(Full Version)

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



Message

shane -> (10/14/2003 11:52:04 PM)

Tondu,

Here's the situation:

I'm France and you're Russia. I come to you and tell you "Let's act in concert this game, and you can have the VP win..." What are you gonna think?
(IMO, the more powerful the country that allies with France, the higher the proportion of benefit for France.)

I love reading your posts, Le T, but I ain't buyin this one:) If I'm ever in a game with you, both eyes are on you!



Wellington12347 -> GB and VPs (10/15/2003 12:36:50 AM)

[QUOTE=Le Tondu]Linchpin? LOL!

England was the bankroller -plain and simple. Buying the blood of other nations so it could solidify and enhance it's own [COLOR=DarkRed][B][U]Global Conquest.[/B][/U][/COLOR] The truth is out there for everyone to see. History speaks for itself.

Back to the game.....

Just an idea.

What if I play France and forge an alliance with say Russia I tell the Russian player that he can have the VP win and I will go along and help him do that. France will not lose any of it's territory and it will get some territories along the way. Both armies will act in concert and in support of each other. The Russian player ends up with the most VPs and [I]"according to the written rules,"[/I] ends up being declared the [I]"winner."[/I]

My French armies will have been covered in Glory and I will have had lots of fun along the way. Will I care if the Russian player [I]"wins the VP total?"[/I] Heck no. I will have tasted success and accomplished what I wanted to. If that isn't winning, then nothing is.

The parameters of success do not necessarily exist on paper or in digital format alone.[/QUOTE]

If GB was in a position to have other countries as its hirelings so it could pursue it's own Global Conquest, then I think that supports my argument that GB was the other dominant power of the period (is it any wonder that EIA treats France and GB as the "dominant powers?")

As for playing for fun, I believe we are in complete agreement. A game where a player (especially when playing a "key" power) is not playing to formally win will bring quite different dynamics than a (typical) game where players are playing to formally win.

One may not play to win and that is their choice. If you have fun that's all that's important. But a typical game and typical assumptions will presume, unless otherwise stated, that all players are playing to formally win.

Jason



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.890625