Question: Active Games

I can see G7; G8; G9 and G10

Are there just 4 games going on?

How long does a game advance in time before being stopped by richard?

Also: wich events are "necessary to happend", one way or another, to allow a good XVIII century simulation live long and prosper?

Nexus06 wrote:Are there just 4 games going on?

Yes.

Nexus06 wrote:How long does a game advance in time before being stopped by richard?

If a game no longer provides a profit, and there is no sign of, new, additional players joining in the game in question, then I believe Richard is then forced to except that game has to be closed. Some games have reached the 1730s, that I know of, so as long as there are players involved and interest is strong in a game it will continue to be played.

When I first started playing La Gloire du Roi in 1998 or 1999 there wasn't as many different games being played - possibly only one. Then around the year 2000 another game started up, where I played Blackbeard, and I think another new game began at some point within a year or two after that. As far as I know, both of those games are no longer playing. I don't know what happened to the Blackbeard game, but I was playing a game as Great Britain but it had to close after I'd joined as there was too few players playing - so I was given Russia in another game to play, which hadn't been playing for as long as it was still around the 1701 year, if I remember correctly.

* La Gloire du Roi was the old name for The Glory of Kings 

Nexus06 wrote:Also: wich events are "necessary to happend", one way or another, to allow a good XVIII century simulation live long and prosper?

Probably none, really. As long as we all realise that everything that happened before 1699 is to be recognised in the game as having happened, then players can rewrite history as and how they choose. It is simply easier to follow historic events, such as the War of the Spanish Succession, as in most games Richard will have the character of the King of Spain being ready to die very soon, and it creates an event for players to work on. But after that, the game flows how the players shape it - historical, or not.



Maybe what I've written above is in-correct? As I'm only a player. But its how I think it works.

Great answere Rozwi. I used to play LGDR in late '90 as the pope in G3.

I was trying now to understand the spawn of the game just to see if it is worth to patiently wait for the "build your country" strategy, or drop the position if a strike of famine of 2 years happend (as it would take literaly years to recover. Could you imagine, wait 6/7 real life years to be ready to and then, when it is time, the game ends?)

Yes, I have to agree with you on the length of real-life time it takes to advance a game position to the point in which you wish to do something. In Game 10 I've had to wait nearly 2 years to finally be able to do what I've wanted from the moment I agreed to play as Rozwi - and now, just as I begin to do it, famine strikes!

I'm also, really, enjoying playing Rozwi - far more than any of the other countries I've played. I have thought about what I'd do if Game 10 stopped, and, to be honest, I'd ask Richard to let me play Rozwi in another TGOK game - and beg to be allowed to keep the military and settlements that I've created, transplanted into that other game, as to start from the very beginning, with nothing but half-a-sheet-of-paper's-writing as the country's assets, would probably see me quit playing TGOK.

Swashbuckler is fun - I'd, probably, just play another Swashbuckler character if no longer was playing Rozwi. Though something completely different from my current Bartholomew Yorke character; somebody more action-orientated and looking to get involved in wars, so probably a mercenary.

G2 got well into the 1740s before it ended and G3 was in 1730s at least (maybe even 1740s). G6 in contrast folded in 1710 I think.

As to "nation building", it's what I do really in-game. I do try to keep playing, even after disasters like a famine strike. It helps when the game time is fairly fast so it doesn't feel real time I have had famines (for example) and carried on and a couple of years latter had massive success.

Also, I agree with Rozwi's statement above, what happened 1699 and earlier...happened...but after that, all bets are off A couple of things do need to happen early on (The Darien colony gets wiped out in the first turn or so, the King of Spain dies early on) but everything else can be flexible

I think the real challenge is making the game open to new blood.

I joined game 3 as the Pope very late. It was 1730s. Position was super anemic. You're the pope, so you've got a powerful voice in the world, but that's all I had.

Existing players may have been trying to make me feel welcome, but didn't come off that way to me. I ended up dropping after I was out of work for a while. Game folded a year or so later.

I admit I worry about that for both game 8 and 10, which I play. I think they've both got a lot of good years in them, but the clock is always ticking.

Not that I know much about this subject, but...

The Great Northern War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_War

Wikipedia tells me it started in February 1700, so supposedly would have been building up towards during 1699.

Should the GNW be a definite requirement in games, if the WSS (War of the Spanish Succession) normally does feature?

I think it's always that difficult bit of any game like this, any start year is bound to have a war about to break out. I used to play an Nap War game that started with various nations fighting (it started the month of the Battle of the Nile).

If we had a Glory version that started in 1900 the Boer War would be under way as well as the Boxer Rebellion; if we went for 1905 the Japanese-Russian War is under way, sometimes for gameplay you need to ignore things

Rozwi_Game10 wrote:Not that I know much about this subject, but...

The Great Northern War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_War

Wikipedia tells me it started in February 1700, so supposedly would have been building up towards during 1699.

Should the GNW be a definite requirement in games, if the WSS (War of the Spanish Succession) normally does feature?  

In most games the GNW is more likely to start and follow a semi historic path (ie the Swedes winning battles but losing the War) than the WSS. Mostly because player Czar's seem unable to keep their hands off the Baltic Provinces.

In this respect G10 is odd in that the WSS now seems more likely than the Great Northern War.

If I was Russia and couldn't secure Ingria, easily, I reckon I'd just build a new city elsewhere.

St Andreisburg

St Andrew being brother of St Peter - so Wikipedia tells me (attending Sunday School seemingly helped, didn't it! ) and Andrew the Apostle being a Patron Saint of Russia.

Only consideration would be where to build the place.

I hear the Crimea is nice, but the Ottomans may see it as a threat to the Black Sea and the Sea of Marmara.

Somewhere on the Caspian Sea? but then people might think you're threatening the Caucasus Mountains region and Persia might get jumpy. [I have to admit this was my plan when I briefly played Russia]

Must be better alternatives than the GNW??

Rozwi_Game10 wrote:If I was Russia and couldn't secure Ingria, easily, I reckon I'd just build a new city elsewhere.

St Andreisburg

St Andrew being brother of St Peter - so Wikipedia tells me (attending Sunday School seemingly helped, didn't it! ) and Andrew the Apostle being a Patron Saint of Russia.

Only consideration would be where to build the place.

I hear the Crimea is nice, but the Ottomans may see it as a threat to the Black Sea and the Sea of Marmara.  

Somewhere on the Caspian Sea? but then people might think you're threatening the Caucasus Mountains region and Persia might get jumpy. [I have to admit this was my plan when I briefly played Russia]

Must be better alternatives than the GNW??

Hi Roy,

The GNW, in my humble opinion, was not only a mere and simple Peter's war. It was NECESSARY for Russia to own Ingria, therefore, or the situation is settled diplomatically, or a war cannot fail to explode.

Playing Russia I've tried to achieve as many information as possible, and I try to provide you my point of view. In 18th century the economical axis of the world was in the North Atlantic. The Black Sea was a local trade hub, but goods and ideas from Far East was moving easily by sea around Africa rather than thought the Ottoman Empire.
Russia was the northern terminal hub, possessing goods (timber, wax, tea, metals, fur) that were necessary to Europe and bought by gold.
In the year 1699 this lucrous trade was in the hands of Dutch and English traders, but thought archangels, which was "useful" few months at year.
Th Baltic shores were good for this, but no need of the entire Baltic region (as Riga was, for example, promised to Poland, even thought it was the most important town of the region).
Russia is a land of rivers, and this leads goods from Siberia and Central Asia to a single hub, which needs to be in possess of a nation to consent it to grow.

Ukhraine instead, solves another issue. Not for the sea, but for the Ukrainian fertile black soil, which produces increased amounts of grain, necessary to su stain a larger army.

Russia can then expand in 3 direction, but first ingria is mandatory to achieve commercial basic conditions.

Of the three options for Russian expansion:

1) If you expand east you gain more timber and furs etc but its just more of the same and miles and miles of Steppe before you get to the markets of India & China. In game terms it may be OK for someone who likes building towns & playing in isolation for about ten years. Plus fighting lots of really anti social Agema NPC Uzbecks and the like.

Think this is worth doing but on a small scale.........with perhaps one new town a year & lots of diplomacy. Historically the drive to the east was happening in our period but at a lower level than the Czar'a Court. Perhaps a for God, King a Country Russian Fur Merchant?

2) South into the Crimea etc....... Could in theory stop slave raids on your territory and wins you loads of honour (Good) plus you can build a nice warm water port (very good) but you are probably going to end of fighting the Ottomans for ages before they agree to allow you to take over the North Coast of the Black Sea and give your trade tax free access to the wider world.

A worth while option if you can line up support of Austria & Venice or come to agreement with Persians but trying to take on Ottomans in isolation is a good way to kill a lot of Russians for very limited gains.

When the game starts Russia in alliance with Austria & Venice has just spent a large part of the last decade fighting the Ottomans at Azov etc. Its been brutal!

If taking this option its probably worth keeping in mind that Peter the Great worst defeat was at Ottoman Hands when Peter & a whole Russian Army were forced to surrender in 1711. A more aggressive & ruthless Grand Vizier would probably not have accepted the easy diplomatic success but would have gone in for the kill. With Peter massively outnumbered, outgunned & surrounded and down to last 3 days supplies.

In game its also much easier than in real life for the Swedes & Ottomans to co-operated.

3) Ref the Baltic Trade..........Russian Grain, Timber, Maritime supplies, Furs etc finds a ready market in the West. But with the exception of some Furs these products are also sold by Sweden, Denmark, Prussia, Poland-Lithuania. So if you have to pay Swedish Taxes & Port Duties, Danish Sound Duty and most of the Freight Fees are going to the Dutch your share of this trade and profits are always going to be limited. You are also paying the same on Swedish/Danish Taxation & Port Duty on Imports.

You could try using the White Sea rather than the Baltic but Transport costs probably cost more than Swedish Tax's so you are still not competative.

As a alternative to the Great Northern War & Building the Russian Baltic Fleet you could try and press the Swedes for 0% tax on Russian Trade but were is the fun and Glori in that?! Remember this is Russian Territory stolen from the Czar's. It is your Duty to Holy Mother Russia to reclaim it as soon as possible. Abandoning your claim is liable to get the Boyar's thinking this one is a Coward & we need a new Czar. Apart the only way they may go along with you abandoning the Historic Russian Claim is if you are on Crasade and fighting your way towards Constantinople.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Of the three options for Russian expansion:

1) If you expand east you gain more timber and furs etc but its just more of the same and miles and miles of Steppe before you get to the markets of India & China.  In game terms it may be OK for someone who likes building towns & playing in isolation for about ten years.  Plus fighting lots of really anti social Agema NPC Uzbecks and the like.

Think this is worth doing but on a small scale.........with perhaps one new town a year & lots of diplomacy.  Historically the drive to the east was happening in our period but at a lower level than the Czar'a Court.  Perhaps a for God, King a Country Russian Fur Merchant?  

2) South into the Crimea etc....... Could in theory stop slave raids on your territory and wins you loads of honour (Good) plus you can build a nice warm water port (very good) but you are probably going to end of fighting the Ottomans for ages before they agree to allow you to take over the North Coast of the Black Sea and give your trade tax free access to the wider world.

A worth while option if you can line up support of Austria & Venice or come to agreement with Persians but trying to take on Ottomans in isolation is a good way to kill a lot of Russians for very limited gains.

When the game starts Russia in alliance with Austria & Venice has just spent a large part of the last decade fighting the Ottomans at Azov etc.  Its been brutal!

If taking this option its probably worth keeping in mind that Peter the Great worst defeat was at Ottoman Hands when Peter & a whole Russian Army were forced to surrender in 1711.  A more aggressive & ruthless Grand Vizier would probably not have accepted the easy diplomatic success but would have gone in for the kill.  With Peter massively outnumbered, outgunned & surrounded and down to last 3 days supplies.

In game its also much easier than in real life for the Swedes & Ottomans to co-operated.

3)  Ref the Baltic Trade..........Russian Grain, Timber, Maritime supplies, Furs etc finds a ready market in the West.  But with the exception of some Furs these products are also sold by Sweden, Denmark, Prussia, Poland-Lithuania.  So if you have to pay Swedish Taxes & Port Duties,  Danish Sound Duty and most of the Freight Fees are going to the Dutch your share of this trade and profits are always going to be limited.  You are also paying the same on Swedish/Danish Taxation & Port Duty on Imports.

You could try using the White Sea rather than the Baltic but Transport costs probably cost more than Swedish Tax's so you are still not competative.

As a alternative to the Great Northern War & Building the Russian Baltic Fleet you could try and press the Swedes for 0% tax on Russian Trade but were is the fun and Glori in that?!  Remember this is Russian Territory stolen from the Czar's.  It is your Duty to Holy Mother Russia to reclaim it as soon as possible.  Abandoning your claim is liable to get the Boyar's thinking this one is a Coward & we need a new Czar.  Apart the only way they may go along with you abandoning the Historic Russian Claim is if you are on Crasade and fighting your way towards Constantinople.

Exactly

Roy was saying do you need a Great Northern War & a War of the Spanish Succession to have a "proper" game?

My feeling is that the actual wars themselves are not required. Since the Spanish Succession might have been settled without war and if
Augustus the Strong had not talked the Czar into taking on the Swedes it is at least possible that he would have gone back to his Southern Campaigns.

But I do think the game lacks historic balance if certain Historic positions are not in play.

To get a proper feel for the WSS crisis think you need:

x2 Spanish one Hapsburg & one Bourbon, England, France, Austria, UDP.........I also think to it helps to have Jacobites & Ottomans in play so players have some of their historic worries and concerns.

For the GNW think you need:

Sweden, Russia, Saxon-Polish player & Ottomans...........ideally you also want a Cossack.

Note I have included Ottomans to give proper concerns to Russia & Austria but if you have Ottomans you really need Persians to give suitable level of concerns to the Porte.

What other positions do players consider to be key to game balance? in the context of the big starting crisis?