Advice- major power/ large position

Hi, just looking for abit of advice and guidance as stated above.

Looking at the possibility of running a large position and have a few worries due to being very inexperienced and never being involved in war etc. Its a large commitment financially if nothing else.

What would be peoples advice for getting going? What should my first couple of turns consist of? What should I look to get sorted first?

Reluctant to reveal where and with who I may pick up

I would not let your relative lack of experience in a game put you off taking on a large position.  Each position has its own strengths and weaknesses.  One advantage of a large position is that you are less likely to be attacked (unless the previous incumbent has made such a mess and wrecked it), so you have time to make mistakes and learn.

If you are worried about being dragged into a war, then choose your game carefully and make sure you write plenty of letters.  Players that neglect diplomacy inevitably do not build up understandings with other players which help avoid war.  Of course there are always exceptions: if you play your character as an untrustworthy crook or go out of your way to antagonise other players then you are more likely to end up at war anyway.  However, unless you enter a game with the sole purpose of spoiling it for those players who have spent some time building up their positions, then you should gain a reasonable amount of settling in time.

As to financial commitment, that also varies.  A position with a lot of colonies inevitably takes more time (and money) than one without, but if you remain at peace then you have plenty of time to concentrate on sorting one area at a time.  As a player I am known for building up lots of historic detail and probably go over the top in researching each town/character - this is easier for larger positions since the history is usually more readily documented, but there is no requirement to do this.  It is therefore possible to play a large position on a relatively small budget while you find your feet.  However, at some point you will want to do something with that large position and if you end up at war then to fight a war across multiple continents certainly does cost money.  If you neglect to prepare beforehand then what is worse is that you will almost certainly lose.  By contrast, staying out of a war may well boost your economy and allow you to build up your nation to the point where you can influence events.  Peace does not have to be boring, and as the player of a large position you may well be able to encourage peace by refusing to take sides in a war (or threatening to join in against one side and/or the other).

There are players who just delight in joining to smash up what other players have built, then having ruined their own position through war, give up.  Thankfully these are now in the minority, but if you want to avoid wasting your time and money in a game which contains a few rotten apples, I suggest you ask Richard for a summary of the particular game and whether he thinks the position is right for what you want to achieve personally.   It is in nobody's interest for a player to take on a position and then drop it after a couple of turns.

More general advice would be to research the history of whatever country you are considering playing to see if it interests you - you can of course totally ignore the history, but if you try and play a catholic nation as a protestant then you are likely to be trying to push a rock up a hill.  If you want a trading position then it is best to pick a country which has access to the sea, etc.

If you do all this before you accept a position then you will already have a fairly clear idea of what you want to be doing in your first couple of turns.  You can then write a few letters of introduction, and look for obvious things a previous player has failed to do (like defend important towns, make trade investments, etc).  As a large position other players will generally try to help you more because when a large position blows up it can ruin their game experience.  

Players don't tend to get into trouble financially if they play 1 large and 1 smaller position in games, but if you are playing positions in all 4 games, or 2 large positions then it is much harder to do justice to either.  It can be also very confusing when you read of your characters in 1 game, doing something completely different in another game.  I don't know of any time when a player has played the same position in 2 games concurrently, but perhaps others know differently.  Personally I also try not to play a position I have dropped again because it is better to give someone else a chance.

Final word of caution: if you are thinking about taking on a large position that has been badly played and is in a mess, it will take a lot of real world money to turn it around, and is probably not for you.  You can of course learn a lot by doing, but you would need to be very determined to play a particular position in a particular way if you want to spend a fortune on it.  The same applies to a large position that is involved in a war - it is almost never the case that a change of player leads to an immediate peace ('white' peace) because players who have been fighting a war have their own objectives and will have invested a lot of time and trouble to achieve what they have.  They may listen to your peace proposal, but don't be surprised if it is rejected or they come back with the kind of terms which cost you heavily.  This applies to allies and enemies.  Any new player must be prepared to fit in with what has happened so far in the game he joins, otherwise the result is chaos - you either run out on your allies and upset them, or by siding with your former enemies end up being mistrusted by neutrals.

Whichever position you pick in whichever game, I hope this helps.

Papa Clement wrote:I would not let your relative lack of experience in a game put you off taking on a large position.  Each position has its own strengths and weaknesses.  One advantage of a large position is that you are less likely to be attacked (unless the previous incumbent has made such a mess and wrecked it), so you have time to make mistakes and learn.

If you are worried about being dragged into a war, then choose your game carefully and make sure you write plenty of letters.  Players that neglect diplomacy inevitably do not build up understandings with other players which help avoid war.  Of course there are always exceptions: if you play your character as an untrustworthy crook or go out of your way to antagonise other players then you are more likely to end up at war anyway.  However, unless you enter a game with the sole purpose of spoiling it for those players who have spent some time building up their positions, then you should gain a reasonable amount of settling in time.

As to financial commitment, that also varies.  A position with a lot of colonies inevitably takes more time (and money) than one without, but if you remain at peace then you have plenty of time to concentrate on sorting one area at a time.  As a player I am known for building up lots of historic detail and probably go over the top in researching each town/character - this is easier for larger positions since the history is usually more readily documented, but there is no requirement to do this.  It is therefore possible to play a large position on a relatively small budget while you find your feet.  However, at some point you will want to do something with that large position and if you end up at war then to fight a war across multiple continents certainly does cost money.  If you neglect to prepare beforehand then what is worse is that you will almost certainly lose.  By contrast, staying out of a war may well boost your economy and allow you to build up your nation to the point where you can influence events.  Peace does not have to be boring, and as the player of a large position you may well be able to encourage peace by refusing to take sides in a war (or threatening to join in against one side and/or the other).

There are players who just delight in joining to smash up what other players have built, then having ruined their own position through war, give up.  Thankfully these are now in the minority, but if you want to avoid wasting your time and money in a game which contains a few rotten apples, I suggest you ask Richard for a summary of the particular game and whether he thinks the position is right for what you want to achieve personally.   It is in nobody's interest for a player to take on a position and then drop it after a couple of turns.

More general advice would be to research the history of whatever country you are considering playing to see if it interests you - you can of course totally ignore the history, but if you try and play a catholic nation as a protestant then you are likely to be trying to push a rock up a hill.  If you want a trading position then it is best to pick a country which has access to the sea, etc.

If you do all this before you accept a position then you will already have a fairly clear idea of what you want to be doing in your first couple of turns.  You can then write a few letters of introduction, and look for obvious things a previous player has failed to do (like defend important towns, make trade investments, etc).  As a large position other players will generally try to help you more because when a large position blows up it can ruin their game experience.  

Players don't tend to get into trouble financially if they play 1 large and 1 smaller position in games, but if you are playing positions in all 4 games, or 2 large positions then it is much harder to do justice to either.  It can be also very confusing when you read of your characters in 1 game, doing something completely different in another game.  I don't know of any time when a player has played the same position in 2 games concurrently, but perhaps others know differently.  Personally I also try not to play a position I have dropped again because it is better to give someone else a chance.

Final word of caution: if you are thinking about taking on a large position that has been badly played and is in a mess, it will take a lot of real world money to turn it around, and is probably not for you.  You can of course learn a lot by doing, but you would need to be very determined to play a particular position in a particular way if you want to spend a fortune on it.  The same applies to a large position that is involved in a war - it is almost never the case that a change of player leads to an immediate peace ('white' peace) because players who have been fighting a war have their own objectives and will have invested a lot of time and trouble to achieve what they have.  They may listen to your peace proposal, but don't be surprised if it is rejected or they come back with the kind of terms which cost you heavily.  This applies to allies and enemies.  Any new player must be prepared to fit in with what has happened so far in the game he joins, otherwise the result is chaos - you either run out on your allies and upset them, or by siding with your former enemies end up being mistrusted by neutrals.

Whichever position you pick in whichever game, I hope this helps.

I agree with Papa on this, but a large position doesn't have to cost a lot long term. Once you've got your nation set up the way you want it to be then the costs can come down.

Definitely write to other players to get an understanding of what has happened and where things are looking like they're heading, especially on your borders. Also worth asking your advisors, they may be biased - like other players - in having their own agenda but gives you an idea of the court politics. Asking advisors can help you avoid mistakes and having to change orders the next turn disrupting your order flow and increasing costs or time taken to get to where you want to be.

You don't have to play the way someone did previously but getting an understanding of where the nation currently is and why would help you plan to make a change in policy direction. Just changing without trying to notify other players so they can work with you ends up causing all sorts of problems and misunderstandings. Also by starting correspondence you get a feel for whether any given nation's player is likely to work with you or not.

If you're not at war look at your food security and until you get a feel for how your harvests go keep a reserve ready to buy food. A small nation can get food donations from generous neighbours which might cover all of the shortage but generally not so for a large nation. Left unchecked a famine can effect future harvests for years on end, generally getting worse each time.

Picking one or two characteristics helps me find a way to player the ruler until I get settled in. Tsar Peter in Game 10 was always venting his anger publicly until he found other directions to express his passionate nature. I tend to choose two or three traits when creating personalities in the first couple of turns which help me understand where, for example, an advisor is coming from. This gives Richard something to play with too, but still doesn't mean you control them. After a while you can start predicting their responses to your questions - which means you're learning how the nation works politically. If you leave it with previous player's personalities you don't know their background or one's that Richard has come up with somehow. Nor do you know how they've been treated.

Dropping a NPC personality from a respected position for no reason other than a change of player doesn't sit well with the personality themselves as they wouldn't understand why they've been betrayed and will act accordingly for their best interests. Best to leave them in place at least initially even if they aren't directly used for anything, otherwise some sneaky player's going to try to utilise them if they want something from your nation.

Use the first couple of turns to establish the world around you and use it to plan what you want to do going forward. I tend to have an idea of what I want to do for each month for the whole of the year and helps keep me on track if other worldly events need responding to rather than getting side tracked into a reactive game at the expense of your own nation's progress. This is especially important for planning recruit use.

Try to avoid making big changes for the first couple of turns. A large nation can achieve some things quickly that smaller nations can't, but once you've built up momentum in one direction it can be expensive and harder to switch or even reverse course if there are unforeseen outcomes. In G10 recently, according to the paper, a nation opened many workhouses in one city which were smashed in a workhouse revolt so approx £800,000 was spent opening these only to see the money effectively lost. Asking for and following advice first can help avoid expensive scenarios.

Have a look at the game's forum thread, especially any turn write ups for a feel of the game before choosing too.

Good luck with whichever game and nation you go with. They may appear daunting at first but they're great fun once you get into them.

When looking at the list of positions in a game - and not sure if this is still the case or not Richard used to put positions which were right in the middle of a current crisis/war etc in bold. With these being the ones to avoid if you want time to settle in.

Other players take one look at a Spanish succession crisis which has been allowed to fester really badly for three years and go - I can fix that. Or look at a really un-popular English Government which has just lost a war with France, had a famine, annoyed the hell out of its allies and junior positions by abandoning them and going for a Stuart Restoration and destroyed what little honour it had left by murdering King James II and setting up some really dodgy dauls - and go just what I want an interesting challenge! And the only way is up.

Before taking on a position in an existing game it may also be worth while to get some recent back issues of the paper and have a look at the forum. Much of this may be biased information but it should give you some clue about which powers are active and what has or has not happened to your position and its neighbours in the past.

Generally, but not always if the position you are thinking about is shown on the honour table in the paper this is a good sign.

Would also say that what often matters ref money and time is not the size of the position but how complex it is. So a medium complex position with Parliaments, Navies, Colonies like Venice, UDP or Portugal and take more management than larger but more simple positions lacking Navies and colonies like Moghul India, Persia or Russia. Though if someone else had had your large but simple position before you they may have done a lot to make it a large but complex position.

Ref letters and diplomacy - some large positions like Moghul India, Nippon and Persia can just mark time and just focus on their internal affairs. Others like France, Spain, England and Austria can try this but generally speaking people expect letters and answers/policies from these positions and get upset if the game develop's a diplomatic black hole were say the French, Spanish or Austrian Government policy should be. Indeed some players view not answering their letters properly as a sign of hostility and grounds for war.

But what I would stress is that no matter how large or small a position is I would only play it because you are interested and it.

I have joined one game, a large position, in April. The turns including writing letters are taking between 10 and 20 hours (I am slow at writing letters). I inherited a bombed out country with little infrastructure and appalling military organisation and have spent most of the time rebuilding, reorganising and trying to prevent starvation, insurrection, invasion, excommunication and at the same time try and develop the economy and get the inhabitants to pay some taxes.

In terms of real life costs, it is the case you can spend as much as you want to speed things up, but I would say £70 a turn is about what I am paying on average.

I knew very little about the history of my position so it is a very good idea to ask questions on this forum and write letters in game. I am only now starting to get to grips with the in-game threads which are the basis of alliances and animosities.

When it comes to War, you don't need military experience, but you do need to get the structure of your armies right and attention to detail is important, plus you need all the back up an army would need such as hospitals, magazines, arsenals, plus a navy and transports if you are going on an overseas expedition.

So in summary do take on a large position if you are happy with the amount of time and costs, otherwise try a small position to get the feel of the game. You can always take on a larger one when you feel comfortable.

V.

Vauban wrote:I have joined one game, a large position, in April. The turns including writing letters are taking between 10 and 20 hours (I am slow at writing letters). I inherited a bombed out country with little infrastructure and appalling military organisation and have spent most of the time rebuilding, reorganising and trying to prevent starvation, insurrection, invasion, excommunication and at the same time try and develop the economy and get the inhabitants to pay some taxes.

In terms of real life costs, it is the case you can spend as much as you want to speed things up, but I would say £70 a turn is about what I am paying on average.

I think this goes to the heart of the original question - it isn't so much a question of the size of position as its complexity and starting point.  If you inherit a 'bombed out' position, then unless you have the luxury of time (gained for example from not being at war, or not having a famine), you are inevitably under pressure to spend money to 'save' the position. But if you are just taking over a position that another player has kept in reasonable order, then you are not under any pressure to 'speed things up' and therefore spend a lot of money.  I don't think it is possible to play large positions on the minimum turn fee and achieve very much unless you spend so little time communicating with other players and are just content to let the world carry on around you.  But it is certainly possible to play large positions on much less than £70/turn, and have a significant input into shaping the game.

Vauban wrote:I knew very little about the history of my position so it is a very good idea to ask questions on this forum and write letters in game. I am only now starting to get to grips with the in-game threads which are the basis of alliances and animosities.

At the risk of contradicting my earlier points, you can get away with knowing only the basics of the history of your position and learning the rest as you play.  But I think your enjoyment will be enhanced by at least researching the main strengths and weaknesses of your country so you have an idea of the challenges you are likely to face.

Each game is different so although some may appear to be dominated by a few vocal players, simply by joining you do have the chance to form alliances and rebalance a game.  Diplomacy in games moves very slowly so I would be less concerned by the latest diplomatic moves in your early turns, just being aware of them and working out which players can be trusted will probably take at least 6 months, if not more.

Vauban wrote:When it comes to War, you don't need military experience, but you do need to get the structure of your armies right and attention to detail is important, plus you need all the back up an army would need such as hospitals, magazines, arsenals, plus a navy and transports if you are going on an overseas expedition.

Some players are always going to be better at fighting than others.  If you are joining the game to fight then it helps to know how to.  Otherwise there is absolutely nothing wrong in building up defences to discourage an attack.  Some of the most successful players in the game are 'nation builders' not fighters, and have contributed hugely to their own enjoyment and to other players by deliberately not fighting.  There is always someone bigger and better than you in any game, but you can buy yourself time by forming alliances and if you are forced to fight then you can do so as part of a coalition.  Far more players spend their time trying to stop wars than starting (or continuing) them.  Not always successfully of course, but it would be completely wrong to see the game as one where the larger nations are obliged to go to war to achieve their ends.

I think large positions are usually complicated positions with lots of parts.

Every turn, Richard seems to roll to determine what parts break. The bigger and more complicated, the more breakage.

So, unlike a smaller position, you spend more time and money trying to prevent the position from falling apart. Fighting the natural chaos in large complex systems. This is particularly true if you necessarily have units all over the place which are forever getting SL and you have to issue rest orders.

While that's probably fair, it can get very old and tiring to keep paying turn fees and time to issue orders for the men to rest, and is part of the reason it is hard to run a complex large position at more reasonable costs.

It also helps to have some clear goals for the position. When you have so much resources, it's easy to let yourself get scattered.

France in many games has presumed too much upon their great power and been burned. I think it was often the case that size and power got you paid attention to, and you could achieve more with some open handed diplomacy, because people often knew that you could hurt them badly. So if you were going to be reasonable, they would be too.

Feel free to message me privately if you want to ask more specific questions about the position not on the open board.

Deacon wrote:
I think large positions are usually complicated positions with lots of parts.

Every turn, Richard seems to roll to determine what parts break. The bigger and more complicated, the more breakage.

So, unlike a smaller position, you spend more time and money trying to prevent the position from falling apart. Fighting the natural chaos in large complex systems. This is particularly true if you necessarily have units all over the place which are forever getting SL and you have to issue rest orders.

While that's probably fair, it can get very old and tiring to keep paying turn fees and time to issue orders for the men to rest, and is part of the reason it is hard to run a complex large position at more reasonable costs.

It also helps to have some clear goals for the position. When you have so much resources, it's easy to let yourself get scattered.

France in many games has presumed too much upon their great power and been burned. I think it was often the case that size and power got you paid attention to, and you could achieve more with some open handed diplomacy, because people often knew that you could hurt them badly. So if you were going to be reasonable, they would be too.

Feel free to message me privately if you want to ask more specific questions about the position not on the open board.

One historic solution to achieve internal harmony and avoid problems with bandits and Janissaries in the Ottoman Empire, rebel Scots Highlanders, revolting cossacks, disaffected Samurai clans and the other things Richard seems to dice for every turn if he thinks things are getting boreing and something is needed to go in the paper is to gather up all of your potential trouble makers and send them off to become some one else's problem.

If you are concerned about turn costs you can always ask Richard to cap your extra orders costs, If you then tell him you only want to spend 30 pounds on Extra orders, for example, then that allows you to budget, without getting a surprise turn costing more than you thought. You will over time then see if that is enough to get done the extra orders you submit, & adjust as required.

The large positions can be daunting its true, you get Rems of paper as an ORBAT add on your fellow players letters & you defiantly get a Flipping Heck moment when the initial turn appears.

Would probably say that no matter the size of the position you take, it is up to the individual play & how they develop the position.
Initially write a letter of introduction to as many people as possible, the forum threads will give you a rough idea of which countries are active. Make it easy for yourself initially, you can send the same letter to all, just obviously change the name of the recipient!

Not only consider the size of the position, Large positions can be a challenge, then again so can the smaller ones as well The Larger positions are usually active in most games, so a word of caution if they have been dropped they could be( but not always) in a bit of a battered state. Geographical location is also a consideration, LGDR has its main focus on Europe , always has done & probably always will. There are some slightly more isolated out of the way positions that give the chance to almost play Solo. On the one hand you have a bit of peace & quiet, less risk of invasion. To counter this the technology may be a little bit different from what you expect & there is the danger that you will become isolated from the game & feel left out from the mainstream of the game. Leading to boredom. It is however a possible option to learn the game mechanics.

As has been mentioned above, this is more than just a wargame. The diplomatic side letter writing & interaction with the other players in the game whether as allies or enemies is what lends the game its core strength, personally that is the part of the game that gives me the most enjoyment.

Many parts of the game are still not understood by many of us who play, which keeps things "Interesting" all round. Plus no matter how hard you plan , there is it seems almost always a chance that the end result isn't always what you foresaw. Not always in a negative manner, I have heard vague reports of positive outcomes as well.

You can put a lot of time & effort into what ever position, large or small that you choose, you can roleplay your character, give your Ministers, Ambassadors et al. personalities. In one game for example the Dutch Ambassador is more interested in Butterflies than actually see to his diplomatic duties. The depth of play is dictated by the players.

At the end of the day the choice is yours, just take a position you feel comfy with. the amount of time, energy & money you spend is dictated by you the player. You can play the Larger positions on a budget, you can also spend a lot of money time & effort in micro managing a small to medium sized position. Research a bit of background, even go so far as to read a book to get ideas & information.