Non-Europeanism in Game 8

In Game 8 we've had the April/May 1701 turn (eg latest newspaper dated April 1701) and it has suddenly occurred to me that the game does seem to have a strong non-European player base.

Looking at the most admired list for example, four are Far Eastern nations, four are Ottoman (!) and only two are European. The players do seem active too and I wonder if this will change the dynamic of the game as it develops?

It's very interesting, will the Sultan gather his hosts and march on Vienna, the Crimean Tartars are certainly very active. The various Chinese governors are supplying the Emperor with increasingly lavish gifts, to curry favour and the Moghul Emperor is proposing an all India conference. The situation in indochina is equally complex with the Burmese on the march. Europe is looking tame in comparison.

I do think it will make for a richer game, but I doubt the ottomans are going to march on Vienna again. Europeans are prone to squabble among themselves... unless the Ottomans march. All that would do is successful unite Europe against them. I'm sure they'd prefer us that way.

There are plenty of other places they can expand that aren't likely to get much support. Persia and much of North Africa come to mind.

Then, of course, there's always the question of how well they can keep their interests aligned. If they do conquer someplace, only one player is going to get to keep the territory, so what do the others get?

True nothing like a few turbaned gentlemen marching towards Vienna to bring the HRE together and the Persian are no pushover either.

Just for clarification and regretably from an Egyptian point of view, the whole of North Africa to the very borders of Morocco is already Ottoman.
The one nation which intrigues me is France. King Louis is Uncharacteristicly quiet.
Perhaps the conversation should be less about who the Ottomans are going to attack and more about who may be foolish enough to attack them . We are after all a peaceful people...

Great Unwashed-can you clarify for me, what is the relationship (in general terms) between the various Ottoman players-are they effectively provincial governors of one nation (like China) or are they 'independent'?

I think that in Game 8, lands further east will prove increasingly interesting

Yes, I was referring to the lands south of the Ottoman lands in Africa, which I still think are far enough north in Africa to be called North Africa.

Apologies Deacon. I misread your comment and thought you were referring to the mediterranean coastal strip. Yes potentially there is room for expansion to the south.
We Beys are merely governors though when it comes to domestic affairs, we have great autonomy and generally can do what we like. The only restraint I have is that 'it is considered good form to consult The Sultan if wishing to make tax changes' and each year I pay a small tribute. I can live with that.
We do talk to each other and important decisions, especially foreign affairs, are generally carried out by consensus.
I guess the golden rule is that if it benefits the empire, it's ok.

Thanks for the explanation-almost identical to the Chinese situation then.

I'll be interested in what the chinese do, since I think in many ways one of the best routes to power in China is to overthrow the emperor. The fluidity of the chinese concept of the "mandate of heaven" gives an opening for anyone strong enough to seize the throne to be considered legitimate.

Hi Deacon

The Chinese positions are structured to avoid/prevent such a thing happening. I used to play a Chinese position in Game 2, for example, and in the position setup it was made clear you were not allowed to attack the other Chinese positions nor rise up against the Emperor.

I don't think it is put so bluntly in the later games but the set up does seem structured to prevent such an event still. If one of the governors tried it then I suspect the other four would rally to the Emperor (or the revolter would risk the other four revolting against him )

The other thing that might prevent a governor rising up is you score honour points primarily by gaining favour from the Emperor (by presenting him with gifts) so then revolting against him might be interesting

Now, of course, someone could try...

Hmm, that seems unfortunate to me, since I think that cuts off one of the more interesting paths for a Chinese position. I think it would be hard enough to pull off that if you could achieve it, you deserve the win!

Would the consolidated position really be that unstoppable? I guess Richard has a reason for it.

I think one person playing all China would be quite powerful...something like 200,000 recruits a year to start with. However I can imagine the practical aspects of ruling it in Glory terms could be quite daunting, the number of towns , etc...

I'm thinking that the strength of the Ottoman & Chinese positions comes because the majority of them are active. It is a problem that when the component parts of an Empire are inactive then it weakens that area in Game turns. If only a couple of states are active then it encourages an expansionist policy.
A lot of the positions with huge Populations & therefore recruit pools are hindered by poor infrastructure, weak central control & fiscal restraints. It is a major advantage for France initially in the Game that most of these retraints have been to a greater or lesser degree adressed.

J Flower wrote:I'm thinking that the strength of the Ottoman & Chinese positions comes because the majority of them are active. It is a problem that when the component parts of an Empire are inactive then it weakens that area in Game turns. If only a couple of states are active then it encourages an expansionist policy.
A lot of the positions with huge Populations & therefore recruit pools are hindered by poor infrastructure, weak central control & fiscal restraints. It is a major advantage for France initially in the Game that most of these retraints have been to a greater or lesser degree adressed.

I do agree. I have played in games where I am the only active Chinese player (out of 5) and whilst it does help on a recruiting front (foreign recruiting is banned but me recruiting in the inactive players lands was allowed), it does mean you are always worrying about threats to the Empire when yours is the only province developing and improving...

I don't know how it would work but I have sometimes felt it could help a bit if in such team nations that if some positions are vacant for prolonged periods then the active players could have a 'caretaker' role-there could be strict rules to ensure the inactive positions are maintained as viable positions, such as finances and recruits could not be transferred from an inactive to an active position; the inactive position wouldn't receive separate foreign mail nor could it separately go to war (or even couldn't fight offensively, only defensibly)...but it might prevent a situation where you have one or two positions in a 'team nation' modernising and developing and the rest remaining weak and vulnerable.

I think it is a shame that some positions maybe too small to be viable, when I originally started playing back in hte last century some of the smaller German positions were paired together to make them playable, even though there was no Historical link, maybe the same could be done for some of the positions in Question.

I would think that would tend to distort the historical simulation part of the game too much, so I can see why Richard wouldn't want to do that, even though it makes a certain kind of sense.

It would maybe depend on which nations were bundled together, for example in Germany, it could be that Mecklenberg-Brunswick comes into exsistence, afterall it is only One marriage away from what could have happened, Or baden joined up to Wurrtemberg, not too unhistorical.

Interestingly we still have only two non-European nations amongst the top 10 most respected nations, though now 5 of the others are Far Eastern and 3 Ottoman.