Game 10

The Jacobites need help, no question, but England was pretty active in game 7 when they got taken over. I assume the player threw in the towel at some point, but they pretty actively resisted the initial takeover.

I think the real problem with the jacobites as a position is why go to all that work as a player? You'll spend years of play time fighting to claim what you could get almost out of the starting gate with a number of other positions. When/If you finally get England, the position will likely be weakened by the conflict, while other competing nations are more likely to have had a good run, leaving you behind.

You really have to relish the challenge of pulling off reclaiming the throne to want to go to all that work. And, as you say, you will need help. France and Spain, and to an extent other catholic autocratic powers all have good reasons to help you, but if you don't get material help, the position is likely to be frustrating in its limited ability to progress.

No real answer. We've talked about the challenge of not having certain positions played and the impact upon the game. No obvious solutions to that problem.

You probably need a lot of determination, staying power & a tad of luck, because as the Jacobite you have to fight an uphill battle, you have to render the English, Scotish & Dutch positions all inactive or nullify at least Scotland & or preferably UDP to stand a chance of takin gon England, plus if the England player is doing his job, he will be racking up his honour score by using anti- Jacobite propoganda & in the meantime looking to form some form of Protestant alliance. Basically you start off with a small position & must wait in the wings for your chance & hope it all goes well because it is a shallow position with no deep reserves to fall back on.

As you poin tout a lo tof work & investment of both time & money for little real reward at least initially. Plus should you get to the top of the hill & claim the throne, just over the nex thill are all those Protestant Nobles & Bishops with a supporting choir of commoners who are not happy with having a catholic monarch.

It can be done as G7 has proved, at least the first hill has been conquered, wha tlies over the next hill is yet to be seen. Esp with war continuing in UDP .

It was done in game 3 too. In the short window I played the jacobites in game 7, I followed thei game 3 strategy generally. In game 3, he retook the throne, but agreed his son would be raised protestant, so it effectively ended the catholic line. In the short period I ran the position, My plan was to move to religious liberty and so make it a moot point. Separate the church of england from the throne.

Have to respect the player who took over and decided to burn everything to the ground!

I think looking at seven, the player who followed you didn't so much burn it all down as have it all burnt around him , he got hit by the supporters of William & all his hangers on. There has been a lot of harsh words exchanged both here in the forum & in game. It has not been an easy ride for either side in Game seven.

Going back to the alliance & help, England player initially stood alone, but when France came along it seems to have helped him a lot. He was afterall at one point fighting the Spanish Empire, the Austrian Empire along with the HRR & the UDP along with other Williamite factions in his own position. So he has done amazingly well simply to survive, most players would have thrown in the towel & walked away from it.


If the same player had taken on Spain in ten then it may initially have caused a few heads to turn, but at least we would have a position we could all relate to, get the feeling the whole game is waiting for Spain to come out of the closet. Any player taking on Spain is going to get a honeymoon period from the rest of the players initially simply because everyone is waiting to see how it is going to turn out.

So, please, please, please can we get a new Spanish player!

I think the Spanish Empire is a ridiculously huge position given it has colonial holdings everywhere. If you are going to do a reasonable job managing that position, I think you have to be either super focused, or willing to regularly play high turn fees to run the position well. (hint, hint, I am not super focused in Game . Even if you are super focused, maybe you'd be happier in a smaller position where you don't _have_ to be super focused.

It doesn't surprise me that Spain isn't always in play. I think to a certain extent France is an easier position to play IF you avoid the problem so many Frances seem to make of picking too many fights because you think you're big enough to take on everyone (and you almost are).

I suppose Spain is a good candidate for a team position with a tleast one LOYAL Viceroy to support the crown, problem in some games is that historically loyal viceroys/ Companies end up disagreeing with their crown position & either rebel or ally up with enemies to try & take the crown. Maybe there should be an in game clause that such posiitons are not allowed to make war on the central position.

Could almost do with a China type set up where going against the crown would lose you a lot of honour rather than an outright ban on doing so which kinda goes against the spirit of the game.

I've just realised that I've labelled the turn I've sent in for game 10 (Turn 34) as November 1702 when it should be October 1702.

Apologies to those receiving letters from Rozwi this turn. Obviously you'll need to strike out November and correct the date with the actual month of game play for your records.

Doh!

J Flower wrote:I suppose Spain is a good candidate for a team position with a tleast one LOYAL Viceroy to support the crown, problem in some games is that historically loyal viceroys/ Companies end up disagreeing with their crown position & either rebel or ally up with enemies to try & take the crown. Maybe there should be an in game clause that such posiitons are not allowed to make war on the central position.

Actually, if you started the game with several different Spanish players and they backed different claims for the Crown this would be one way to get the WSS going and re-create the political weakness/crisis that hit Spain in 1700.

While G10 has provided plenty of evidence of Spain in crisis in other games Spain seems much stronger than it was historically. G2 being the classic example since in less than a decade the King of Spain had swallowed Portugal and its Empire and defeated England and France.

But once you have a proper King in place any revolt should suffer badly honour wise. But in many ways the Spanish Empire does offer good opportunities for multi player gaming since the possible positions do not rub up against each other in the same way as the Ottoman or Polish Commonwealth positions.

I recall Richard splitting Spain in one game of Lgdr. Spain started with two players. Trouble was both players submitted orders each turn and some conflicted so some orders were not put through from both players.

I think the players kind of got frustrated with paying for orders and not knowing if they would get passed or not. One player dropped fairly quickly, not sure about the other. In hindsight, that tactic did not really work out.

I’m feeling long winded today, so ignore me if I drone on too long.

I think drops from the split Spanish position is just a different variant of the played/not-played problem that is sort of an unsolvable problem in most PBM games.

Games can be made/broken by drops from positions, particularly key ones.  When you're paying turn fees for a game position that has become untenable, or just not fun, most people will just drop.

Splitting up Spain between two factions is a great idea. But it would require two players willing to fight it out and really go for it, with the winner getting the position and the loser... losing.

When you are shelling out real world money every time you post a turn to Richard, there can come a point where you decide you don't want to keep doing that and drop. It's a perfectly logic and reasonable choice that can have significant impact on the rest of the game.

I don't see a solution to the issue, though.

Some more structured, closed-end PBM games used to make you pay for the whole game before turn 1. So, since you'd already paid for the whole game, you had an incentive, even if losing, to keep playing and to go down fighting so the guy who took you out got slowed down and HE didn't win.

But that's hard to do here in a game like this. Richard could offer some discount on the base game turn fee if you prepaid a year out or something, but I'm not sure that would really do the trick either. Most of us would just use the prepay option to reduce costs for us, without necessarily really impacting this issue at all. So Richard's income goes down, and people still drop when too frustrated because they can see it coming and stop pre-paying.

I think some players are interested in the fun of a big position, but don't realize how much work can be involved and how frustrating a GM Richard can be. It is never easy, even if it really doesn't matter.

For example, this turn, I just finally closed the Spanish inquisition in game 8, fulfilling one of my long-term 'enlightenment' goals. It tooks years of game effort, a lot of turn fees, and a lot of ingame work and still cost me some honour. All just for something that has, as far as I'm aware, zero impact upon my position other than 'style points' or something. That's Richard.

Now imagine you’re trying to navigate something as important as the Spanish succession. You will be repeatedly frustrated and will need to keep hammering away and attacking the problem from as many angles as possible. If plan A fails, be prepared with Plan B, Plan C, and Plan D.

When I 'took' Spain in Game 8 as Portugal I had the advantage of a missing France, and I still spent ~18 months of hard work making it happen with a Spain that wasn't keeping an eye on his honour and didn't see my 'attack' coming. Remember that at the start of the game, The Spanish Player is a Regent, not a royal. You have a lot of power, but your position _IS_ assailable. You can lose your regency.

Compare that to France or Austria. Louis or Leopold could make themselves universally reviled in their nation and still it would be monstrously hard to unseat them. They ARE the state.

Not sure where I’m going with all this, just that I get frustration leads to drops, and that drops can have a big impact upon the rest of the game.

I’ve personally tried to get a number of my gaming friends interested in the game, but haven’t succeeded.

Anybody have any ideas for helping make sure we have fresh blood? I’d love to have more new players picking up the smaller positions to fill out the games.

I love the game. But 5 weeks per turn and for a big position £30 a turn are turn offs for most in this day and age. That’s my view and position anyway.

Paying for a year in advance would be too short to do much. It could only cover 10 turns. How many turns would it take to conclude the Spanish succession.? Could take many years. Not sure you would ever get two Spanish players play long enough to sort it out.

France in particular could destroy the Spanish succsssion situation any time it felt like it. Don’t personally think the idea would work in reality.

jamesbond007 wrote:I recall Richard splitting Spain in one game of  Lgdr. Spain started with two players. Trouble was both players submitted orders each turn and some conflicted so some orders were not put through from both players.

I think the players kind of got frustrated with paying for orders and not knowing if they would get passed or not. One player dropped fairly quickly, not sure about the other. In hindsight, that tactic did not really work out.

G7 started with a Spanish Bourbon player and a Spanish Hapsburg player (Me   ) on the Royal Council of Spain.

Oddly for the day to day running of Spain the Royal Council worked quite well....to avoid confused NPCs we agreed to split up duties & use x2 Military orders each.

In the event while I was strongly Pro Hapsburg the Bourbon faction turned out to be only really interested in keeping the Spanish Empire United, they also wanted to annex Portugal who was being a real pain at the time (Note if events which occured in G8 or G10 had been attempted in G7 I suspect Lisbon and Savoy would still be burning).

The whole Council also agreed that we did not like being told what to do by Louis XIV and was tempted by the approach of the Holy Roman Empire and the the Anglo-Dutch who were offering us drill bored cannon, dredgers, platoon fire, East Indiamen, mutual defence pacts etc if we did not Crown a Frenchman and allowed free trade.

Final agreement of whole Royal Council was throw the partition treaty into the bin (Bourbon faction policy) and Crown Charles von Hapsburg (Hapsburg faction policy).  With all our non aggression pacts (France & England) and mutual defence treaties (Austria & UDP) we were all set to invade Portugal and unite Iberia when both the Spanish Bourbon player and the pain in Lisbon dropped out of the game.

A famine, Pirate attacks on Havanna, Apache cattle raiders, Ottomans and a Franco-Jacobite plot to take over the British Isles etc, etc left a single player Spain with more than enough to deal with without trying to push the Bourbon faction dream of a united Iberia.  Also the replacement player for Portugal sent me a nice letter so we sent him a £2m loan to develop Gold Mining in Brazil rather than a declaration of war.

Unless you really want to screw up Spain and see what players in directly conflicting positions do I think it might be more interesting if you had several Spanish Empire positions without saying you are "Hapsburg" or "Bourbon" faction and just allowed them to split or unite as they see fit round the legitimate heirs (please no more miracle babies or forged treaties!).

Though to be fair the start of G7 was really interesting with a a real feeling of Crisis, working against the clock and a backs to the wall situation for both Spanish players.  Though probably not everyone would enjoy a famine mixed with a feeling that we are about to get smashed by invaders with half the country and Portugal on the side of the invaders.  Think what saved G7 Spain was the fact that the Council did not split, Austria was only interested in a Hapsburg Spain not nicking Milan or other bits and the French were always more interested in their feud with the Anglo-Dutch and did not fancy getting stuck on the wrong side of the Ebro while a Cardinal headed into the hills to preach Holy War.

Also for those who are interested if you can get over the Crisis Spain is a really nice position(s).  I say positions since even if the whole Empire is being run by one player it still plays like several medium positions rather than one large position.  All with rather different concerns and problems.  Having now played Hapsburg Spain for quite a while I am now of the opinion as a player (not my character) that life is a lot easier if you are a Bourbon and get on well with the French Court (not a given either in History or in game).

Maybe the answer to multiple player positions is to have a number of active viceroys, whilst leaving the king NPC to act as a brake on overzealous behaviour, plu sputin a clause that they are not allowed to attak each other in military ways, possibly introduce an" influence at court " score as a sub plot to honour score, just for the faction in question, to see how much they can sway the court by their actions.

Maybe an idea to get fresh blood in is to offer some of the smaller positions at a lower price but also on the understanding that they have a limited order input, in a similar way to Swashbuckler positions. If people can get hooked on some of the smaller posiitons it will improve the game for all of us & maybe some of the newbies could progress onto other positions.

The governing factors are as always time & money, until one or both is taken into account there will remain a log jam.

I sit better for the game to get 5 new players all paying 10 pounds each or a single player taking on a Huge position & paying 60 pounds, economically & time wise for Agema is the single player option probably attractive, but for many of us getting five rather than 1 new position active would improve our in game enjoyment. Having the HRR Empire half full would make for an interesting diplomatic tug-o-war between Paris & Vienna.

That was the position I have tried to take forward as French Bourbons - a viceroy controlling Milan (Savoy), a viceroy controlling Naples (Genoa), a viceroy controlling Flanders (corsairs). This would have shared wealth and power and influence without making France too powerful, and engaging and interesting for other powers. That still left plenty of other options for other players - Spain, Spanish colonies. It seems that the fat lady has still to sing so the game continues......

I'd like to take that approach in game 8. I think it's a great idea.

Hispania is big, and I'd like to 'conquer' more stuff, but I don't really want a bigger position, but it would be fun to support other players who want to be your viceroys, client-allies or the like.

I agree that more active players is better than a few big dogs.

I think the Ottomans would also work with a NPC Sultan and players taking on positions as Ministers/Pasha's etc.

Thus the Empire gets pulled between "Westerners" & "Easterners" but they should not be in a fight for the throne. Perhaps if you can win the support of the Sultan for your campaign you should get help from NPC Ottoman positions and PC positions who do not provide help should suffer a fall in honour.

Ref Spanish Viceroy's I have had one (The Viceroy of Africa) played in G7. I miss not having Martel to exchange letters with.....pity that since he has left the Post Office has gone bankrupt, ditto his Royal Bank of Africa and we will not go into the diplomatic problems caused for Madrid due to having a Minister of the Crown trying to overthrow the Government of a foreign power (England).

On the plus side he did bring Dredgers and East Indiamen to the Spainish Empire & has helped establish it as the place to be for dynamic seafarers and merchants.

I've decided to join the big game to after all of you made me damned interested in it, not sure what yet but won't be over a ten pound position. I ordered the rules today.

tkolter wrote:I've decided to join the big game to after all of you made me damned interested in it, not sure what yet but won't be over a ten pound position. I ordered the rules today.

All positions have their pro's and cons & cost really reflects how you write your orders. Though if you pick a landlocked power with no colonies you will not be tempted to use orders & cash on ships & colonies.

As a rough rule of thumb ref G10 I would say:

1) If you want to help the game = Spain (as a first position its a bit like getting the hang of swimming by jumping in at the deep end minus your rubber ring)

2) If you want a nice out of the way position were you can build up in peace and talk to people about trade = Persia or one of the Indian positions (But you may wish to avoid the Great Mughul position which suffers from Religious splits)

3) A co-operative position where you can talk and get help from experienced players (Somewhere in the The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth).

4) A position which puts you on the edge of the main European Game but able to talk to both sides and consider offers = Liege-Cologne, Prussia or Lorraine.

5) If you want a be abused = Jacobites

6) If you want to abuse others = Ottomans (My first position was Ottoman Rumelia.......I got invaded on turn 1!)

Finally I have never played it and do not have a clue about its problems (apart from the odd Swede who wants to unite Scandinavia) but I have been told that Denmark is a good starter position for the player who wants a bit of everything a sort of Glori du Roi taster.

- It is a Naval Power with some scattered colonies in the America's and India
- You can look and up talk to people about the Baltic Trade
- Front row seat for the Great Northern War
- Related to the English Royal Family by marriage of George of Denmark to Princess Anne (Historically some of the Duke of Marlbough's best troops were Danish)

Have fun

Stuart

My first position was Denmark in G3-a slightly reduced Denmark it has to be said as Sweden had taken Norway-but I'd support Stuart in that it is a good beginners position for the reasons Stuart gave. You have colonies, opportunities for strong trade, and (in theory) a good navy and army. You have Iceland and a claim on Greenland (uninhabited)

The downside can be if Sweden wants to revive the Kalmar Union or if someone decides to start the Great Northern War. Greenland could be a challenge, do you try and establish a settlement there or perhaps flog it off?

If you want to keep turn costs down, then Spain is right out!

One of the smaller positions in the Holy Roman Empire would be good starter positions, as would perhaps one of the ottoman states, Ottoman Syria or Egypt.

It is very, very easy for costs to escalate. You have so many options as a ruler it can be hard not to take on more things. So my strong suggestion is that if keeping turn costs as low as possible is important to you, keep yourself very focused.

When I started my Swashbuckler character Richard did say to me that he would prefer if I played it in a different game to the The Glory of Kings game I was involved in. Though if I really did want to play Swashbuckler and TGOK in the same Game, something could be sorted out. [Obviously dropping Swashbuckler and picking up a TGOK position in Game 10 is another possibility, if this was the case.]


One thing that I've discovered that works for me, when picking and playing a TGOK position, is the fact that I can't handle too much happening at once, or deal with too many options on things to build or research. I also struggle with dealing with lots of diplomatic letters or in-game diplomacy. Hence why I chose the isolated sub-Saharan Africa position of Rozwi (it also doesn't hurt that Christianity, or any other major religion, isn't represented in this playing position - which I don't particularly understand and find can become a sticking point when encountering a religious problem). With Rozwi I can interact with other players as and when I choose, and I mainly just play against the GM in my turns. Playing the Tribal African position wouldn't be to the liking of a lot of players, no doubt. But it works for me. Another positive, with Rozwi, is the lack of options, and not having to deal with lots of Player Controlled neighbour states helps to keep the payment costs down. I had to use the Extra Orders option to build up the state infrastructure and get some research options available to this Tribal position, but now those are set in motion I'm just getting by on the minimum spend each turn and playing the Army.

true, being isolated is a good way to keep turns more manageable.

Other options along these lines are Thailand(Siam), Burma, and Korea. All smaller, isolated positions that can interact if they choose.

Burma/Thailand even have a bit of conquest they can do to rule their small corner of the world.

But if you're doing one of the non-European positions, I think you also have to have some interest in learning about the history/culture if you're going to do the position with some roleplay.

Most of the smaller European positions are a bit easier to research google-wise I've found.

Deacon wrote:...one of the ottoman states, Ottoman Syria or Egypt.

Dammit. I was hoping Egypt was Player Controlled, as I've sent them a letter last turn asking for Grain (since they use the same money as Rozwi and a quick sail down the coast of Africa wouldn't be too much trouble for their grain merchants).

I know Egypt sold to the Crimea the other turn, but is the Crimea an Islamic state in the game? And would a NPC Egypt sell to a non-Muslim nation? Possibly somebody on here will know, please.

Deacon wrote:But if you're doing one of the non-European positions, I think you also have to have some interest in learning about the history/culture if you're going to do the position with some roleplay.

Yes. Definitely a good point. That does actually fit into my own enjoyment. Luckily, with Rozwi, I'm able to splice together bits and pieces of various African cultures and practices, as long as they fit the same Bantu/Bantoid-style.



Obviously another 'easy' option is a Pirate position. I tried to go it alone and its a bit stymied, I found. I should have allied my West Indies Pirates with another Player power and asked for control of some areas of land and income to play about with. One option I, possibly, wouldn't mind having a try at, is Wako Pirates and ally with the Japanese and build up a small 'baronetcy' on some of the outlying islands - as long as the Japanese were Player Controlled and happy to have a smaller ally.

If you want to try game 8, my position (hispania) was originally allied to Burma which had already conquered a very small neighbor.