Page 1 of 1

...

PostPosted: 14 Oct 2017, 04:27
by VaeVictis
...

Re: 1803 Playtest: Spring Bidding Phase 1803

PostPosted: 14 Oct 2017, 04:46
by ccloughley
France... Overpowered? Maybe.

Coalition? Maybe.

Might be worth a go, wink wink nudge nudge.

Re: 1803 Playtest: Spring Bidding Phase 1803

PostPosted: 14 Oct 2017, 09:54
by Strategus
ccloughley wrote:France... Overpowered? Maybe.

Coalition? Maybe.

Might be worth a go, wink wink nudge nudge.


Are you speaking generally or about this trial game specifically? Generally, both Britain and France are overpowered, but that makes things more in line with history. In this specific game, it came down to a bit of luck and a bit of judgement. But you also have to look at who controls which major powers!

I think VV's comments on bids are worthy of discussion. Maybe bids should be for neutrality as default or to win control as a default, to avoid null bids? Regarding bidding for neutrality, I think we will learn quite a lot from the trial game as to how to use that. Pretty much everyone has negotiated what to control, and especially the great powers with lower bidding wealth will need to consider that. Probably more thought needs to go into it from all of us.

Re: 1803 Playtest: Spring Bidding Phase 1803

PostPosted: 15 Oct 2017, 03:01
by VaeVictis
France and Britain may have to be changed, but the game was intentionally less than symmetric for the sake of a nod to history. Additionally, France and Britain have more majors and minors either directly bordering them or within their sphere of influence than the Eastern powers. So, having a little extra in the way of wealth allows them to exert additional influence over the potential pressures surrounding them.

I would lean toward making bids default to control rather than neutrality since that seems to be the preference based upon the subsidies spent in this test run (and I think that may continue since control is more certain than buying a major or minor's apathy in order to conquer its centers). Are there any opinions on this? Honestly, I would still prefer if players were required to state explicitly whether they wish to control or to secure neutrality which would allow for purposefully invalid bids in case players desire to be intentionally deceitful in reneging on promised assistance to other players.

Re: 1803 Playtest: Spring Bidding Phase 1803

PostPosted: 16 Oct 2017, 15:27
by NoPunIn10Did
VaeVictis wrote:Honestly, I would still prefer if players were required to state explicitly whether they wish to control or to secure neutrality which would allow for purposefully invalid bids in case players desire to be intentionally deceitful in reneging on promised assistance to other players.


The "oh but I made a mistake" ploy is an old trick, and I've certainly made use of it, but I don't think it's really as valuable to the game as people make it out to be. I know personally I'd prefer a GM willing to point out mistakes when the variant is this complicated. Chances are, even with corrections, we're still likely to make other types of mistakes.

Re: 1803 Playtest: Spring Bidding Phase 1803

PostPosted: 16 Oct 2017, 19:40
by Strategus
VaeVictis wrote:France and Britain may have to be changed, but the game was intentionally less than symmetric for the sake of a nod to history. Additionally, France and Britain have more majors and minors either directly bordering them or within their sphere of influence than the Eastern powers. So, having a little extra in the way of wealth allows them to exert additional influence over the potential pressures surrounding them.

I would lean toward making bids default to control rather than neutrality since that seems to be the preference based upon the subsidies spent in this test run (and I think that may continue since control is more certain than buying a major or minor's apathy in order to conquer its centers). Are there any opinions on this? Honestly, I would still prefer if players were required to state explicitly whether they wish to control or to secure neutrality which would allow for purposefully invalid bids in case players desire to be intentionally deceitful in reneging on promised assistance to other players.


To be fair, whatever system you use, people can always say "I got it wrong" as an excuse - whichever default is used, or no default then "I forgot to specify on that one". Can't prevent it. Some people use it, some don't.

On the game being un-symmetric - my advice/request would be don't change it. It is one of the aspects, in my opinion, that makes it a more interesting variant. Some players will have to rely much more on diplomatic skills to gain an advantage. And while England and France are indeed over-powered, it is easy for the other nations to see that and use it as an excuse to eliminate them early, or one by one. Or play them off against one another.

On the subject of the pause in the trial - no probs from my perspective. I will still be here when you return.