nation had "joined a coalition", they stuck by it until the end of that war. What about Austria and Prussia who in alliance with France invaded Russia ? I recoil against your logic that my statement reduces the game to Diplomacy, indeed I take some offence at that. Maybe you have read too much into my statement (which was a little tongue in cheek). But wouldn't you rather be the star on a winning team ?

Skanvak -> RE: Problems with Winning The Game (10/22/2009 8:48:24 PM)
Thought I don't like Diplomacy for its lack of actual diplomacy. It is difficult to have a game with several winner without telling them they are in the same side at star (historical alliance) or you have a kind of bet that the winners can share. Without victory point, I know a game that we end up to play in alliance to achieve common victory (that is Dune, Bene Geserit win alone because it planned correctly the winning turn of our Alliance, thought it was in the opposite alliance but betraying them for their own interest). I have play Civilization with a really strong alliance (actually, I achieve such understanding with the other player that we were officially a federated state effectively always fighting together) despite the fact that there are no team victory. I would say too that if being at peace is a good strategy that not bad. I am turning pacifist on this one. Every one against the leader? hmm, well every one does rush against France when at its top...but they don't cease even when France was defeated. May be secret winning condition like in Risk can do a LOT more toward creating strong alliance. As people will really try to understand each other motivation and see if they are real common interest or at odds. Personnally, I would have prefer a way to hide the Victory Situation (but that is not possible as gain are fixed and public). Some thinking about alliance victory. Bottom line, the original EiA was very successfull, so let implement its rules as they are, that could not be bad.

pzgndr -> RE: Problems with Winning The Game (10/23/2009 12:14:47 AM)
quote: Bottom line, the original EiA was very successfull, so let implement its rules as they are, that could not be bad. The important missing rule is the manpower conversion for victory determination. The rest is not so important. Is having the game allow multiple winners a big deal? Who "really" won or not, or who won more than someone else, is something players can resolve for themselves. Let the computer do the math and spit out results.

Jimmer -> RE: Problems with Winning The Game (10/23/2009 8:13:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth What about Austria and Prussia who in alliance with France invaded Russia ? I recoil against your logic that my statement reduces the game to Diplomacy, indeed I take some offence at that. Maybe you have read too much into my statement (which was a little tongue in cheek). But wouldn't you rather be the star on a winning team ? I don't recall the Austria/Prussia/France vs Russia event; please refresh my memory. Regarding the statement, I apologize for offense. Let me try to explain better: IMO, any effort to have only one victor (not including ties) automatically reduces the game's value. To me, it reduces it to a game I simply will not be a part of. Others may not feel so strongly about it. But, I have better things to do than play a game for a year where I can't count on my allies staying my allies for any length of time. Diplomacy is such a game (as is Machievelli), but I still play them. The difference is that they are short games. I don't play them for a year at a time. When I play EiA, I always buy or borrow a book about the nation I'm about to play, and I read up on them. I compare them to what other volumes I've read (dealing with other powers) had to say. In other words, I make an investment in the game. I understand that alliances change (how could the 6th and 7th coalitions have come about WITHOUT changing alliance, for instance). But, they shouldn't change in the middle of negotiations or a war. There are situations where this doesn't apply as much. For example, GB of the period was a manipulator, but mostly with one main goal: France's fall. So, if a nation joined France's, even if allied to GB, such a relationship should be strained at best. All of this is my opinion solely, of course. I've known a lot of guys who used the "one winner" method of victory conditions, and I still respect them. I just don't want to play that way.

DCWhitworth -> RE: Problems with Winning The Game (10/24/2009 12:10:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jimmer quote: ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth What about Austria and Prussia who in alliance with France invaded Russia ? I recoil against your logic that my statement reduces the game to Diplomacy, indeed I take some offence at that. Maybe you have read too much into my statement (which was a little tongue in cheek). But wouldn't you rather be the star on a winning team ? I don't recall the Austria/Prussia/France vs Russia event; please refresh my memory. Regarding the statement, I apologize for offense. Let me try to explain better: IMO, any effort to have only one victor (not including ties) automatically reduces the game's value. To me, it reduces it to a game I simply will not be a part of. Others may not feel so strongly about it. But, I have better things to do than play a game for a year where I can't count on my allies staying my allies for any length of time. Diplomacy is such a game (as is Machievelli), but I still play them. The difference is that they are short games. I don't play them for a year at a time. When I play EiA, I always buy or borrow a book about the nation I'm about to play, and I read up on them. I compare them to what other volumes I've read (dealing with other powers) had to say. In other words, I make an investment in the game. I understand that alliances change (how could the 6th and 7th coalitions have come about WITHOUT changing alliance, for instance). But, they shouldn't change in the middle of negotiations or a war. There are situations where this doesn't apply as much. For example, GB of the period was a manipulator, but mostly with one main goal: France's fall. So, if a nation joined France's, even if allied to GB, such a relationship should be strained at best. All of this is my opinion solely, of course. I've known a lot of guys who used the "one winner" method of victory conditions, and I still respect them. I just don't want to play that way. I think we actually have quite similar game views actually. I like historical games that play realistically and give you an insight into the events of the time. I mostly play for the interest and pleasure of the game, not to win as such, I'd rather enjoy the game and lose than win at all costs. If I want a simple game I play chess. I don't have a 'winning is the only thing that matters' attitude so when I suggested that nations winning by manpower addition effectively came second (indeed my group used to refer to them as secondary winners) I was not implying that if it was me I'd be unhappy with that position. In the example game Mardonius mentioned earlier in this thread I am playing France. In all honesty whether I win (by VP), win (by MP addition) or don't win (if the rules don't change) will not make much difference to me and how I feel about it, I've enjoyed the game, it's been a great challenge and for me that it reward enough.

DCWhitworth -> RE: Problems with Winning The Game (10/26/2009 2:27:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jimmer I don't recall the Austria/Prussia/France vs Russia event; please refresh my memory. Forgot to answer this point. In 1812 Austria and Prussia were allied to France (albeit none too willingly but an alliance is an alliance) and as such provided troops for the invasion of Russia. In the later phases of the conflict they then changed sides and broke their alliance with France.

Jimmer -> RE: Problems with Winning The Game (10/26/2009 8:34:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth I think we actually have quite similar game views actually. I like historical games that play realistically and give you an insight into the events of the time. I mostly play for the interest and pleasure of the game, not to win as such, I'd rather enjoy the game and lose than win at all costs. If I want a simple game I play chess. I don't have a 'winning is the only thing that matters' attitude so when I suggested that nations winning by manpower addition effectively came second (indeed my group used to refer to them as secondary winners) I was not implying that if it was me I'd be unhappy with that position. In the example game Mardonius mentioned earlier in this thread I am playing France. In all honesty whether I win (by VP), win (by MP addition) or don't win (if the rules don't change) will not make much difference to me and how I feel about it, I've enjoyed the game, it's been a great challenge and for me that it reward enough. Yeah, I think we're in the same ballpark: I play for the fun of it, not to win (although, I DO play to win; that's just not the overall goal).

Jimmer -> RE: Problems with Winning The Game (10/26/2009 8:44:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth Forgot to answer this point. In 1812 Austria and Prussia were allied to France (albeit none too willingly but an alliance is an alliance) and as such provided troops for the invasion of Russia. In the later phases of the conflict they then changed sides and broke their alliance with France. Right, I remember now. They gradually (and reluctantly) joined France. And, they truly did stab France in the back, in a manner of speaking. It's the reluctant part I'm speaking to, though. A France who, in game terms, "forced" a nation to join her should not operate under the illusion that the are friends. On the other hand, this example is handled in the board game rules using "corps on loan", where such corps are a victory condition. The only problem is that Prussia's "loan" of the corps was about 6 years earlier (and Austria's, 3). (An aside: I don't think "corps on loan" exists in the computer game, does it?) So, was it really a backstab? No, not really. Actually the backstab I find more to truly match the name is France vs. Spain in 1808 (if memory serves). But, my point holds: They are rare. And, not built upon trust. It was no secret that neither Prussia nor Austria went willingly, so it shouldn't come as a surprise. What I'm talking about is where two powers are conversing ostensibly as friends, and then one of them, without significant warning, goes to war with the other. When a power is negotiating one month to create a formal alliance the next month, but then goes to war instead, THAT is what I'm talking about. An extreme example perhaps, but it illustrates the point.

NeverMan -> RE: Problems with Winning The Game (10/26/2009 10:42:50 PM)
I play for fun, but I realize this isn't a WWII game, it's a game that has a lot of diplomacy involved. I'm not going to pack up and cry if someone back stabs me, I'm not sure grown men should act this way.

Skanvak -> RE: Problems with Winning The Game (10/27/2009 7:55:24 AM)
What would you think of secret objectives cards based on historical goals of each MP? As they would be secrets, that would prevent the every one on the first player (real level of VP would be unknown), encourage alliance and encourage a more historical approach of their country interest.

DCWhitworth -> RE: Problems with Winning The Game (10/27/2009 8:30:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Skanvak What would you think of secret objectives cards based on historical goals of each MP? As they would be secrets, that would prevent the every one on the first player (real level of VP would be unknown), encourage alliance and encourage a more historical approach of their country interest. It would be an interesting idea but it would move too far away from the original concept of the game I think.

Marshall Ellis -> RE: Problems with Winning The Game (10/27/2009 1:15:56 PM)
Actually EiH 3.0 had some similar individual VP awards for certain conditions that certain nations reached. Lot's of different scenarios!

Skanvak -> RE: Problems with Winning The Game (10/27/2009 6:08:44 PM)
I will need to find this rules. Thought, the important part is that they must be unknown otherwise this does not change the problem.

DCWhitworth -> RE: Problems with Winning The Game (10/27/2009 6:19:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Skanvak I will need to find this rules. Thought, the important part is that they must be unknown otherwise this does not change the problem. If you were looking to create some such thing the alternate dominant powers rules would be another place to look. On paper I like them but they are game breakers really.

Skanvak -> RE: Problems with Winning The Game (10/27/2009 6:58:14 PM)
I think I agree, they are interessant but are a bit incoherent (especially the +10/10 eco). Could you develop how they are game breaker? (I have not that much full campaign experience on the original)

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.859375