Question regarding a Fun Position to play

Hi Lads,

I'm actually active on two positions, Russia in G9 (my historical one) and UDP in G8.

The first position is usually handled with care, having devoted time&money, but i can see i get a little conservative when playing it. After a long time then, you plan to attack something but then a new player pops in, he is very nice so you stop the idea 'cause is not a nice thing to do, look around, fear a coalition, move slowly and s on.

So i've joined UDP in G8 but really got a little disappointed. Not really a big position not at all rich, and colonial games seems to be something like:

find expansion target -> build infrastructures -> deploy troops -> they get sick -> they slowly die.

So is good in terms of time consumption (i write some letters, build a thing and i'm done) but really low on the fun/cost ratio.

So i began to consider what could possibly be a nice position to play and have fun without having to devote tons of time and money?

• I would write off the list europe, since all major countries require time and resources, while minor are - well - boring in the long run.

• I would write off African nations because of lack of developments in terms of army and structures

• I would write off china because, seriously, what do i attack? Pandas?

• I would write off pirates because, seriously dude?

But Persia/india are curious, especially india seems interesting since it looks like it has some serious positions, some minions to test expansion against, and european powers would have some difficulties to ship 50,000 armed men there and have SL0. But never played there so i don't know if it is in my imagination or is it really a thing.

On the other hands never tried Rome (you are all there right?) and scramble (have no idea about it).

Your opinions are all welcome

So question is, are they kind of nice for some wargaming

Nexus06 wrote:Hi Lads,

I'm actually active on two positions, Russia in G9 (my historical one) and UDP in G8.

The first position is usually handled with care, having devoted time&money, but i can see i get a little conservative when playing it.  After a long time then, you plan to attack something but then a new player pops in, he is very nice so you stop the idea 'cause is not a nice thing to do, look around, fear a coalition, move slowly and s on.

So i've joined UDP in G8 but really got a little disappointed. Not really a big position not at all rich, and colonial games seems to be something like:

find expansion target -> build infrastructures -> deploy troops -> they get sick -> they slowly die.

So is good in terms of time consumption (i write some letters, build a thing and i'm done) but really low on the fun/cost ratio.

So i began to consider what could possibly be a nice position to play and have fun without having to devote tons of time and money?

• I would write off the list europe, since all major countries require time and resources, while minor are - well - boring in the long run.
  

• I would write off African nations because of lack of developments in terms of army and structures
  

• I would write off china because, seriously, what do i attack? Pandas?
  

• I would write off pirates because, seriously dude?
  

But Persia/india are curious, especially india seems interesting since it looks like it has some serious positions, some minions to test expansion against, and european powers would have some difficulties to ship 50,000 armed men there and have SL0. But never played there so i don't know if it is in my imagination or is it really a thing.

On the other hands never tried Rome (you are all there right?) and scramble (have no idea about it).

Your opinions are all welcome

So question is, are they kind of nice for some wargaming

Really depends what type of period and "fun" you are after:-

1) - Rome is burning is ancient period and you have option of Roman, Hairy types, Hairy types on Horses , and people who dress in silk PJ, slippers and ride horses.

Advantage with being a Roman is that you have more people to talk too or rather have them moan at you about how terrible life is under our "beloved ????" Emperor Nero. Think most of the major Roman Army Commands are currently taken with possible exception of the British Legions but ask Richard.

Barbarians seem to have a lot more "fun" in this game than the Romans who are slowly being reduced too nervious wrecks by NPC who make the average Glori diet, Janissary Corp, bunch of Cossacks seem fair minded and reasonable. Think the Barbarian positions which are free and could be very interesting are the King of Armenia (Brother of current King of Parthia but appointed by Nero) and the King of Dacia.

I suspect Dacia could take up a fair bit of your time & money but if you want to step into a ready made war its already started for you.

2) - Scrabble is in by view the most "fun" game of the lot, and while it is possible to fight a campsign its more too do with playing dirty tricks and slandering your opponents. Italia, Austria, Siam, the CSA and I believe Germania may be going free and have seen some development.

Character based game which offered steady option of beating up colonial types in colonial wars and dieing in lots of fun ways. Germania also currently offers options for a fight with Russia and France.

3) Other Glori positions - Campaigns in India have style all too themselves and leading Persian invasion could be a lot of fun (I did it in LAK). But Persia is not a minor position and being in India can be a bit isolated.

If you want a small fun position up too its neck in a fight you could always take the HWIC in G7. Its only been exiled from two major countries both of whom have now declared war against it and your Chairman and board are wanted for high treason in England.

Not really a Pirate position and while your Chairman is a Catholic and ex-Jacobite most of the rest of the Board are English Protestant Whigs in exile from murderous Tyrant James Stuart so probably best to think of them as Whig version of the Jacobites. Not sure if staying alive is your idea of fun or not?

Oh and if you find yourself with a huge pile of gold stamped with the Lillies of France this is what you have been charged with stealing. Most people think French accountants can not count but Richard sometimes has a warped sence of humour.

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Nexus06 wrote:Hi Lads,

I'm actually active on two positions, Russia in G9 (my historical one) and UDP in G8.

The first position is usually handled with care, having devoted time&money, but i can see i get a little conservative when playing it.  After a long time then, you plan to attack something but then a new player pops in, he is very nice so you stop the idea 'cause is not a nice thing to do, look around, fear a coalition, move slowly and s on.

So i've joined UDP in G8 but really got a little disappointed. Not really a big position not at all rich, and colonial games seems to be something like:

find expansion target -> build infrastructures -> deploy troops -> they get sick -> they slowly die.

So is good in terms of time consumption (i write some letters, build a thing and i'm done) but really low on the fun/cost ratio.

So i began to consider what could possibly be a nice position to play and have fun without having to devote tons of time and money?

• I would write off the list europe, since all major countries require time and resources, while minor are - well - boring in the long run.
  

• I would write off African nations because of lack of developments in terms of army and structures
  

• I would write off china because, seriously, what do i attack? Pandas?
  

• I would write off pirates because, seriously dude?
  

But Persia/india are curious, especially india seems interesting since it looks like it has some serious positions, some minions to test expansion against, and european powers would have some difficulties to ship 50,000 armed men there and have SL0. But never played there so i don't know if it is in my imagination or is it really a thing.

On the other hands never tried Rome (you are all there right?) and scramble (have no idea about it).

Your opinions are all welcome

So question is, are they kind of nice for some wargaming

Really depends what type of period and "fun" you are after:-

1) - Rome is burning is ancient period and you have option of Roman, Hairy types, Hairy types on Horses , and people who dress in silk PJ, slippers and ride horses.

Advantage with being a Roman is that you have more people to talk too or rather have them moan at you about how terrible life is under our "beloved ????" Emperor Nero.  Think most of the major Roman Army Commands are currently taken with possible exception of the British Legions but ask Richard.

Barbarians seem to have a lot more "fun" in this game than the Romans who are slowly being reduced too nervious wrecks by NPC who make the average Glori diet, Janissary Corp, bunch of Cossacks seem fair minded and reasonable.  Think the Barbarian positions which are free and could be very interesting are the King of Armenia (Brother of current King of Parthia but appointed by Nero) and the King of Dacia.

I suspect Dacia could take up a fair bit of your time & money but if you want to step into a ready made war its already started for you.

2) - Scrabble is in by view the most "fun" game of the lot, and while it is possible to fight a campsign its more too do with playing dirty tricks and slandering your opponents.  Italia, Austria, Siam, the CSA and I believe Germania may be going free and have seen some development.

Character based game which offered steady option of beating up colonial types in colonial wars and dieing in lots of fun ways.  Germania also currently offers options for a fight with Russia and France.        

3) Other Glori positions - Campaigns in India have style all too themselves and leading Persian invasion could be a lot of fun (I did it in LAK).  But Persia is not a minor position and being in India can be a bit isolated.

If you want a small fun position up too its neck in a fight you could always take the HWIC in G7.  Its only been exiled from two major countries both of whom have now declared war against it and your Chairman and board are wanted for high treason in England.  

Not really a Pirate position and while your Chairman is a Catholic and ex-Jacobite most of the rest of the Board are English Protestant Whigs in exile from murderous Tyrant James Stuart so probably best to think of them as Whig version of the Jacobites.  Not sure if staying alive is your idea of fun or not?

Oh and if you find yourself with a huge pile of gold stamped with the Lillies of France this is what you have been charged with stealing.  Most people think French accountants can not count but Richard sometimes has a warped sence of humour.

Well

of course doing something with "Italy" is tempting for an italian, but i do really would love to step aside from the "talking game". I might sound nice and smart in my own language but having to translate it in english is kind of a work and still doesn't "sound" like i'd love it to do.

I was considering India or Persia mainly because i can go to war against some NPCs (i do not like to ruin other players experience with the game, and even less having my butt kicked by a skilled wargamer) but i do not know if i can also play them developing some structures (i've exchanged a couple of comments with some guy playing african nations and, gosh, really nothing to develop there!)

I have little attraction for Rome (Guess with environment you grow up playing in italy? after 30 years i feel i've played enough romans).

HWIC i don't know, i just don't feel attracted by playing a company. I'm more into the absolutist ruler style

Stuart Bailey wrote:
If you want a small fun position up too its neck in a fight you could always take the HWIC in G7.  Its only been exiled from two major countries both of whom have now declared war against it and your Chairman and board are wanted for high treason in England.  

Not really a Pirate position and while your Chairman is a Catholic and ex-Jacobite most of the rest of the Board are English Protestant Whigs in exile from murderous Tyrant James Stuart so probably best to think of them as Whig version of the Jacobites.  Not sure if staying alive is your idea of fun or not?

Oh and if you find yourself with a huge pile of gold stamped with the Lillies of France this is what you have been charged with stealing.  Most people think French accountants can not count but Richard sometimes has a warped sence of humour.

The lengths Stuart will go to, to avoid responsibility for HWIC ...

Nexus06 wrote:

So i began to consider what could possibly be a nice position to play and have fun without having to devote tons of time and money?

• I would write off the list europe, since all major countries require time and resources, while minor are - well - boring in the long run.
  

• I would write off African nations because of lack of developments in terms of army and structures
  

• I would write off china because, seriously, what do i attack? Pandas?
  

• I would write off pirates because, seriously dude?
  

But Persia/india are curious, especially India seems interesting since it looks like it has some serious positions, some minions to test expansion against, and European powers would have some difficulties to ship 50,000 armed men there and have SL0. But never played there so i don't know if it is in my imagination or is it really a thing.

Trying to answer this question in a neutral way ... it depends whether you are interested in the culture and history of a position; if you are then you will find some enjoyment anyway.

I would not be so sure to write off Europe because there are some interesting positions.  If you want to play it safe then you could try a HRE state - not necessarily for me, but at least you would be protected if attacked and you could play a reasonable diplomatic or trade position.  Sweden is also one to consider: lands both inside and outside the HRE, reasonably secure Baltic base, impressive military and reasonable navy - you could make something of it, and if you want a few colonies perhaps a friendly player could sell you one?  I quite enjoyed Venice when I played it - relatively light on turn costs, population large enough to provide a reasonable recruit base, natural trade advantages plus lots of little islands to explore/defend as substitute for far flung colonies.  Probably has more interest than Genoa, although again depending on your budget I've seen players do a lot with Genoa.  All these certainly do not have to be boring.  If none of these appeal then the alternative would be to approach a player who has a large position and ask if you could run part of it as a team position - this works quite well in G7 with Russia/DeptEast, although not all players are able to divide up their position in a way that makes the subsidiary position playable for both players.

Africa can also be incredible fun precisely because the societies tend to be relatively undeveloped.  You don't need to spend your time developing fancy muskets and tactics - just rely on bows and spears, and innovative tactics when confronted by the pride of European armies.  Each African position has its challenges, but also lots of colour which if you throw yourself into it can be very rewarding.  I enjoyed playing the Asante and was able to triple the size of the position within a few game years.  Morocco could also be an interesting challenge (can't remember that ever having been played, but you would be close enough to Europe to require diplomatic contact and I believe it has a decent recruit base and good military).  If you want to go full Zulu, then try Rozwi, again a very interesting challenge which I enjoyed.  Not sure about Abyssinia, or nations in the near East like Yemen, but as trading positions they are ideally situated.

I can understand your concerns over China - probably a bit similar to Russia in terms of huge land area and population will make upgrading infrastructure a huge job; Japan could also be tricky.  Also being on the other side of the world unless you reach out to players with colonies in the area you are likely to end up almost playing a solo game which is not for everyone. Persia is another odd one: on paper it should be a powerful position capable of building up a decent army/navy and trade; expansion is difficult, though without running up against Ottomans, Russians or Indians. India can also be deceptively difficult - the first position I played and I struggled. On paper it looks good, but hard to control with religious splits, large land area, inefficient agriculture/livestock; army has some interesting units if you use them, but conquering your neighbours simply brings you more problems of integration and more European colonies any of which could look to expand. I would have done things slightly differently if I was playing it again now, but I think I would still get frustrated with trying to improve how India works (or doesn't), and the historical background.

Pirates ... well I did once try to play a pirate position and ... I was not a good pirate; in fact looking back it was probably the one position that I not only failed at but didn't really enjoy despite the idea of playing a pirate being appealing in some respects.  I found it really tough on several levels.  First you basically have to steal or otherwise acquire your crews to man your ships; second you have to build a secure base to repair/build your ships; third you have to find a way to get rid of your illgotten gains; fourth to keep your crew happy you have to behave dishonourably to other players (which never sits right with me); and then fifth after you've annoyed players who are far more powerful than you could ever be, you have to try to survive.  Credit to the original player for HWIC in G7 since he did manage to find a way to balance all these and built a niche for himself mixing piracy, espionage, general dirty tricks, extortion, kidnapping, theft, smuggling, and covering it all up under the veneer of a 'trading' company; unfortunately HWIC is now a Spanish faction and incredibly unpopular.  Trying to duplicate that in another game would be a challenge, but with the support of understanding players you might manage it.  Like all positions, the more work you put in to it the more enjoyment you are likely to get out of it.  This doesn't necessarily equate to game turn cost.  I used to play Asante/Rozwi on a little over the basic turn fee, but the research and reading about Africa took a lot of time.

The strength of LGDR is that the more you put in the more you get out.  I don't play in either Scabble or Rome, but believe both are more prescriptive in terms of what you can do each turn.

Thanks Papa,

I don't know if to me is true that "the longer the funnier" (sounds weird!). As said i've Been in G9 since 2015 and i wouldn't exactly say that i'm having "fun" unless by fun you mean "to explore newer and unexpected ways of getting frustrated while spending your money on it". I love that position for it's potential, but handling it like the first child.

I came to the personal conclusion that to me fun in this moment would be less interaction, non scattered positions, and explore wargaming expansion. So i really think the HRE positions would be quite the opposite of it, while African and Asian nations could do the work but i'm really not into "bow and spears". I'd like to test European Warfare and was wondering if Persia or Moghul india could provide such feeling. I would be afraid of the fact that again the "diplomat/internal challenges" could step in and so fall into the feeling that i'll try to describe with that example:

"As the Pasha of Egypt, i'll assemble an army and march south to conquer Abissinia" but the the whole game become "try not to get stabbed in the back by eunuchs and Mameluck rebels".

So maybe somebody who already played around between Persia and India could drop his experience

PS: Talking about frustration, is Ottoman Syria regarded as a crappy frustrating province of the empire?

Hi,
In answer to your request.
I played the Moghul for many years. Reunited and took over virtually the whole of India. Great fun, enjoyed it. It was fairly easy, no outside interference from European nations. Not much game interaction with other players who tend to ignore positions outside Europe.

So you can play at your own speed and pace, set your own agenda.

That said not sure if the Moghul would be right for you. You mentioned a smaller and less expensive position. The Moghul is opposite to that. Its a big starting position. Starting off with alot of towns and land. Many big towns populations over 100,000. Lots of work to do. You also have several minor positions in India. Run by Indian princes and usually NPC. The Mahrattans is a more Medium position.

For a cheap turn fee perhaps an Indian Prince.? Raputs for example, start with four towns.? Maharattans  may be good. Start with around a dozen.? Moghul double that.

Wargaming. My one beef about the game with Richard. If in any war, Agema tends to hit your honour very hard. Which causes its own problems. Maybe just me, but i have seen and heard it from many different players. Wars seem to mean honour problems eventually.

As the Moghul  you could attempt to take over the Princes. Easy enough to do but will take a few years as so many towns to attack and take. Lots of travelling too. India very large area to take.

I think it would be good for you but the cost problem would exist. High cost or if you played the position with a smallish turn fee you would find the position huge and it would take you forever to make progress.

Perhaps playing Sweden would be good.? You could unite the Nordic nations under your command. Keep Russia onside though.

My suggestion would be an African position. Small turn fee. Smallish positions around you. Make a big European or Indian friend to sponsor you. Give you recruits, possibly even low caste Indians. Get a rich nation to give or lend you a few million and you're away.

Nexus06 wrote:Thanks Papa,

I don't know if to me is true that "the longer the funnier" (sounds weird!). As said i've Been in G9 since 2015 and i wouldn't exactly say that i'm having "fun" unless by fun you mean "to explore newer and unexpected ways of getting frustrated while spending your money on it". I love that position for it's potential, but handling it like the first child.

I came to the personal conclusion that to me fun in this moment would be less interaction, non scattered positions, and explore wargaming expansion. So i really think the HRE positions would be quite the opposite of it, while African and Asian nations could do the work but i'm really not into "bow and spears". I'd like to test European Warfare and was wondering if Persia or Moghul india could provide such feeling. I would be afraid of the fact that again the "diplomat/internal challenges" could step in and so fall into the feeling that i'll try to describe with that example:

"As the Pasha of Egypt, i'll assemble an army and march south to conquer Abissinia" but the the whole game become "try not to get stabbed in the back by eunuchs and Mameluck rebels".

So maybe somebody who already played around between Persia and India could drop his experience

PS: Talking about frustration, is Ottoman Syria regarded as a crappy frustrating province of the empire?

A game without some challenges is not really a game ... one of the advantages of a human-moderated game is that up to a point the GM can allow inexperienced players to play against experienced players, varying the frustration factor accordingly.  I've been playing LGDR since 1995-6 (I think) and the game has obviously evolved a lot since then, generally for the better.  In the early days you could achieve a lot more over a shorter timescale because game turns were every 2-3 weeks ... you didn't really have time to make complicated plans, or write very long letters; each nation had 2 or 3 military change orders per turn (which included raising units of 1 type in 1 location, ordering drill or equipment changes, or moving formations), so it was much more restrictive than it is now.  Campaigns had to be planned in great detail months in advance so you didn't run out of orders, so it had a totally different feel to it.  But there were advantages - you could pick up a new position to learn the basics without spending a great deal of money and investing a lot of effort, then if you make a mess of it (as most people do when playing their first position in a new game), you could drop and start again in another game.  By the time you had played 1 real world year you would have played 2 game years or more which is probably the minimum time it takes to explore if you want to play the position longer term.  The timescale also meant that it was very hard to play in multiple games without getting totally confused and spending all your spare time on it.   Now it takes much longer to complete a game year, you really have to make a decision fairly quickly if a position is right for you.  Since the start of G7 and unlimited orders it is much harder to find the time and real world money to play 2 large positions, so I can certainly understand why you would look to keep your large G9 Russia position, and then a smaller position where you can experiment with things that you just couldn't do within a reasonable timescale in Russia. Or if G9 Russia has reached the point where it basically looks after itself (I am assuming you are unlikely to be considering declaring war on Sweden, Austria, Ottomans or China out of boredom), then perhaps you can put less effort into Russia and bring your energies to another mid-large position?

From what you have written I can't see India working for you, even if you start off with a smaller state within India.  I have seen Persia played quite effectively in games, but expansion would be a problem and it also has quite a large land area.  If you're really set on it, then try it or at least get the position details - population of 6M probably makes it a large nation (but not super-large like Russia or France). I like to at least have a rough idea of themes I would like to explore within a position before I take it on, but others probably have a different approach.  I do think you have to have some sympathy with the history/mindset/culture of a nation if you are going to play it otherwise you could end up trying to play Persia like France and positions just become about the number of recruits, units, money you can get from them.

An Ottoman position might work for you, but the smaller Ottoman states do tend to be relatively backward - far too many low quality units to support without an economy to pay for them.  If you are the only active Ottoman position then you are somewhat unlikely to get stabbed in the back, but expansion is likely to prove difficult because if you start fighting another Ottoman state you are likely to cause yourself trouble.  And there is always the risk that a new player can pick up the Ottoman Emperor (Anatolia?) and start trying to consolidate his vassals or demand you start paying tribute to him?

I would think again about Asante or Rozwi ... they may start off with bow and spears, but you will probably find plenty of European nations willing to sell you old muskets.  If you adopt newer technology then you lose the ability to make shields, but you could have a reasonable game if you converted your army to be along western lines and then set about conquering your neighbours.

But I think the position which might be the best compromise would be Morocco.  Sizeable military, influenced by European weaponry and tactics so you should not start with that much of a disadvantage; you are outside the Ottoman Empire, sit across trade routes so could develop that side of things; I'm not sure what the starting navy is like, but Sale/Rabat were pirate strongholds so I suspect you will have access to a reasonable navy.  And being so close to Europe you will be able to intervene in various conflicts should you choose to do so.  Colonial expansion could be along the coast of Africa or across the desert (gold mines) to bring you into contact with the Asante.  There is no point in building infrastructure in the desert so you don't have the problems of spending however many million it costs to build roads/canals in Russia. The main population centres are inland so it will also be difficult for most players to attack you.  Since the position is unlikely to have been played, you should get a decent number of recruits to start you off.  I think if I was looking to play another position (which I'm not), then I would be seriously tempted by the flexibility Morocco offers.

Or if you really can't think of the right position for you, ask Richard and he might create one for you.  This was how Rozwi came about ... I was Asante in G4 (I think) when that game folded and having built it up to 3 times its starting size, I didn't want to play the same position again and repeat what I had done for 3 years in another game; but I did want to play something similar.  So Rozwi was created as a position and it was sufficiently different to sustain interest, but also had different opportunities for expansion.

Morocco.

Interesting, not seen it played. Only point i would make on that is Spain has three towns in Morocco. Not sure how that would make a player feel.? You would be at the potential mercy of Spain. So you may not be as isolated as you would like.

Morocco could seize Spanish enclaves relatively easily whereas Spain would struggle trying to invade Morocco.

Historically the Sultan of Morocco launched several campaigns to retake enclaves occupied by foreigners and was successful most of the time.  In 1661 Tangiers was ceded to England by Portugal as part of a marriage dowry.  The Portuguese were so glad to leave that they took everything of value including windows and doors.  When the English garrison showed up they were under almost constant attack from guerrilla forces.  The Tangier Regiment was made up of veterans who fought for Parliament in the English Civil War, so was one of the best regiments in Europe.  New fortifications were built, the port improved, and more soldiers sent ... including some of the most famous regiments in the English army: Royal Scots, Grenadier Guards, Coldstream Guards.  More defences were built in a modern style which if not called Vauban worked in a similar way.  The Moroccans isolated each bastion, blew them up with mines and generally made life as uncomfortable as possible for the English.  Several governors were killed either in combat or from the climate, with the average tenure being just over a year.  The only way the English were able to keep hanging on was because the Royal Navy could keep bringing in supplies.

By the early 1680s it was it reached the point where Parliament (and the king) were beginning to question if it could ever be worth the high cost of protecting it.  The Moroccans wouldn't trade with the town and it was simply a money pit.  By 1684 the decision had been taken to withdraw, which they did, demolishing all the improvements they had made and bringing the remnants of the forces back to England.  Morocco then occupied the city and held it until the mid-1800s when it became a centre of diplomacy.

The Moroccan army was also able to push back attempts by the Ottomans to bring them under their control, defeated them in the 1670s which pushed the borders of the Ottoman Empire back to Algiers.

Just in case you think England failed in part because of the distance and that Spain would manage any better ... in 1688-89 the Moroccans laid siege to Larache.  Being a bit of a show-off he gave Spain plenty of warning which allowed the Spanish time to improve fortifications and increase the garrison.  Within 4 months the Moroccans took the town and all Spanish forces were sold into slavery.  In the 1690s there were half-hearted attempts to take Ceuta, Melilla and various other fortresses.  These failed partly because the Moroccans were overstretched and partly because of internal rebellion.  They had no particular interest in taking the towns, just destroying the fortifications the Spanish had built so they would withdraw as the English did from Tangiers.

Although western powers were able to place Moroccan ports under blockade and occasionally capture ports, they were never able to reach into the Moroccan strongholds in the Atlas Mountains.  These towns are strong natural fortresses surrounded by desert.  To even think of attacking one of these would require a huge army (and even more supplies), strung out over a few hundred miles of hostile territory, constantly being raided by Moroccan tribesmen.  European horse would need huge amounts of fodder and water all of which would have to be brought from Europe.  European infantry are not used to marching on desert tracks nor looking after their muskets in sandy conditions (higher rate of misfires); combat proved exhausting for everyone (except Moroccans).  And as for artillery, just try moving a unit of heavy siege guns and ammunition a few hundred miles when the wind is blowing sand in your face.  When the army gets to its position, it will then get hit by raids every night and all the Moroccans have to do is ride through the camp to destroy the tents and leave the poor Europeans with nowhere to shelter during the day, then watch from their mountain retreats as the enemy wilts with sunstroke.

Of course Moroccan troops have none of these handicaps as they are used to fighting in the desert.

So overall Morocco is a tough country to take on and Sultan Moulay Ismail was a highly competent ruler who united his country, retook many settlements others had occupied, and drove back the Ottomans.  Morocco is far from a backwards 'bows and spears' country which should have plenty of opportunities for the right player in LGDR.

Of course if you really want to play Morocco and cause trouble, then you could always take Ceuta, Melilla, etc, and wait for a rather deluded Spanish player to declare war and attempt to take them back. When he fails you can invade Spain and re-establish the Emirate of Granada or the Caliphate of Cordoba. It would give a bit of a twist to the usual Spanish Succession debates.

Morocco has been played in a couple of editions of Glori. In G2 it was an ally of Mamluke Egypt and one or both were mixed up in backing the North African corsairs. Result was that Bourbon Spain, Bourbon France and various other minor Catholic powers decended on them with great force! We are talking full blown crusade and hordes and hordes of Papists on the hunt for cheap honour points.

In another game - not G7 but the other one with a restored King James. Morocco managed to upset King James, something which I understand was easy too do and ended up as English North Africa.

If Nexus 06 is looking for a possible middle of the road military power to fight NPC rather than players so as to avoid upsetting their games. Starting a fight with Spain which is normally a player run position would not seem to fit the bill. Though I suspect in most games Cardinal Alberoni, King Rodrigo and King Charles etc might not object that much to about an opportunity to wrap themselves in the Flag of St James and draw the sword of the Cid against Muslim invaders.

However, provided you can stay out of the way of Papists who view you as a short cut too the top of the honour table. Morroco options for campaigns against NPC's are most likely limited too Ottoman Algiers (which could drag in the Sultan?) and various African tribes too the south. Not sure if these are really interesting unless your interest is in Desert Logistics.

Looking at other options for middle of the road military powers for campaign against NPC's:

- Sweden has a fab Army etc and generally Norway-Denmark, Poland and much of North Germany is NPC. Problem is Russia tends not too be NPC and likewise Austrian Holy Roman Emperors, Prussian players worried about their sister in Courland, English worried about Princess Anne married to a Dane and basically the world and its dog can get a bit anti about your harmless and enjoyable fun.

- Personally for a middle of the road military power planning military campaigns against NPC's I really like Persia. You could run into Swedish/Morocco type problems with the Ottoman Sultan and the Czar of Russia. But generally players in these positions have other concerns and will be happy to sign a treaty allowing you too head east. I also think trying your hand at being the new Nadar Shah is much more interesting than beating up bunch of African tribes.

- While Persia is a case of gathering up the Afghans and volunteers for a Jihad against idol worship. The Maharrata confederation is more a case of the idol worships hit back. At first its a case of picking off your domestic rivals but after that its how to unpick the Moghul Empire and free the Hindu from the Muslim yoke.
Find it odd we have not seem more Maharrate Confederation players since historically its one of the great if's - If they had not gone down too defeat in the largest battle of the C18 against one of Nadar Shah of Persia Afghan Generals.

- After looking at new map also wonder if anyone is going to give the Dzungar Khanate a go? Question is how much damage could you do in the wild, wild West of Manchu China before Lord Fong and other Manchu Warlords noticed a need to get off their War Junks and back on their horses for a very, very long ride too inner Mongolia etc. In theory Shansi and Manchu nothing to do with Manchu Southern commanders in Kwantung and Shantung but Richard as the Emperor will probably delegate if a player around.

Anyway which ever one you pick for your Military campaigns best of luck. Though I still think as an Italian you should give Rome is Burning a go, if not as a Roman then try the view from other side of the hill.

I suppose the bottom line here is.

If you want to take on a smallish cheapest position and launch a largish military campaign then there are two problems whichever nation you take on.

Firstly there will always be a much larger nation somewhere near you and if they decide to go against you, then you are in trouble.

Secondly the more war and advancement you achieve then the bigger position you gain. Hence the turn fees will go up quite substantially if you do well. Which you didn’t want to pay.

So rather a tough decision to find an ideal solution.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Morocco has been played in a couple of editions of Glori.  In G2 it was an ally of Mamluke Egypt and one or both were mixed up in backing the North African corsairs.  Result was that Bourbon Spain, Bourbon France and various other minor Catholic powers descended on them with great force!  We are talking full blown crusade and hordes and hordes of Papists on the hunt for cheap honour points.

In another game - not G7 but the other one with a restored King James.  Morocco managed to upset King James, something which I understand was easy too do and ended up as English North Africa.

If Nexus 06 is looking for a possible middle of the road military power to fight NPC rather than players so as to avoid upsetting their games.  Starting a fight with Spain which is normally a player run position would not seem to fit the bill.  Though I suspect in most games Cardinal Alberoni, King Rodrigo and King Charles etc might not object that much to about an opportunity to wrap themselves in the Flag of St James and draw the sword of the Cid against Muslim invaders.

However, provided you can stay out of the way of Papists who view you as a short cut too the top of the honour table.  Morroco options for campaigns against NPC's are most likely limited too Ottoman Algiers (which could drag in the Sultan?) and various African tribes too the south.  Not sure if these are really interesting unless your interest is in Desert Logistics.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't think the old rules (under which G2 operated) can really be compared to the newer rules (G7 onwards).  An active Morocco under a decent player would at least have the common sense to defend its towns and secure its borders properly before considering getting involved in anything which could bring down a crusade upon them.  One of the drawbacks of the old rules was that if you were a single player (with 2-3 military orders/month), being attacked by a coalition of 3-4 players (who between them could have 8-12 military orders/month) it is unlikely you could do anything significant to counter their attacks given the mechanics of the game back then.  All the logistics rules have now changed and as Stuart knows, campaigning in difficult terrain using these new rules is very hard.

Stuart Bailey wrote:
Looking at other options for middle of the road military powers for campaign against NPC's:

- Sweden has a fab Army etc and generally Norway-Denmark, Poland and much of North Germany is NPC.  Problem is Russia tends not too be NPC and likewise Austrian Holy Roman Emperors, Prussian players worried about their sister in Courland, English worried about Princess Anne married to a Dane and basically the world and its dog can get a bit anti about your harmless and enjoyable fun.

- Personally for a middle of the road military power planning military campaigns against NPC's I really like Persia.  You could run into Swedish/Morocco type problems with the Ottoman Sultan and the Czar of Russia.  But generally players in these positions have other concerns and will be happy to sign a treaty allowing you too head east.  I also think trying your hand at being the new Nadar Shah is much more interesting than beating up bunch of African tribes.

- While Persia is a case of gathering up the Afghans and volunteers for a Jihad against idol worship.  The Maharrata confederation is more a case of the idol worships hit back.  At first its a case of picking off your domestic rivals but after that its how to unpick the Moghul Empire and free the Hindu from the Muslim yoke.
Find it odd we have not seem more Maharrate Confederation players since historically its one of the great if's -  If they had not gone down too defeat in the largest battle of the C18 against one of Nadar Shah of Persia Afghan Generals.

In some respects the Maharattans are more interesting than the Moghul with a different set of strategic challenges.  But it has been so long since I played Moghul India that the starting position has probably changed.

For the Moghul you have the common problems of having to defend both sides of the continent with 2 separate geographic trade flows (west towards Bombay, east towards Bengal); you have a huge population but only a fraction of that is available as recruits; your nobility is factionalised and divided by religion which makes changing anything hard and leads to either rebellions or reduced tax revenue.  On paper it looks easy, but if you want to play it with any understanding of its history/culture etc then it can be a challenge.  There were also significant language challenges with hundreds of different Indian dialects and scripts which made it difficult to make a single nation from India.  The main strength of the Moghul is his army, but who to use it against ... Persia (probably not a good idea), Maharattans or other Indian tribes (which if successful merely compounds the problems you already face). So unless you have a solution to what kind of country you want India to be then fighting isn't going to help longer term.

The Maharattans have very similar problems: they are a confederation of warring princes separated in practice by the mountains running down the centre of the continent, so you have the same east/west issue crossing between them.  Thankfully the Mahrattans had a sizeable navy, so in the 1600s were able to keep their independence from the Moghul by building fortified coastal ports and lots of ships.  But being a Confederation also brought them problems - the nobles just wanted to compete against each other.  As soon as the Europeans arrived it was a case of playing off their ambition to keep them   The fundamental problem for both Indian positions is that people underestimate just how large an area India is.  The HRE was divided into hundreds of states of varying size; the Confederation was the same - but they were not so much interested in conquering and annexing each other as demonstrating who was the greatest among their immediate neighbours in terms of some aspect of culture or wealth or cruelty.  There are very good reasons why a handful of European troops were able to intervene in these conflicts and tip the balance in favour of one or other useless noble.  By the mid-1700s they had gained enough intelligence about how the economy of India worked that they could ensure they grabbed the most economically important bits for themselves, then it became a case of waiting until the most corrupt and most incompetent nobles came to power, and dealing with them.  It was not so much that the English won India as that the Indian nobility gave it away because it was too much like work.  It has always amazed me that in the 1800s the English needed only 80,000 civil servants to run India ... it helped that this was in the days before computers, but when you consider that over 5,000 'work' in the DVLA and take months to process simple requests to renew driving licences, clearly we were doing something right in India!

It would be interesting to see the Mahrattans played historically, but with so many of their towns marked on the map as European colonies, I think it would be tricky to establish game objectives without ending up in confrontation with multiple European powers.

Stuart Bailey wrote:
- After looking at new map also wonder if anyone is going to give the Dzungar Khanate a go?  Question is how much damage could you do in the wild, wild West of Manchu China before Lord Fong and other Manchu Warlords noticed a need to get off their War Junks and back on their horses for a very, very long ride too inner Mongolia etc.  In theory Shansi and Manchu nothing to do with Manchu Southern commanders in Kwantung and Shantung but Richard as the Emperor will probably delegate if a player around.  

The Dzungars would be the ideal position for a pure wargamer ... huge numbers of mounted troops striking wherever they liked at whoever they liked.  If they didn't take on China then I guess Russia and Persia would be the other alternative targets.  Of the 2, Persia would provide more plunder, then they push west through the Ottomans.  In a game where Persia has not been played (and towns have not been fortified or defended properly) then the Dzungars could make rapid progress.  I can't remember a game where Persia has been invaded so it is possible that defending inland towns is not a priority for most Persian players.  The same may also apply to China, of course, or even Russia.  Who would be stupid enough to invade Russia or China?  Only an active Dzungar Empire?

jamesbond007 wrote:I suppose the bottom line here is.

If you want to take on a smallish cheapest position and launch a largish military campaign then there are two problems whichever nation you take on.

Firstly there will always be a much larger nation somewhere near you and if they decide to go against you, then you are in trouble.

Secondly the more war and advancement you achieve then the bigger position you gain. Hence the turn fees will go up quite substantially if you do well. Which you didn’t want to pay.

So rather a tough decision to find an ideal solution.

My view about real world cost v size of position & active military campaigns are:-

1) Player style - some people who like style, fluff, and detail can manage to spend more real world game fees on detailing their character, their mistress and their favourite ship than more disiplined players spend on drilling and combat standing orders for a Army of 100,000. To establish proper discipline its probably best to give yourself a set game fee and a set number of orders with the important and/or short ones given first.

2) Geographic complexity of position. If you can avoid a position which is not split up into bits, has colonies and is purely or mostly a land power this saves a lot on real world costs. Of the positions medium sized positions with Sweden and Demmark - Norway are the worst in this respect. As they have lots of different bits and really need a active and up to date Navy for their likely campaigns. Prussia is also a bit "bitty" though your campaigns will probably aim to end that.

3) Concerns about the neigbours. If you have concerns about other players all of those agents, garrisons and fortress construction which are purely there as "insurance" tend to have real world costs. Positions in Europe or close too Europe will tend to be worse for this.

4) Really backwards positions tend to take more too develop. While they have advantage of being a fresh slate which you can design to suit yourself if you just want to get stuck into military campaigns it might actually be a cheaper and better option to pick up a position which has been played before. With luck you might even pick up a position which is battle ready without the urge to send first 12 turns on drilling.

Threads on the forum and a position on game honour list should give a rough guide.

5) Style of campaign - Raid, loot, plunder and install client rulers who will provide a set number of troops for future campaigns would seem to be cheaper option than say being an Elector of Prussia who wants to build a German Empire.

Some very good ideas and posts by Stuart and Robert.

What i would say is. Sadly most small positions tend to drop after a little play from players. That is why if you ask a large nation for help. Money, Recruits or Technology they usually do help.

Also. As game turns are around 5 to 6 weeks its hard to keep enthusiasm going waiting so long for a turn and when it arrives you can do it in a day. Then another 5 or 6 week wait.

I believe from sometime in April there will be an extra weeks delay to current game turnaround times.

I thank you all as many smart option came up here. I must admit my vision tends to be a little too much eurocentric, and i must force myself to think outside that box a little.

Surely timing in game isn't helping. Is true that at the moment the game pace equals the real life pace, thus after 5 year of gameplay your game clock went on 5 years roughly and it gets hard to let the position go.

I'm gonna think about it and challenge you guys with new questions here soon.

cheers

Nexus06 wrote:I thank you all as many smart option came up here. I must admit my vision tends to be a little too much eurocentric, and i must force myself to think outside that box a little.

Surely timing in game isn't helping. Is true that at the moment the game pace equals the real life pace, thus after 5 year of gameplay your game clock went on 5 years roughly and it gets hard to let the position go.

I'm gonna think about it and challenge you guys with new questions here soon.

cheers

I agree. I think the game turnaround speed is far too slow for this day and age and it is hampering new player enjoyment and numbers. In my opinion.

As far as Lgdr is concerned I think a simpler quicker cheaper game  model needs to be looked for. I am sure it can be done. Current players will be  getting to retirement age on average soon. So agema needs to entice new, fresh younger blood in order to keep going for many years to come.

Personally I don’t think this current business model will entice the younger generation who are used to speed and  instant  results. For example. How many under forties play compared to over forties.? Exactly.