Agema Publications

A forum for the disscussion of the Play by Mail games from Agema Publications


Game 9 Start Up

Share

count-de-monet
Marquess
Marquess

Number of posts : 264
Location : Reading, Berkshire
Reputation : 8
Registration date : 2008-04-20

Game 9 Start Up

Post by count-de-monet on Thu May 24, 2012 1:34 pm

sorry if the subject heading created any excitement about an official announcement (which this is not)...

Many of are now aware that a Game 9 is on the cards....it seems to be a matter of when not if. So, can we, as players offer any influence (sensible suggestions) as to what we would like Richard to consider building into the start-up.

One thing I would like to see is some clear guidance on what treaties pre-1700 are considered to be in play. The Treaty of Westphalia will always be trotted out, but there are other treaties which have a key role and without us having positions we could suggest a list without bias.

Open for suggestions on treaties and other ideas......

Stuart Bailey
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1153
Age : 54
Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
Reputation : 34
Registration date : 2012-01-29

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Stuart Bailey on Thu May 24, 2012 10:13 pm

The Key pre 1700 treaties would seem to be:

1) The 1696 Treaty of Rijswijk which ended the 9 Years War (King Williams War if you are American) apart from a ban on the use of Privateers in the West Indies the major effect on the game would be to stop the French and other people who signed it (like Spain) from offering support to the Jacobites against William of Orange.

French and English language versions of this treaty actually seem to differ and the French claim that their version does not apply to heirs so once William of Orange or James II dies they are free to support the true King of England - James Edward Francis Stuart (The Historic Old Pretender). The English and their English Language Version does not agree.

If Treaty enforced which version? And it seems a bit mean on Jacobities and West Indies Pirates ( I mean privateers) looking for a Patron.

2) 1660 Marriage Treaty signed by Louis XiV when he married Maria Teresa daughter of Philip IV of Spain.

If enforced Bourbons excluded from any claim to Spanish Throne...........bit hard on any Spanish Bourbon player and probably the French.

Louis claims treaty void because her never got all the promised dowry.

3) Various partition treaties between Louis XIV, William of Orange and the Emperor to try and avoid War of Spainish succession.

Never accepted by Spain which did not want its Empire divided.

Historic final will of Carlos II of Spain left Empire intact to Phillip of Anjou and if he does not accept to Charles Hapsburg.

If Treaties enforced whoever accepts the inheritance has broken a treaty

4) 1690's Treaties to end War between Ottomans and Austria, Poland and Venice

If enforced Ottomans are going to have to attack Persia or perhaps Russia rather than march on Vienna or try and re-claim the Morea

Own view is that 5 year rule should still apply and treaties older than that have no influence on game apart from Propaganda value/reasons to declare war.

Thus if Louis XIV or the Emperor accepts the throne of Spain for a relative they should not suffer a penalty but their disappointed rivals can have a valid moan to their diets/estates general etc and declare war if they want. Feeling all hurt and wronged.

Of course some hard core players like the RKL in G7 may elect to honour these treaties even if they dont have too (Honour is its own reward?). Which was one reason why RKL was a little put out to find out - after he sent 100,000 French Troops to England to support James III he had inadvertantly smashed even his own version of the treaty of R since James II was still alive.

Of course that particular problem is now solved in G7 and its Ok to support Jacobites if you read French. If you are a English Reader its never OK.

Guest
Guest

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Guest on Thu May 24, 2012 11:15 pm

I think it would help if there was clarification on 3 types of treaties and on which penalties (if any) could be expected by players breaking them. Clearly if there are no penalties then there is no benefit to keeping treaties.

I suggest:

Type 1 - treaties which establish the political structure of nations (example being Treaty of Westphalia, associated Imperial institutions, States General in UDP, Pacta Conventa for Poland, the English parliament etc) as are detailed in the various rule supplements. These treaties should be hard to change for players because they are integral to how each country operates and without them some unique features of positions would be lost. There would be nothing to stop groups of players getting together to replace those kind of treaties, but it would be an uphill struggle.

Type 2 - treaties in recent history which ended wars (examples being Rijwsick and the 1690s treaties to end Ottoman/Austria, Poland/Venice). These could have an agreed time limit (say 5 years into the game, at which point they would be downgraded to type 3 treaties. I accept Stuart's point that the provisions of these treaties must be commonly accepted and determined by the GM to stop argument before it starts!

Type 3 - treaties which are so far in the past that although they could be used as an excuse for war, there would be minimal (if any) penalties for breaking them.

Of course there will be debate over which actual treaties should fit into each category, but by effectively putting a time limit on type 2 treaties it would give players flexibility to try alternatives whilst removing the fear that they had to do something quickly in 1700 to avoid xyz happening.

OK, in the context of G7 the above would have been bad for France as I wouldn't have been able to have used the 1660 marriage treaty on its own as a discussion point for the Spanish Succession, though I would have been able to use the arguments to influence discussion over the will of Carlos II. Contingent treaties signed historically to cover situations which might exist would be very hard to include in the startup: there has to be some flexibility for players.

Treaties signed between players in the game should start off as Type 2 treaties (whether they are simple trade agreements or political/defensive treaties) and be live for 5 years after which time they become Type 3 treaties. So although in theory they never expire, their game potency diminishes.

The other consideration would need to be what happens when new players join. This is important for game continuity. The current rule is that new players are not bound by treaties signed by their predecessors. Overall I support this, but I do accept it is very hard on new players joining at difficult times. So when Churchill joined G7 and accepted King James, he could reasonably expect France to honour its treaty to protect King James for 5 years. If Austria suddenly quit, it would be a bit unreasonable for any new player for Austria to be isolated by its allies and have to start negotiating new treaties without knowledge or history of how honourable those allies are. I don't know how this can be reflected better in the rules, so perhaps others can suggest something for discussion?

As to the penalties, you would expect me to be very keen on this. I don't hold to the view which has been previously expressed that treaties don't matter and players should have total freedom to do whatever they please. At the moment among those who hold more traditional views that treaties matter, there seems to be a trade off: breaking treaties is OK if you have high enough honour to compensate. I think that is very much out of period and has damaged the game. Gentlemen may have regularly broken their word to peasants, but not to each other: keeping one's word was a mark of rank in itself. It was originally very sharply defined in the rules as the distinguishing feature of pirates: pirates gained honour by breaking their word whereas rulers of countries had higher standards. A drop of 1 honour point/turn, even over a sustained period is simply not enough to make much difference and can be counterbalanced by good play in other ways or by other players talking you up.

So I suggest much more rapid falls in honour until an apology is made (20%/turn), and then less rapid falls in honour until restitution is made (10%/turn) or the wronged party accepts 'honour has been satisfied'. This would prevent the total breakdown in trust which have had in G7 and allow Louis/Leopold a face saving way out. So if you have managed to build your honour up to 40 and break a treaty, the next turn your honour would drop to 32, the turn after 25, the turn after 20, etc. The higher your honour the more it should mean to you. Of course if it is a genuine mistake, then the initial 8 point drop if followed by an apology which was accepted would make an end to it without further action being necessary. There is no need to resurrect a Court Agema (despite there being a strong case to do so). Type 3 treaties could have penalties of half the above.

Just a few thoughts to stimulate debate Smile


avatar
Deacon
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1430
Age : 54
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 38
Registration date : 2010-04-13

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Deacon on Fri May 25, 2012 1:14 am


First, I hope that we get existing game turn around time back to 3 weeks before a new game launches. It might be interesting to have game 9 be at 'turbo' game, where you have 6 turns a year instead of 12. My main complaint about the game is the pacing. I've been playing my first position for a bit over two years now, and I can't say that I've actually accomplished much of anything yet!

Second, while I think RKL's suggestions in general have merit, I personally object to new players not being bound by existing treaty. In theory, it can make sense to not limit a new player, but I think that it fundamentally undermines the ability to do diplomacy in the game if you cannot rely on the treaty you sign. Particularly if that treaty involves trading something material.

If this is the rule, as RKL asserts, I would like Richard to put it in the published rule books and say so. Since, in effect, it means that if you make a treaty with an NPC nation, it can be breached willy-nilly by the first player to pick up the position without consequence. I think that is just wrong.

As for treaty breaches, my reading of the rules suggests that if the treaty breach is made public, then there is a continuous and on-going downward pressure on the offender's honour until the breach is repaired. So I don't think you need to necessarily go for the 20% a turn which I think is far too onerous if the pressure doesn't end until the treaty breach is repaired.

Whether that is what happens actually in-game, I don't know.

I agree with the principle, however, that you shouldn't be able to just ignore a treaty, take an honour hit and move on. Treaties should mean something. I don't like the game Diplomacy and wouldn't want the idea that backstabbing someone you signed a treaty with is normal course of affairs.

avatar
Deacon
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1430
Age : 54
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 38
Registration date : 2010-04-13

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Deacon on Fri May 25, 2012 2:33 am

**Having gone back and reread the rules on that section, I don't think the pressure is continuous, so eventually you can pay off a treaty breach with an honour loss as it were. Rules specifically delineate it as an option.

J Flower
King
King

Number of posts : 738
Age : 46
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 13
Registration date : 2012-02-16

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by J Flower on Fri May 25, 2012 4:01 am

Would it be an idea to have an index of treaties in the Game? When a treaty is concluded by the players they could keep a copy each with a third going to Agema for the records. So new players could then see treaties still in play, the 3 or 5 year expiry date would still give them time to contemplate there own actions.

I htink something like this was in force in the LAK game. If treaties were defined as Trade, Non Aggression etc then you could have a single sentence on your turn paper ie. "Trade treaty with Spain" if you wanted details Agema could send you a copy from the files.

Guest
Guest

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Guest on Fri May 25, 2012 9:28 am


I think it would be hard to accelerate turns by changing from 1/month, though I do agree with Deacon that real time play is far too slow.

On page 31 of the 5th edition rules it states that 'penalties for breaking a treaty are limited to a slow but grinding and severe reduction in honour'. So the intention was that the penalty should be felt by the player and that it should have an effect over multiple game turns. 20%/turn might sound harsh, but it is intended to be. Personally I would prefer a higher penalty, but given the slow pace of the game players have to be given time to undo the self-inflicted damage. In 3 turns honour would have been halved irrespective of the level it started at: those with higher honour (a reward for previously good play) suffer more; those with low honour (who don't value the concept anyway), suffer less. That seems fair and I can't think of a simpler way of implementing this. There also has to be some mechanism for both players to come to terms which there isn't at present. Clearly the aggressor would have been punished and if he tried it again shortly afterwards he would have established such a poor reputation it would cause internal problems for him. All players would be on an equal footing and penalties clearly understood. That is very much in period without getting tied down in legal/court disputes.

The justification for Court Agema was also found on that page, namely that it represented historical bodies of law like the Aulic Council. However, I have a subsequent sheet titled 'New Treaty Rules' which removed the penalty of Court Agema, demoting the status of treaties to 'statements of intent rather than binding ... 'where clauses of a treaty are believed to have been breached, the hurt party may publicise the fact to try and embarrass the dishonourable party into compliance. The effect of breaking treaties is probably to be seen in a downward pressure on the honour of the perceived guilty party.' On this sheet, the intention was that the court would be replaced by pressure from other players within the game who acted as 'neutral' parties.

Clearly this change had 2 major faults:
1. other players are not neutral parties. The Treaty of Westphalia was guaranteed by Spain, France and Sweden. In G7 Spain would not move against a Hapsburg emperor, Sweden was unwilling to get involved (or was NPC for most of the time), which left France alone against Austria. Meanwhile lots of little German states were too frightened to stand up against Austria and the majority of inactive members remained just that! Relying on players to act historically (and possibly against their own interests) simply didn't work.
2. honour affected a player's ability to field his army and fight any war resulting from a treaty breach. So there was a self-correcting mechanism. This is now no longer the case. There is no restriction on the number of units or formations per honour point, though all forces may suffer morale penalties, which frankly is too vague to make any difference.

Unfortunately I can't find the reference that new players are not bound by previous treaties, though I always understood that was the case. Perhaps it dates from an even earlier version of the rules? However, it is obvious that if current players are not bound by existing treaties (or at least not effectively penalised for breaking them) then the same applies to new players who may not be aware of the existence of those treaties when they join.

I like J.Flower's idea about treaties being classified by type and the details made available later. However, in 'moving towards 5th edition' there is a section on Trade Treaties: 'These no longer enjoy any special benefit, but simply act as all other treaties do. In other words if you agree to exempt a nation from trade tariffs, it can be enforced by a treaty, but simply having a trade treaty no longer embues any special economic benefits in itself, other than those gained by agreeing to permit trade, keep tariffs low or whatever the wording is.' If trade treaties don't really mean anything, that makes all treaties political in one sense or another, so perhaps we need some ideas for defined categories? Perhaps treaty details could be put on the wiki or forum so everyone knew about them?
avatar
Jason
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1565
Age : 47
Location : Gourdon, Aberdeenshire
Reputation : 17
Registration date : 2008-08-27

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Jason on Fri May 25, 2012 11:08 am

I'd like to start by just saying that I think Richard does an excellent job of running the games, it's what makes so many of us look forward to a new game bounce now can I convince my bosses to give me a payrise Very Happy

The turbo version is interesting but I wonder if the downside of that would be that achieving negotiations, etc with other players could take too long-could a 'faster' game undermine the interaction between players that makes the games so much fun?

I do agree that some guidance on what (if any) treaties are considered to be in force in game terms would be useful.

I wonder if it would be possible at the game outset for players to have a list of other active players in the game? We know when new players join an established game and we can usually guess when someone has dropped out but it might be useful (and even save Richard some work) if we knew who else was 'out there' in a new game.

Guest
Guest

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Guest on Fri May 25, 2012 12:16 pm

Jason wrote:The turbo version is interesting but I wonder if the downside of that would be that achieving negotiations, etc with other players could take too long-could a 'faster' game undermine the interaction between players that makes the games so much fun?

I think that is only the start of potential problems. Unit raising times would be very much compressed. So you see your enemy approaching and order some basic infantry raised and it appears next turn: excellent. But what if the order isn't completed when you expect? Result: your enemy marches into the undefended town. In 2 months a siege army could march 120 miles which is about the distance between Paris and Calais. An army without artillery could march 240 miles (across most of Germany) within a single turn! I won't frighten you with cavalry column movements. In one turn UDP could march across Flanders, besiege Mons, create a breach in the walls under fire, and storm the town before the owner of Mons could respond. Armies would be popping up all over the place. Fleets would appear to teleport from one continent to another. As for delayed movement orders, that would also be meaningless. It doesn't just affect negotiating with other players Exclamation

If you speed up the game generally then you would have to slow down other aspects and I think the net effect would be confusion with little overall benefit.

Guest
Guest

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Guest on Fri May 25, 2012 12:58 pm

Jason wrote:I wonder if it would be possible at the game outset for players to have a list of other active players in the game? We know when new players join an established game and we can usually guess when someone has dropped out but it might be useful (and even save Richard some work) if we knew who else was 'out there' in a new game.

I can see where Jason is coming from on this - asking for responses from or sending letters to inactive players must cause the GM extra work and increase frustration for active players. I'm not sure whether making it clear which positions were active (or inactive) wouldn't also have unintended consequences, though. At the moment once a position goes inactive it becomes easy prey for active players to attack unless the GM steps in and plays that position. Even if it doesn't affect major positions, it would affect smaller positions in the HRE or Italy, or those in India/Far East. With around 80 different positions available in games, are any more than a quarter of that number regularly filled at any one time?
avatar
Jason
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1565
Age : 47
Location : Gourdon, Aberdeenshire
Reputation : 17
Registration date : 2008-08-27

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Jason on Fri May 25, 2012 2:27 pm

The Real Louis of France wrote:
I can see where Jason is coming from on this - asking for responses from or sending letters to inactive players must cause the GM extra work and increase frustration for active players. I'm not sure whether making it clear which positions were active (or inactive) wouldn't also have unintended consequences, though. At the moment once a position goes inactive it becomes easy prey for active players to attack unless the GM steps in and plays that position. Even if it doesn't affect major positions, it would affect smaller positions in the HRE or Italy, or those in India/Far East. With around 80 different positions available in games, are any more than a quarter of that number regularly filled at any one time?

You're right, there would be issues and it might increase "preying". However at the same time, if I send a letter and I get a non-active response (from Richard effectively), I can tell usually so I could work out the easy preys...

But yes, it could lead to abuse...

J Flower
King
King

Number of posts : 738
Age : 46
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 13
Registration date : 2012-02-16

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by J Flower on Tue May 29, 2012 10:05 am

With the Turbo Game option, is it more a case of frustration with waiting for the turn. Or the slow progress of the position. Are hte two actually bound together?

In the modern world of high tech electronic, is it the waiting for a two week reply to your turn that is causing the call for a turbo game.

Personally I enjoy the chance to sit down quietly, get out the ink pen & paper and enjoy the turn, I find it relaxing. It may take me upto a week or more to get the turn done, strange but true.

Maybe a solution to the turbo turn is a pure E-mailers game, although this may deny some players access to the game. It could if Agema agreed, have a much shorter turn around time, although maybe a limit on orders per position would also be an idea to help spees up the speedy turn around speed.
avatar
Jason
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1565
Age : 47
Location : Gourdon, Aberdeenshire
Reputation : 17
Registration date : 2008-08-27

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Jason on Tue May 29, 2012 11:51 am

I think it's the slow progress.

For me, one of the great things about the game is the need long term planning, whether that's to buildup armies, create medical services or invent things, when I start in a position I often find myself creating a 10-year development plan for my position, I love the diea its not all about warfare...however as I'm not as young as I once was Wink well when game turnarounds are only a little quicker than a month, and my ten-years of game play plan will take 8 years of real time, I wonder what state I'll be in by then Smile
avatar
Deacon
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1430
Age : 54
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 38
Registration date : 2010-04-13

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Deacon on Tue May 29, 2012 3:40 pm

The reason I proposed it was just the point Jason raised. Even at with perfect turnaround, the pace of the game is glacial.

I'd like to be able to put a 10 year plan in place... and actually see it to completion.

As you say, another option would be something like a two week turnaround email only game.

But I can't really play a position the way I would as a leader of the position and make decisions that will benefit me 10 years of game time later when I doubt I'll be around to see them.

Guest
Guest

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Guest on Tue May 29, 2012 7:10 pm

Deacon wrote:The pace of the game is glacial. I'd like to be able to put a 10 year plan in place... and actually see it to completion.

I have every sympathy as I think games run best when players are committed which means having a long term strategic plan and being prepared to work towards that.

Looking back to page 5 of the 5th edition rules: One game turn is played every 10-15 days. We've been running the game since 1989 and wouldn't be too modest in saying since then it has run like clockwork with no more than one delayed turn a year - usually due to a birth(!) or holiday. Things also slow over the Christmas period due to the delays created by the postal service. Other than that you can expect a regular turnaround. The pace of the game was intended to be slow, to mirror the diplomacy of the period. It was originally set just in Europe, but since then expanded to include the world.

I think this quote simply reminds us that 10 years ago when we all played by post, I would allow at least 3 days for the post office to deliver my turn back, allow 2 days for the turn to be received (it always seemed quicker), which left a minimum of 5 days to write orders/letters. At the time that was fine if the 5 days included a weekend, but if it didn't and I had a heavy week at work I would struggle to find time to complete a turn. It was even worse when playing in 2 games at once so a game turn was arriving every few days. That said, I do remember that it felt like a game back then rather than an alternative world!

To understand further, perhaps the question to be asked is what has changed between then and now? I suggest the following has changed:

1. As players have sought new innovations, the rules have expanded to cover more possibilities, thus making a more complicated game. In essence it is still simple and could be played by reference to just one or two rulebooks instead of six or seven, but does anyone build a standard ship of the line any more or equip a unit with an ordinary flintlock instead of some improved variation? More complicated rules require more time from the GM to check/process those rules. I happen to think this is a strength of the game. In period play and attention to historic detail give the game its rich atmosphere. As France I was probably the worst offender at making things complicated Embarassed but for me this flexibility has always been where the game scored highly against computer games.
2. More games have been started. When there were only 3 games running we could be fairly sure of a 10-day turnaround, but by the time there were 4 running the 14-day turnaround seemed to be standard, with 5 games we were on about a 20-day turnaround and with 6 games this is closer to 25-days, or a month adjusting for holidays.
3. Lengthening the game turnaround gave us as players more time to dream up plans (and in the case of France write longer letters) which meant we submitted more orders. Add in the forum and we can discuss the game 24-hours a day if we want to! The change to unlimited orders can be seen as a concession to help deepen our game experience, but of course this merely made long turnaround times unavoidable.

OK, there are other points which I have mentioned elsewhere, but these 3 seem to be enough to address Deacon's main point.

As players we surely have to ask ourselves 2 questions:
1. Could we go back to playing a game where we had 5 days to complete each turn, yet still feel we were getting value and an enjoyable game experience? We would no longer have the luxury of spending time reflecting (or plotting), no longer have time for very detailed diplomacy, long forum discussions, etc ?
2. Could we accept working within a restricted ruleset, submitting a restricted number/type of orders each turn in exchange for a fixed game turn charge?

And, if having reached some kind of consensus, we would still be dependent on Richard having the time to commit to running this style of game.

To be fair to Richard, the game did run like clockwork until the 3 changes I referred to above made it impossible for him to keep control. Either:
(a) the rules have to be completely rewritten to change the pace of games, which as I have argued on this thread is likely to be impractical and cause as many new problems as are solved.
(b) the number of games run concurrently has to dramatically reduce, which will be controversial and tough on those who have been long term players.
(c) Richard will have to employ/train someone else to GM some of the games, which inevitably means their interpretation of the rules.

Given the large number of NPCs in some games and its effect on overall game play, there is a strong case for reducing the number of games. But I know how annoyed I was when G4 folded after all the effort I put in, and reducing the number of games would reduce the availability of certain popular positions for players.

I don't think there are any easy ways round this. However, for the sake of keeping the debate going, one possibility could be to have a game based on a version of the old rules (including such old fashioned notions as Treaties enforced by Court Agema, a top EH list, NPCs being more actively played by the GM), but restricted to Europe (incl.Mediterranean). Larger positions such as France/Spain/Austria could be played by multiple players so retaining the possibility of team play and so starting strength was more equal. Of course with no colonial activity other than 'investing' in trade, the game would feel very different as players would have to learn how small a place Europe is! With a strict 10 day turnaround and a fixed fee/turn there would be less incentive/need to submit lots of orders and the game would be quick enough to allow 10 year plans to be undertaken in a reasonable real-world timeframe. The concept needs more work, but I'm convinced a quicker game really needs to be a simpler game.



avatar
Deacon
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1430
Age : 54
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 38
Registration date : 2010-04-13

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Deacon on Tue May 29, 2012 7:15 pm


I haven't played the game as long as others, so I can't really say what it was like under a more restricted rules set, but any idea that speeds the pace of the game I'd be interested in.

I spend a lot of time plotting and I never even close to all the time I'm given for game turnaround.

Guest
Guest

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Guest on Tue May 29, 2012 7:28 pm

Deacon wrote:I spend a lot of time plotting and I never even close to all the time I'm given for game turnaround.

What a frightening confession! lol!
avatar
Deacon
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1430
Age : 54
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 38
Registration date : 2010-04-13

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Deacon on Tue May 29, 2012 7:34 pm


I'm planning to launch an invasion of Game 7 from Game 8. Who's with me?
avatar
Ardagor
Duke
Duke

Number of posts : 356
Age : 47
Location : Haugesund, Norway
Reputation : 12
Registration date : 2008-04-20

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Ardagor on Tue May 29, 2012 9:35 pm

With game 6 on a 3 week turnaround, that is about the right speed for me at least.
I assume the other games will follow.
avatar
Deacon
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1430
Age : 54
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 38
Registration date : 2010-04-13

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Deacon on Tue May 29, 2012 9:46 pm


Well, at 3 week turnaround, it is 3 and a half years real time to move the world forward 5 game years. I think that's a pretty slow game.

That's about 17 turns a year, assuming zero breaks which seems a bad assumption.
avatar
Jason
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1565
Age : 47
Location : Gourdon, Aberdeenshire
Reputation : 17
Registration date : 2008-08-27

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Jason on Wed May 30, 2012 8:30 am

I cna see where RKL is coming from on the return to the earlier game but have to say part of the enjoyment for me is the global reach and esp the chance to play non-European positions. But other than that I think there is something in a lot of what he says.

Deacon-what you need to do is co-ordinate with Game 6 so game 7 has to fight on two fronts.
avatar
Ardagor
Duke
Duke

Number of posts : 356
Age : 47
Location : Haugesund, Norway
Reputation : 12
Registration date : 2008-04-20

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Ardagor on Wed May 30, 2012 12:29 pm

I have no desire to return to the days of the euro-centric game and I will take complexity over speed any time but I really do not think 3 weeks is to bad. It is certainly much better than the 4-6 weeks over the last year.

Guest
Guest

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Guest on Wed May 30, 2012 1:02 pm

Game turnaround is clearly a difficult issue and I'm not advocating any one alternative over others, merely stimulating discussion.

It does appear, though, that we cannot keep adding new games of LGDR without having an impact on the turnaround times for all games and putting excessive pressure on the GM.

Deacon is right that a 3 week turnaround usually stretches to 4 with holidays and equates to about 15-17 turns over a year. As a personal opinion, I think the ideal pace would be 24 turns over a year, so we would have 2 game years to each real world year. Once you push above that, things start to seem to take far too long, and the closer you get to 1 game year to each real world year, the more the game seems to grind to a halt.

Whether we could ever return to a euro-centric game with less complexity, I have my doubts, but if players have any opinions, then perhaps the forum is the place to voice them.

Richard D. Watts
Baron
Baron

Number of posts : 104
Reputation : 7
Registration date : 2008-04-21

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Richard D. Watts on Thu May 31, 2012 12:03 pm

On the game 7 thread Agema's being told that real-turn cost was a limiting factor by a player, but on the Game 9 start up thread the same player is advocating a two-week turnaround? Let us just say we manage that, this means the cost for a player goes up in real life terms over a real year by a factor of 40% (24 turns a year instead of say 17). That means it'd cost players more real money, which would make the situation far worse for the player in question wouldn't it? If the proposal is we do that but work for less money, to be honest that would Agema unviable as a business and then - seriously - there'd be no Glory of Kings left. I guess that's one solution, but not one we're going to contemplate!

To sum up, Agema's being sent mix messages, at least I think we are! If real life cost is a limiting factor then we understand that, but if we speed up turnaround that will make it worse for players. Our current view, and policy, is that a three work turnaround is the best compromise - but can you see how these two issues are interlinked?

The bottom line is this, player retention has improved with a three work turnaround compared to two week, so we take that to mean most players prefer it in practice rather than in theory.






Guest
Guest

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Guest on Thu May 31, 2012 1:57 pm

The Real Louis of France wrote:
Game turnaround is clearly a difficult issue and I'm not advocating any one alternative over others, merely stimulating discussion.


I thought I had been clear, but in case I have been misunderstood, I have replied to Richard's other comments on the G7 thread.

Sponsored content

Re: Game 9 Start Up

Post by Sponsored content


    Current date/time is Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:37 pm