Agema Publications

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


Dangers of the History book.

Share
avatar
Regor
Earl
Earl

Number of posts : 229
Location : Fleet
Reputation : 5
Registration date : 2010-02-15

Re: Dangers of the History book.

Post by Regor on Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:11 pm

Deacon wrote:
Well, I think one of the reasons the games tend to play out the way they do is that a lot of the 'loser' positions never get played.

You only get one position in a game. Most would rather play England than the Jacobites. France over Blackbeard, Austria over Hungarian Nationalists and so on.

Having looked at a number of the smaller positions, you don't really have a lot of resources or options, so it makes for a much more restricted game.

So as a consequence, I think the game self-selects for 'winners' and the historical trends play out.

I can't think of a solution for it unless Richard could come up with some half-position where you paid a normal turn fee a month, but no extra orders, and just set high level direction for the position with going into too much detail. Perhaps that would encourage people to play one of the smaller spoiler positions in a new game.

But even that I think would be hard to do.

I doubt Richard would want to do it, but another idea to encourage more balance in the positions played is to make the base turn fee different, and so make the bigger states subsidize the turn fees of the smaller states in some way, basically putting market demand to work and charging more for the in-demand positions and less for the less desirable positions.

I just don't see any easy answers to this game tendency, and I think most don't really view it as much of a problem, so I suspect it will mostly remain that way except for a few of us Don Quixotes who will tilt at windmills.

Brilliant riposte! and what is success anyway? For a nation things put in train now may not bear fruit for a century or so. For a person playing a king that might not be of value.

But not everyone is playing to run Europe are they?

Deacon, I'll play Sancho "Panzer" to your Don any day..... Wink

J Flower
King
King

Number of posts : 680
Age : 46
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 10
Registration date : 2012-02-16

Re: Dangers of the History book.

Post by J Flower on Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:55 pm

On the subjet of Looser positions what about Poland. It is one of the larger positions bu tseems to get neglected some what. Is it because we all know it will eventually get Partitioned by it's bigger Neighbours?

There must be potential there I would be glad to hear from players with first hand experience of playing it.
avatar
Jason
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1461
Age : 47
Location : Gourdon, Aberdeenshire
Reputation : 16
Registration date : 2008-08-27

Re: Dangers of the History book.

Post by Jason on Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:14 pm

I've not played Poland but in Games 3, it was (is?) played very successfully. Mind you, i think the King of Poland was also King of England in that game

Stuart Bailey
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1049
Age : 54
Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
Reputation : 31
Registration date : 2012-01-29

Re: Dangers of the History book.

Post by Stuart Bailey on Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:59 pm

J Flower wrote:On the subjet of Looser positions what about Poland. It is one of the larger positions bu tseems to get neglected some what. Is it because we all know it will eventually get Partitioned by it's bigger Neighbours?

There must be potential there I would be glad to hear from players with first hand experience of playing it.

I had a quick go with Poland just before the game I had taken over Poland folded and I can confirm its a tough gig:

1) In early versions of Glory du Roi The King of Poland who was also Elector of Saxony was un-historically strong now howver the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is a multi player position like the Ottoman Empire and the HRE so you now have:

A) A Great Lord of Poland - who controls Poland
B) A Polish Cossack - who controls the Polish Ukraine
C) The Duke of Courland - who controls Courland and the Polish Navy

Plus in 1700 you may also have Danzig (which controls most Polish Trade - might make a good micro position) and the elected King who has powers/responsibilty but who's power base is Saxony

So basically you probably end up with control of a third of the possible troops, or the Navy or the Trade. No colonies and no advantages like drill bored cannon, elite ships etc

This tends to mean that playing a member of the Commonwealth is a bit like playing a solitary Ottoman or member of the HRE - you can start to feel lonely and annoyed when the idiotic agema NPC do not support you.

2) The HRE & the Ottomans are team positions but at least they have organization & a leader - The Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth seems to lack a automatic No1 position...........As for the elected monarchy and the ability of any Noble to veto in the Diet..........Agh!!!!!!

3) Basically taking a position in the Polish Commonwealth is only suitable for a player who is in for the long haul and is willing to slowly develop his position? But will the nasty neighbours give you that time?????? Or perhaps a Cossack Trouble maker who wants to stir things up.

But if a couple of players are willing to give these "loser" positions a go I feel that massed Cossacks and Winged Hussars may be able to put that Czar off his Vodka.
avatar
Jason
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1461
Age : 47
Location : Gourdon, Aberdeenshire
Reputation : 16
Registration date : 2008-08-27

Re: Dangers of the History book.

Post by Jason on Sun Aug 12, 2012 12:15 am

You see, this is where the Czar is going wrong, drinking vodka. Now, any sensible ruler knows you need a decent single malt if you're going to see off the Poles, the Austrians, the Ottomans and ferrets

J Flower
King
King

Number of posts : 680
Age : 46
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 10
Registration date : 2012-02-16

Re: Dangers of the History book.

Post by J Flower on Sun Aug 12, 2012 3:55 pm

Thanks Stuart,
I guess it makes the Poland position reflect it's historical position, Potential is there but the cooperation is lacking. Is Saxony still part of the Poland package, or is that an in Game Diplomacy move that new players have to take?

Stuart Bailey
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1049
Age : 54
Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
Reputation : 31
Registration date : 2012-01-29

Re: Dangers of the History book.

Post by Stuart Bailey on Sun Aug 12, 2012 10:41 pm

In G7 Augustus the Strong started as Elector of Saxony & King of Poland but in game gave up the Royal Title to become a Protestant again (after pre game converting to being a Catholic to win the Polish Crown) and concentrate on trying to turn the Holy Roman Empire minus Austria into a German National State with his Prussian Ally.

That plan failed at the first hurdle when the Swedes refused to meekly hand over their holdings in Germany and the Ferret Lovers Society Propaganda Machine went into over drive. While the French & the Russians did not provide the level of support expected.

After the withdraw of Augustus the Strong the Poles elected a local King in a rushed election. Much to the disappointment of the Elector of Bavaria and the Hopsdar of Moldavia who both wanted a proper election with campaign speaches, bribes etc.

But since then nothing much seems to have happened in the Commonwealth.

My own view is that Prussia and Bavaria seem to be the 2nd most popular positions in Glory du Roi after Austria. But surely the Elector of Hanover in line to become King of England and Augustus with his Polish Royal Title are just as interesting.

Ok so Augustus ended up a historic "lossser" 1st class .........but any Character who can bend horse shoe's with his bare hands, is responsible for the first European Porcelain and had a reputed 300 Children (well its cold and lonely running round Poland & Saxony being chased by that Pycho Charles of Sweden) must be worth a look at.
avatar
Jason
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1461
Age : 47
Location : Gourdon, Aberdeenshire
Reputation : 16
Registration date : 2008-08-27

Re: Dangers of the History book.

Post by Jason on Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:35 pm

At least he wasn't bending porcelain with his bare hands...but 300 kids...god, imagine paying their uni fees affraid

J Flower
King
King

Number of posts : 680
Age : 46
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 10
Registration date : 2012-02-16

Re: Dangers of the History book.

Post by J Flower on Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:55 am

I wonder if the position of France could, I suppose in Game terms be put into the "loser"posiiton catogory. It seems initially to have the most resources, Strong military etc. Indeed it is one of the most attractive positions in the Game. If you Take history as a yardstick it is also the most feared & respectes Nation on Earth.

Does that effect how it is played, also how others seek to counter its mighty staring position.

France probably more than other positions invites other nations to form coalitions against it. Simply out of the angst that that power will grow to encompass the whole game. Which of course one could argue it eventually did do.

In the game the French position seems to be the reason for or at the centre of most conflicts.

If we were playing at the start of the 1900s rather than the 1700s would Germany then fall into the role of public enenmy No 1 ?
avatar
Jason
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1461
Age : 47
Location : Gourdon, Aberdeenshire
Reputation : 16
Registration date : 2008-08-27

Re: Dangers of the History book.

Post by Jason on Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:18 pm

I think you have hit the nail on the head Jason Smile

J Flower
King
King

Number of posts : 680
Age : 46
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 10
Registration date : 2012-02-16

Re: Dangers of the History book.

Post by J Flower on Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:32 pm

I wonder if the strong bias of Anglo-Saxon players also has an impact on the way the French position is viewed, is it possiable that we want England to emerge as the all conquering power? There is always a bit of National animosity between England & France. Even when it is good natured upon the sports field.
avatar
Jason
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1461
Age : 47
Location : Gourdon, Aberdeenshire
Reputation : 16
Registration date : 2008-08-27

Re: Dangers of the History book.

Post by Jason on Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:42 pm

An interesting point. I suspect if you are playing your own nationality (generally) there may be a tendency to want it to succeed and end up as top dog.
avatar
Deacon
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1316
Age : 53
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 38
Registration date : 2010-04-13

Re: Dangers of the History book.

Post by Deacon on Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:51 pm

J Flower wrote:I wonder if the strong bias of Anglo-Saxon players also has an impact on the way the French position is viewed, is it possiable that we want England to emerge as the all conquering power? There is always a bit of National animosity between England & France. Even when it is good natured upon the sports field.

I certainly sense a fair bit of general "down with the french" in the forums Razz

Though, to be fair, I think everybody hates the French!
avatar
Jason
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1461
Age : 47
Location : Gourdon, Aberdeenshire
Reputation : 16
Registration date : 2008-08-27

Re: Dangers of the History book.

Post by Jason on Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:00 pm

Maybe we should start a "Hug a Frenchie" campaign? Very Happy

Stuart Bailey
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1049
Age : 54
Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
Reputation : 31
Registration date : 2012-01-29

Re: Dangers of the History book.

Post by Stuart Bailey on Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:55 pm


I am not going to "hug a frenchie"........never know what you might catch.

My own view is that most posiions have natural friends and foes who's players almost feel honour bound to take opposite positions. The problem for the French and the Ottomans is that their "friends" tend to be NPC in many games while their foes are all too active.

In terms of Grand Alliances against them I actually think the French have it easier than the Ottomans since the Grand Alliances against France I have known were all generated by the French. The classic one being the French player who executed his own brother (The King) proclaimed a Republic and invaded the Holy Roman Empire. Is G6 going for a re-fight of that campaign? But a honourable mention has to go to the recent French Govt in G2 which decided that as well as attacking Prussia without warning it may as well save time and trouble and hit Prussian allies as well.

The fact that one of the "English" ports hit by the French Navy was actually Spanish was just the cherry on top of the cake.

Have also known Austrian and even Dutch players produce this type of hostility due to their own actions but only the Ottomans who seem to get hit by alliances without doing anything and to add insult to injury fighting Ottomans seems to be good for the honour score.

Perhaps we should ask not why do Grand Alliances form against the French & the Ottomans but why do they never seem to form against the English and the Russians? French proclaim that their natural border is the Rhine and all hell breaks out. Russians proclaim that their Natural border is on the Baltic and they intend to annex a load of Protestants into a Orthodox Empire and dominate the critical trades in Baltic Grain and maritime products and no one does a thing.

As for the English what do these players actually have to do before they recieve automatic forgivness?
Actv

J Flower
King
King

Number of posts : 680
Age : 46
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 10
Registration date : 2012-02-16

Re: Dangers of the History book.

Post by J Flower on Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:46 pm

Maybe it has something to do with history. Afterall France was finally beaten, the Ottomans also slowly fell from a great power status. Russia was & remains a large powerful position, even in modern times. could it be the survival instinct that our subconcious put to the fore that guides our decisions with regards to those countries. Take on France or Ottomans you know you have a chance to win because historically it did happen. Everyone who went up against the Russians came off second best.

Stuart Bailey
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1049
Age : 54
Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
Reputation : 31
Registration date : 2012-01-29

Re: Dangers of the History book.

Post by Stuart Bailey on Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:26 pm

J Flower wrote:Maybe it has something to do with history. Afterall France was finally beaten, the Ottomans also slowly fell from a great power status. Russia was & remains a large powerful position, even in modern times. could it be the survival instinct that our subconcious put to the fore that guides our decisions with regards to those countries. Take on France or Ottomans you know you have a chance to win because historically it did happen. Everyone who went up against the Russians came off second best.

Apart from:

The Ottomans in 1711

French in 1805

British/French/Ottoman Alliance in 1855 ish

Japanese in 1905

Germans 1914 - 1917
avatar
Deacon
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1316
Age : 53
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 38
Registration date : 2010-04-13

Re: Dangers of the History book.

Post by Deacon on Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:30 pm


I think this echoes Jason's earlier comment about trying to repeat or accelerate history.

I think there is a perceptional bias to want to re-fight battles that your nation historically won, even though the whole point of this game is that things are different and will not necessarily follow history.

J Flower
King
King

Number of posts : 680
Age : 46
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 10
Registration date : 2012-02-16

Re: Dangers of the History book.

Post by J Flower on Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:41 am

Ok Stuart I take your point that the Ottomans may have had a teeny weeny bit of sucess, indeed in Game terms they are still to be feared & respected as your own playing position shows. I was more trying to make the point that the modern perception of The Ottoman Empire, the one that for most springs to mind is of an Empire on the decline.
There could well be a bit of the Christian Victorian ideology mixed into that that wanted to see a non-christian Empire ridiculed & maybe this bias still lingers on today. It could well be that sources from an Ottoman stand point haven't been properla researched & published.

Russia on the other hand was and remained up until the end of the Cold war a mighty power that was always on hte back of the military mans mind, it's size of military, geographical posiiton made it seem unasailable, that is then also maybe the lingering impression that we have of Russia, wether Imperial or Soviet.

France has the position between the two, a great power it remained throughout, to be feared & respected, It had a bit of a roller coaster ride, going from major triumphs to major defeats, but it like a rubber ball kept on bouncing back, it maintained the resources & the will to stay up there with the top flight. Despite it's virtually continuous wars.

Stuart Bailey
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1049
Age : 54
Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
Reputation : 31
Registration date : 2012-01-29

Re: Dangers of the History book.

Post by Stuart Bailey on Sat Oct 06, 2012 12:25 pm

I think in many ways this reflects the earlier debate about "loser" positions.

In the same way that the game is more interesting if people take on some of the "loser" positions like Sweden, Poland, Rumelia, Hapsburg Spain, Jacobites etc it is also more interesting if people actually have a go at altering the historic results of conflicts.

Naturally enough their is a clear bias in game towards a historic result but I have seen games in which the Jacobites have restored the Stuart Line, The Ottomans have turned round the decline of their Empire and the Hapsburg's have kept the throne of Spain and stopped any general carve up of the Spanish Empire. Actually in G7 all three seem to be happening which is one reason why its such a odd game.

Perhaps this is what as actually inspired the G7 King of Sweden to have a go at keeping the Russian Bear out of the Baltic. Think the Swedes would have stood a better chance in 1700 before the Russians built a Fleet and sorted out many of their internal problems but a proper Great Northern War is to be applauded.

Charles of Sweden...........all of us who have looked at a turn and thought "I am so dead" ........we salute you!

PS No way is France a loser position ! Anyone can lose a war etc but to be a true "loser" you need to play a position which lost Historically and everyone expects to lose again. France may have lost most of the big battles in the WSS but it still ended up with a winning draw in the strategic sence and the only reason it lost in Flanders & Italy (but not Spain) was the outstanding diplomatic & military ability of the allied Generals like John Churchill. A factor clearly not built into the game.

Actually the real problem for France is what does true success look like. Being the dominant political driver of the game? Jacobite restoration? Bourbon on the throne of Spain? Tricky esp if you then spend all your time in dispute with the King of Spain over who is the true head of the House of Bourbon.
avatar
Kingmaker
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 1578
Age : 60
Location : Scarborough Jewel of the East Coast
Reputation : 24
Registration date : 2008-04-20

Re: Dangers of the History book.

Post by Kingmaker on Sat Oct 06, 2012 12:41 pm

I managed to revive the Position of Emperor of the Romans for the Tsar by capturing Constantinople and all that area, thus having 2 Roman emperors in game 3 Although the HRE was not much cop in game 3 thought as emperor he was able to issue dictats etc to his lesser lords


_________________
Captain of the Prussian Army

avatar
Jason
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1461
Age : 47
Location : Gourdon, Aberdeenshire
Reputation : 16
Registration date : 2008-08-27

Re: Dangers of the History book.

Post by Jason on Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:09 pm

I do think with the Ottomans we do tend to view them as the 'sick man of Europe' (as they were viewed in the late 19th/early 20th century) and so see them as an easy target whilst forgetting it was only few years prior to the start of the game they assaulted Vienna (even if unsuccessfully).

I don't think France is a 'loser' but perhaps one where it is never quite as great as it could of been, or didn't maintain the greatness as long as it should have (at least if you look at it where it was in 1700).


Guest
Guest

Re: Dangers of the History book.

Post by Guest on Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:58 pm

Jason wrote:I don't think France is a 'loser' but perhaps one where it is never quite as great as it could of been, or didn't maintain the greatness as long as it should have (at least if you look at it where it was in 1700).

Quite right Jason! It would be a mistake to imagine that after Napoleon, France never recovered. France created a colonial empire in the 1800s which was equivalent to the British Empire, though never quite as commercially profitable. The physical location of France put it in the way of the expansion of a unified Germany, and France did suffer disproportionately from WW1. However, I think it is a modern Anglo-Saxon myth to denigrate France (after its defeat in 1940). The French Empire still exists with large overseas territories being treated as parts of France. In economic terms France has more leading companies than the UK or Germany, though Germany is more focussed on manufacturing, France leads in services, agriculture and basic materials. French public services are also way above average, and I don't know of anyone in the UK who isn't slightly envious of French trains. It may be fashionable to denigrate France, but if you look at France today compared to many other countries, it is far from being a loser. It is still a country of tremendous resources, innovation and character, which others would do well to learn from.
avatar
Kingmaker
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 1578
Age : 60
Location : Scarborough Jewel of the East Coast
Reputation : 24
Registration date : 2008-04-20

Re: Dangers of the History book.

Post by Kingmaker on Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm

The Real Louis of France wrote:
Jason wrote:I don't think France is a 'loser' but perhaps one where it is never quite as great as it could of been, or didn't maintain the greatness as long as it should have (at least if you look at it where it was in 1700).

Quite right Jason! It would be a mistake to imagine that after Napoleon, France never recovered. France created a colonial empire in the 1800s which was equivalent to the British Empire, though never quite as commercially profitable. The physical location of France put it in the way of the expansion of a unified Germany, and France did suffer disproportionately from WW1. However, I think it is a modern Anglo-Saxon myth to denigrate France (after its defeat in 1940). The French Empire still exists with large overseas territories being treated as parts of France. In economic terms France has more leading companies than the UK or Germany, though Germany is more focussed on manufacturing, France leads in services, agriculture and basic materials. French public services are also way above average, and I don't know of anyone in the UK who isn't slightly envious of French trains. It may be fashionable to denigrate France, but if you look at France today compared to many other countries, it is far from being a loser. It is still a country of tremendous resources, innovation and character, which others would do well to learn from.

Spoken like the Real King Louis...... king


_________________
Captain of the Prussian Army


J Flower
King
King

Number of posts : 680
Age : 46
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 10
Registration date : 2012-02-16

Re: Dangers of the History book.

Post by J Flower on Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:46 pm

I suppose France could be termed a "Magnet" it seems to attract alliances that want to tear it down. Plus as a major power it feels it has to do something with all those troops the solution is all to often to amrch on the Rhein, compared to Spain all the little patchwork countries that make up the HRR seem easy pickings to the French player. Then comes the problem that everyone is wary of a dominate France so they look to stop them.

I agree with Lois on this one, France under a good leadership will steamroller almost everyone else, Louis XIV, & Napoleon proved that. France has the internal infrastructure & also for 1700 a starting of National awareness that is ahead of its competators. As players we know this & attempt to remedy the weakness in our own playing positions, Historically these weakness in others were what enabled France to prosper. We have the luxury of hindsight to stop ourselves making blunders that our historical personalities did. That is what may possiably condemn some positions to not acheiving the full extent of their power.


Sponsored content

Re: Dangers of the History book.

Post by Sponsored content


    Current date/time is Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:30 pm