How to unstick games - Being Held up by lack of Player for Key position

This may be a really stupid thought (I do have them some times).

But if G9 is going to be used as a test bed what do people think about this testing this idea if a situation like it crops? - Some games are in my opinion delayed/held up when a key position becomes NPC and everyone else is left marking time while Agema tries to fill the position.

France in G7 is a really good example of this - Half the game has come to a grinding stop, Jacobites and the Forum are going nuts because Louis XiV has caught flu on campaign and is not seeing any of his ministers to give them a few key instructions.............like I want the head of Churchill on a plate or all troops back from England to defend France now.

In past you could take a minor role ie a individual rather than a state in games of Glory du Roi. So it might be fun if players from other games took on the role of Ministers in the key crisis meeting of the Royal Council which fixes the policy say a side of A4 orders to be followed (By Richard playing the generals etc of the key NPC state) for that campaign season year.

Not saying this ploy should be used on a regular bases - just on the odd time when the loss of a player threatens to de-rail game and Agama does not wish to make decisions which could impact active positions.

I like to think various non G7 players but forum users would have been more than happy to pay say £5 each to play Anjou, Burgundy and the other great Nobles/Ministers attending the meeting to draw up a memo on future policy.

Ok this type of situation may never happen in G9 but I was wondering if this could be tested or do people think its dumb?

I think the problem is that you really need someone who is really going to own the position. I'm not sure how much a bit of ministerial input would help richard run a position and avoid the most direct problem that he needs to spend a fair bit of uncompensated time to run the NPC position for the sake of game integrity. If the ministers didn't put in the time and effort to really learn the position, then they might do more harm than good to the game integrity.

I don't see any easy answer to the problem. Richard, as he says, has been running this a long time, so I imagine he's comfortable making decisions for NPC positions when he has to. I presume to a certain level what we pay in turn fees provides for a certain level of Richard running NPCs since this must be a common and continuous issue in all games. Just in game 7 it has taken a more dramatic turn.

I think people are too worried about France not being played in game 7 at the moment. As the player attacking France I would far rather be at war with another player than be at war with a npc position. I am sure that Richard would not conjure up new armies etc, but I know that France will be played sensibly and I will have to come to terms reasonably quickly with the npc position sooner rather than later, which should be possible if France is at peace with England, which I think it is.
I have always thought that it is more sensible to attack player positions than npc ones. But I might be wrong because Bavaria did incredibly well when it attacked Wurtemburg in the game, which was npc, but my war with Saxony was not a resounding success. It meant that Saxony stayed in the Empire which was my key objective but I dont think that the campaign went that well. However, I think that the player dropped about this time; so my campaign was against a npc. Whereas my war against France when it was player controlled has gone far better.
Clearly having players in positions is more fun for the game but I think that we can rest assurred that a major position would be safe in Richards hands.
Look at the suprise in game 7 which a new Swedish King has brought about. A Great Northern War is going to be very entertaining.

Hi Basileus,

I think we have all seen Agema NPC forces which seem have rock hard morale even if they are not being paid plus the ability to live on fresh air, cloak and teleport.

In a recent G2 examples the forces of German Princes have fought on for love and honour even though their Treasury has been captured by the Prussians and a Syrian force of approx 8 units of foot, 6000 cavalry and some gunners left their horses, lances and artillery behind to crawl out of a tunnel going below hostile siege lines before heading across a desert. Beating off attacks by 70 odd squadrons of Ottoman Cavalry in the process. Which kind of puts the Saxon Army holding you at Dresden (Their Major Fortress & base I assume) into the shade.

What I was trying to explore was not the situation when a player is left fighting a NPC position like you and France in G7. Here the political decision has been made and I think we all know that if you are very carefull, guard you supply lines etc,etc you will probably make minor gains before new player arrives but if you do anything rash like assault Paris for instance we are going to be knee deep in dead Austrians.

Rather I was looking at the Ok fairly rare position when a political decision could go either way but had not yet been made. As I said it was just me kicking an idea around (bit like the Ancient period Glory du Roi) and if general view is wait for new player to take over I am cool with that. Suspect if I was the RJC I would want Louis XiV flat out on his campaign bed for some time yet in a fit state to make decisions about Jacobites, while in your position I would want a full recovery ASAP since no wants to face 9000 teleporting Mason du Roi

Hi Stuart
Fair points which I would agree with. An ancient period Glory du Roi would be brilliant. I do recall that there was a bit of an attempt at this once by agema which was based in the period of ancient Assyria. But it seemed to fold after about 6 months or so, and of course there was the ancient battles, but I never played that,

You may wish to have a look at the thread on this web site under "other Games"........."Games set in the Ancient Period."

I was doing a bit of lobbying/market research for our beloved GM so see if anyone else was interested in the period after Alexander to the rise of Rome.

I ended up with Bunch of Barbarians (sorry Jason, Kingmaker etc) with a odd thing about German Forests and the end of the Roman Empire........seems some of them spent too long playing with Pigs and Yanks in Rain in their Younger days and may have hit their head on a tank.

Oh and one vote for the 9th Century.........I mean the 9th Century !!!!!

I think Stuarts Idea is a good one.

If players are considering a new game position, or if "virgin" players want to have a sniff at the game. Then playing in a roleplaying capacity maybe a way of opening the door.

A few years ago this was possiable to do, I know of at least one player in G2 who took up a position of a general in one country, then latter took up the mantle of Czar of all the Russias. It would give an added depth to the game as well.

Basically it would give players access to the newsletter plus a few actions for there individual character. Giving players time to experience the game, without incuring the costs of a full blown position. It would also smooth things a little should they then latter decide to take up a major position in hte game as they would already have some experience of the enviroment.

If they play a minister or General then their position maybe steered somewhat by other players which I confess may make problems for both players. Still it could also make for some interesting confrontations and situations.

I think that this is possible today. You can play a smaller roleplay oriented position if you want.