Calling it a day

I'd like to ask the panel... What makes you drop (or want to drop) a position? (Have you ever dropped a position?) What makes you come back (to another game, perhaps)? And what are your views on the impact of drop-outs on the game? Interested in all comments, ideas, suggestions...

I've only ever dropped for economic reasons, but I think I would have probably dropped my game 3 papal states position sooner or later anyway.

I think when you stop seeing a future in a position, or you've "messed it up" enough that it's easier to start over dropping makes sense. In game 3, it was a combination of some things I did with the position, and the fact that some of the existing positions were so far beyond mine that made it less fun.

I wish there were a way to encourage people to keep their positions though because games with few players aren't as interesting.

For joining games, it was mostly about if there was something about the position that fired my imagination. I want to have some kind of vision for the position and what it can become.

Like Deacon it is usually for financial reasons that I drop out (only once have I dropped a position because I didn't enjoy it)...I tend to take on a position because it interests me historically and I want to see if I can duplicate that-so I try to see if I can recreate it...with the exception of China where I try to see if I can make it a power again.

Mine is either time or lack of ideas (some times money!). I usually have a plan within a few turns of where I want to go once achieved I can and usually do lose interest.
BUT I still love the game and I would like to get back into a full position one day   

I think part of the reason I asked this question was because of the feeling that comes when a long-term and close, friendly, buzzy, ally drops, it rather takes some of the savour out of the game for the surviving partner. Anyone feel likewise?

I tend to feel the same way Jim, it does affect how you feel about the game, for a few turns at least.

yes that is true I have lost allies and the r3eplacement is not interested in continuing the alliance, making it difficult

I also played a pirate for all of two turns.

Found that the position was far too limited for my tastes. I didn't want to pay full turn fees to be that 'crippled' though I understood why it was that way.

Never played a pirate Deacon...in what way are the roles crippled?

On the ally dropping front, I managed a way around it by having a treaty with the ally that basically split our positions between the two of us when he dropped I was able to point to the treaty clauses that said in the event of "death" the posiiton would go to the remaining player. A royla marriage had sealed the treaty, so in a way the ally leaving actually strengthened my posiiton.

Deacon I can understand your position about the pirates, I have always wondered why those positions were not given at as a differant price range. Maybe somewhere between the Full game version & the RPG game, If you know from the start that you have a small posiiton to play with maybe limited order options then it possiably makes it easier to stay in the game, especially if the turn fee is smaller.

Jason wrote:Never played a pirate Deacon...in what way are the roles crippled?

You have no normal access to markets and information, so turning prizes into cash was very difficult.  You have no sense of a treasury, so any attempt to transfer cash required you to physically transport it, so to set up the agents you might need to deal with the above was equally challenging.  With patience and effort, I'm sure you could build up the infrastructure needed to be a force to be reckoned with, but it felt like to me that the position was at a significant disadvantage to a normal smaller state.

As I said, it makes sense, but I didn't want to pay full turn fees to be a foil for the spanish or english who would likely chew me up and spit me out.

Lower turn fees might make sense, but I can understand why Richard wouldn't. GMing the positions would take as much time as a normal position, so...

Deacon I think you also have a point that having a pirate position is csomething that can unite the Maritime powers against the pirate position, it is an easy target, & seen as a way to raise the honour, basically you probably need unofficial backing from one of the more powerful nations to get yourself setup.

Thanks Deacon...that's useful to know esp as have been tempted once or twice by the pirate idea...just to go and be wild and do all those naughty things you can't really do in Glory

Interestingly, in Scramble there is a lower price role you can play, a bit of a cross between a pirate and Swashbuckler I think

I have played a few years as a pirate and it was exciting, very much so at times but your position will need some other business to have a steady income and disposing off all the ill-gotten gains. Some sort of company with a mix of legal and shady business would probably be the best.

So a bit like the modern drugs market...you need the 'legitimate' business to launder the ill-gotten gains?

yup, I did a fair bit of damage in my day as Blackbeard, sacked Havana for one. Got a few invites to work with nations against Spanish. But you need to take a city try and make your own kingdom and then try and establish your self. Its a hard path to follow

The problem with setting up a high profile pirate nation is that just about every other position in the game will gain honour from attacking you and they do not need to declare war since you are a bad, bad man. It is almost certain to end badly.

Ardagor wrote:The problem with setting up a high profile pirate nation is that just about every other position in the game will gain honour from attacking you and they do not need to declare war since you are a bad, bad man. It is almost certain to end badly.

Yes, and you've got one hand tied behind your back to start....

My mate played BB and managed to grab a couple of colonies and set up a kingdom, self declared, he had 1 or 2 nations recognize it but was a bit stuck as he had not much money to progress

I think that running a pure stand alone West Indian Pirate position like Blackbeard in Glori is a bit limited in game terms for the reasons already given.

Has anyone tried the North African or French Corairs? They should have a few more options? Such as running the French Spy Service for a otherwise overworked French Govt player & Trans Sahara Trade.

Rather than playing a pure pirate I also think the semi pirate positions like the Dutch East India Company or the HEIC or the HWIC may be give a more varied game experience.

And now if you wish to play a pirate there is Regime Change.

Regime Change seems to actively encourage going down a pirate road, all very Blake 7.

Playing as a nation and then using piracy as one of your story threads seems to be a way forward. I have found game 8 a bit dull, even with Tatar slave raids, which will resume shortly, and a failed assassination attempt on the Grand Vizier, not the last of those either, but piracy - north African corsair style does add a bit of fun even if it is not as lucrative as I hoped.  

Basileus wrote:Regime Change seems to actively encourage going down a pirate road, all very Blake 7.

Playing as a nation and then using piracy as one of your story threads seems to be a way forward. I have found game 8 a bit dull, even with Tatar slave raids, which will resume shortly, and a failed assassination attempt on the Grand Vizier, not the last of those either, but piracy - north African corsair style does add a bit of fun even if it is not as lucrative as I hoped.  

I think the north african corsair thing will get a bit more exciting soon...

Oh no......  

Looking at the G8 newspaper...it seems Deacon may well be right...

Beleive main problem with Pirate position is that you have little or no strength in depth, one bad round & your down & most probably out. Having a country that activley promotes piracy is a way around this, but it probably won't help make friends & influence people.