Choosing a Nation

So whilst I am deliberating my next set of orders for the positions that I play I got on to what positions I have actually played in the past and noticed that I tend to avoid the bigger factions such as France. I did for a short amount of time have a brief dalliance with playing England and found that I just couldn't keep up. So now I tend to take the smaller more medium sized nations where I can rely on my own diplomatic skills to get me through ha ha.

In my short tenure I have played a broad spectrum of nations from the Prussians to Koreans.

I am wondering if any of you out there lean towards specific positions or type of positions or what is the reasoning behind your choices.

Have Played:

England - Too BIG a game position for me. Game closed before I could play more than a few turns.

Russia - BIG position. I didn't have it long (can't remember why - but probably my choice), but I found the freedom to explore where I could take Russia too much for me. Do I go with the Baltic? The Southern areas, and come up against the Cossacks, or the Persians if further East. Do I look right the way to the East and make a nuisance of myself with 'India' or China. Then there's the religious issues and the need to 'modernise'. Do you try to open a window on the West, and build a Petersburg? Also, the culture differences between Russians and Western Europeans, I couldn't quite get my head around it, so found if difficult to roleplay.

Savoy-Piedmont - played it twice. First time was my first ever go at LGDR, back in 1999 - And I made a right arse out of it. Second time I had to quit due to personal reasons, but I was getting the hang of the (smaller) position. If I replayed a nation the size of Savoy, now, I'd have a better understanding of what to focus on in the short term, and what to allow to be ignored until the long term. Only issue that I made for myself was trying to be too Catholic, when I don't know the first thing about the Catholic Church, so I made a rod for my own back.

Black Beard - played it twice. I found the freedom of not worrying about other nations and diplomacy very refreshing, though the lack of being able to 'nation build' was sorely missing for me (though I did 'borrow' Jamaica for a period). I didn't mind playing as a pirate - though I wasn't very good at it, as I didn't have a plan, nor was I bold enough. I also didn't have the experience of Agema games that I do now, what works and what doesn't, and what I'm good at and what I'm not. The only issue I'd have with playing Black Beard again would be the actual playing cost. Its difficult to know how little, or how much to do, for the position - as it starts off very 'tiny'. If you just want to be a pirate and cause a little chaos then paying £10 a turn would be a case of the player not working at getting their money's worth. If they aimed to take the pirate position further, then that'd need a little experience and a bold plan that would need to be worked at, but the position's resources are so limiting at the start of the game. If anything, playing Black Beard might be case of hybridising Swashbuckler and TGOK for such positions. £5 for the Swashbuckler part of roleplaying the pirate, and £5 for the TGOK part of commanding some ships and the Pirate's Den.

Rozwi - Current position. Position is the size of Savoy. There's the freedom to ignore what is happening in the rest of the World, and mostly ignore diplomacy. You can nation build, though a little imagination is needed by the player when calling things by the game's 'European' titles. Only has an army, so there isn't a need to worry about two military expenses. It only started with one 'city' - though it now has been graced with a second - so there's no need to worry about what to spend and where. Knowledge of 1700s isn't essential as Rozwi is so removed from it all, that researching anything about the C19th Zulus will work, I've found - or other such peoples in Southern Africa - or even such things as Bronze Age Britain (as the level of technology that Rozwi enjoys is at that level) or Ancient Egypt to get ideas of how your ruler can be roleplayed (obviously swapping Hippopotamus hunts for Lions etc.). You also don't have to worry about technological 'arms races' between neighbours, or all the little things in the resource books that are available to be bought for your cities or regiments - 90% of them don't apply to the Rozwi.

If I'm being honest to myself, knowing what I can and can't do, and looking at LGDR / TGOK with the level of experience of playing Agema games that I now have, I'd solely pick Tribal positions to play from now on. Southern African especially, as there's so much freedom in that area of the World and the positions shouldn't come with any 'baggage' of history.

The Pope Game 3, got my feet wet with this position, and made a number of errors in economic things. Was an interesting start to the game. Biggest challenge was that everybody else had been playing forever and the position had hardly been played. Was way behind in everything. But then you're the Pope, so being backwards is part of the gig I guess :-). Second biggest challenge was that most players had been in the game for years/decades. New kid on the block can only do so much. Had to drop when I ran into some finance issues.

Jacobites Game 7 - Picked the position up right after the English murdered the first King James in cold blood. Intended to enforce my will upon england, but not uproot parliament, etc. Had to drop, and have watched in horror and fascination as the game has unfolded. I certainly wouldn't have gone full tyrant as the current Jacobites have, but it makes for a great game to watch!

Portugal - Morphed into Hispania I joined game 8 as my first true new game with my wife who played Burma. Richard was ok with us being 'relatively allied' if we were halfway around the world from each other, and he could monitor to make sure we weren't getting too cozy. She had to drop when the finances hit (I've tried to talk her back with no luck). I had planned to just be a quiet nation and mess a lot with my own colonies, but the rumblings out of Spain made me think that when the Spanish Succession was over, I would be one of the first courses on the menu. That snowballed rather quickly into my position in game 8. While I enjoy the heck out of it, I am not getting near another really big position because the work to even try to keep it all running and together is crazy.

I also have a smaller position in game 10. Trying to see what I can accomplish by staying close to the turn costs.

For myself, I tend to prefer the smaller or more unusual positions

Denmark-my first position (in G3). Was a weak Denmark (no Norway, poor economy, weak military) but it gave me a good taste for the games.

China-played in various games, both Kwantung and Manchuria. I think I find the Chinese positions my favourite ones. They are large in terms of population but have many unusual challenges and so much potential...

England-played briefly once. Sort of enjoyed it but it was a big position and so much to do. I think it was playing England that made me realise I preferred smaller positions.

Russia-taken it on by default, not sure what I make of it yet. Bit concerned its going to be expensive.

Hanover-was quite fun, had so much money couldn't spend it quick enough. Think though was a position more suitable to a wargamer. You are right in the heart of Europe, once the wars start you are bound to get really caught up. The position had been vacant for some time and t cost me a lot as I tried to develop it. Might one day be interesting to play it from the start to see if it is as well off to begin with.

Scotland-on second position. Enjoy it as live there and have good access to the historical records for Scotland of the time. It's one of the smaller positions, a range of challenges but want to prove it can be a strong nation its own right and work well with England.

Perisa-taken on recently, still getting the hang of it. Took it on primarily as have some family links to Persia/Iran and just fancied playing a bit of family history.

As a rule if I want to get involved in a new game I do look for the smaller positions, I just feel you can achieve more (in terms of nation building) in those. The Duchy of Lorraine has an appeal, partly because I don't know much about it and that adds to the fun for me. I sometimes wonder about asking Richard for a micro-position, something like the surviving Hanseatic League cities (Hamburg/Bremen/Lubeck) in one or even some Pacific island nation of the time-Tonga I think was still quite a maritime power and had large ocean-going war canoes.

As a rule if I want to get involved in a new game I do look for the smaller positions, I just feel you can achieve more (in terms of nation building) in those. The Duchy of Lorraine has an appeal, partly because I don't know much about it and that adds to the fun for me. I sometimes wonder about asking Richard for a micro-position, something like the surviving Hanseatic League cities (Hamburg/Bremen/Lubeck) in one or even some Pacific island nation of the time-Tonga I think was still quite a maritime power and had large ocean-going war canoes. wrote:

I had always considered asking whether I could take a native American position, it could be a very interesting position to be in.

Jason wrote:For myself, I tend to prefer the smaller or more unusual positions

Denmark-my first position (in G3).  Was a weak Denmark (no Norway, poor economy, weak military) but it gave me a good taste for the games.

China-played in various games, both Kwantung and Manchuria.  I think I find the Chinese positions my favourite ones.  They are large in terms of population but have many unusual challenges  and so much potential...

England-played briefly once.  Sort of enjoyed it but it was a big position and so much to do.  I think it was playing England that made me realise I preferred smaller positions.

Russia-taken it on by default, not sure what I make of it yet.  Bit concerned its going to be expensive.

Hanover-was quite fun, had so much money couldn't spend it quick enough.  Think though was a position more suitable to a wargamer.  You are right in the heart of Europe, once the wars start you are bound to get really caught up.   The position had been vacant for some time and t cost me a lot as I tried to develop it. Might one day be interesting to play it from the start to see if it is as well off to begin with.

Scotland-on second position.  Enjoy it as live there and have good access to the historical records for Scotland of the time.  It's one of the smaller positions, a range of challenges but want to prove it can be a strong nation its own right and work well with England.

Perisa-taken on recently, still getting the hang of it.  Took it on primarily as have some family links to Persia/Iran and just fancied playing a bit of family history.  

As a rule if I want to get involved in a new game I do look for the smaller positions, I just feel you can achieve more (in terms of nation building) in those.  The Duchy of Lorraine has an appeal, partly because I don't know much about it and that adds to the fun for me.  I sometimes wonder about asking Richard for a micro-position, something like the surviving Hanseatic League cities (Hamburg/Bremen/Lubeck) in one or even some Pacific island nation of the time-Tonga I think was still quite a maritime power and had large ocean-going war canoes.

Yes m8. Russia will be expensive.

In my experience. The expensive nations are France, Russia, Moghul India, England, Spain. The really expensive countries are the ones with the largest populations/ recruits and the most oversees territories. The above 5 can be very expensive if you don't limit yourself each turn.

I play Moghul India and after half a dozen years spend £30 - £40 a turn.

i was thinking about a fact.

Has anybody ever tried to create Italy in a game? Being italian is a sort of common goal in many games i play. But in this historical age, the concept of Italy was far away from existing i think.
The in-game complexity of the action should also be massive! Should Venice, Tuscany or Savoy try, they should take over at least four independent playing position, plus a huge portion of Spanish Italy, not to mention the papacy.
I think it should be near to impossible, as a task.
Your opinion?

Very hard.

You'd have to either start as the Pope and justify the conquest which I think would be hard, or you're a catholic who has to invade the pope.

I'd guess spain has the best chance, since they're big and powerful and start with naples. If you're not them, then you have the pope and Spain to overcome!

Deacon wrote:
Very hard.

You'd have to either start as the Pope and justify the conquest which I think would be hard, or you're a catholic who has to invade the pope.

I'd guess spain has the best chance, since they're big and powerful and start with naples.  If you're not them, then you have the pope and Spain to overcome!

Even only to unify the northern part, in such a reduced spawn of time, is a terrible challenge!

(Truth is i was thinking to get into a second game, with a smaller nation, and try to go for development and colonization. I'd like some kind of underdog position in western europe, so not UDP, Venice or Portugal, bu i can't decide. Savoy would be nice, or a northern german position. But i cannot understand how german positions are formed.

For example who owns Hamburg? Hannover? and mecklemburg? is a position? with are the positions in HRE (i know Prussia-Brandenburg; Bavaria; Saxony)

I had never thought of Italian unification as a game objective but like the idea. It would become quite a strong position too

I'm sure I can remember Hamburg being part of a Hanseatic League position in one of the older games. I don't know any details, unfortunately.

In game 8 it looks like The Principality of Hanover is a sovereign state ruled by a prince. At least the newspaper has the Prince of Hanover as 2nd in the Honour scores, and Hanover gets its own mention in the newspaper.

count-de-monet wrote:I had never thought of Italian unification as a game objective but like the idea. It would become quite a strong position too

In the process of over running Venice & Milan plus large parts of the Papal States and Florence my character killed a Doge of Venice, a Doge of Venice and the Viceroy of Milan, forced a mostly Spanish Army to surrender in Milan and cut a Papal Army to bits. With the old rape, loot and plunder with added burning carried to the walls of Rome, Naples, Genoa and across Savoy into France.

Think Italy was fairly united against Leyerbey Iskander Kruppa and the "Army of the Will of God". Does that count as Italian Unification?

Stuart Bailey wrote:Does that count as Italian Unification?    

Interesting question that. I don't know what the game was like after such victories, but possibly it was like this?

From a Conqueror's viewpoint, yes. Unification. Sort of. Just like Napoleon's Empire or Hitler's Reich.

From a not peacefully governed, armed resistance and rioting mobs howling their discontent, viewpoint, no. Not very unified, in that the populations haven't assimilated into the conqueror's 'civilisation'. Just like Napoleon's Empire or Hitler's Reich.

Hmm, not the best of examples.

Unifying everyone against you, just like... Yes, unification. Job done. If the value of a man is to be measured by the strength of his enemies, then well done

Have played:

1) Rumelia: After answering an advert in minature Wargames magazine I was given a position five years into G2 with large chunks marked in Red as being lost to hostile powers, a coastline guarded by a grand fleet of 60 galleys marked as decayed. All of which gave me the worrying feeling that as an ancient and renaissance period wargamer I was about 200 years out of period. By the end of turn one I had been invaded by the Sultan, Adrianople had been sacked by the Janissary Corp and I had 10,000 Sultanate Troops dead under the walls of Athens. On turn two I surrendered while Revolting Moldavians laughed at the Ottomans. On Turn 3 got a pardon from the Sultan and order "to bring me the head of the Hopsdar" and just pretty much carried on from there really. Got one character assassinated (By Venice or the Bey of Egypt......probably the later but blamed the former) and got sacked as Grand Vizier twice.

If Ottoman players co-operate Rumelia is a interesting position but if they do not you are in the front line and outclassed by Austrians on land, outnumbered and outclassed by Venice at Sea and outnumbered by the Russians. Basically its a good position for a wargamer who wants to work in a team & likes a challenge. It also has all the fun of being a Religious Minority Govt

2) Pfalz : accepted challenge from friend to play a minor German State without killing anyone. Took over Pfalz which had already been well established and played loveable Old Elector who spent his time moaning about number of custom's stickers on his tobacco imports (and trying to create a Rhineland Customs Union), modern music, modern art and the shocking morality of the youth of Germany who were clearly falling under decadent French influence. With Austria in a sulk about something & Bavaria NPC the Catholic Elector in the Empire finally ended up electing Prince Rupert of Pfalz Holy Roman Emperor & honour score went up to 63.

Western German States like Pfalz, Munster, Hanover do not seem to be as popular with players as the Eastern ones like Saxony, Prussia etc but they are good small positions for players who like Nation Building and friendly diplomacy.

3) Great Lord of Poland & Elector of Saxony/King of Poland - Have attempted twice to do something with the Commonwealth in its current more historic form (In G1 & G2 it was a super power). Twice attempt ruined by famines but it just seems impossible to make progress. I think the Commonwealth needs several players willing to co-operate. And those players need to be good diplomats, good with finance and very patient. I wish the G10 Great Lord all the Best.

Bit like Rumelia poition is one for the player who wants to run against the historic tide and see if they can do better.

4) Austria : Asked Richard if I could have Sweden or Austria in a new game wondering what its like to have a good Army. Positions taken was taken sent Austria in another game.

Spain had been settled with Austria having gained Duchy of Milan and nothing much was happening in Germany so I sort of jogged along for a bit. Then accepted a Russian Proposal to invade Ottoman Empire at same time as the Czar and his Persian Ally mostly to see how he view looks from the other side of the hill. Pity game folded when it did as things were just getting interesting.

Minus the Colonial and Naval issues of the other major powers Austria is probably the most cheap and easy of the major powers to run. But tends to be reactive and it is really a position for good and active diplomats.

5) Persia (In LAK)........West to liberate the poor Shia groaning under the Sunni Ottoman Yoke? North to sort out the Khanates? Or over the Hindu Kush to help liberte lots of plunder..... that is the Question?

Great pity LAK folded the turn after I had been proclaimed Great Moghul - to universal celebrations and joy acoss Persia and India.

Persia is a really good position for the type of player who likes to plan and plot and then suddenly make a move. But can feel a bit isolated.

6) Spain......opposite of Persia in that you rarely feel left out and normally feel involved in one crisis or another. Run well the Spanish position can gererate huge amounts or cash and recruits but its a geographic nightmare. Best player of position would probably have a PHD in crisis management! and good diplomatic skills (deep pockets a added bonus).

"Western German States like Pfalz, Munster, Hanover do not seem to be as popular with players as the Eastern ones like Saxony, Prussia etc but they are good small positions for players who like Nation Building and friendly diplomacy. "

An interesting point Stuart. I wonder if it's partly because they tend to be states that people haven't heard of or see as being historically (and given the nature of the game, militarily) significant? Other than Hanover, I doubt most people could really tell you they had heard of either of the Hesse's or Wurtemburg (the other minor Western German states listed on the current position list).
Oddly the position doesn't include Brunswick, I would have thought that was significant enough to be played, esp as it rules the Duchy of Lauenburg as well. Or is it a smaller position, population and resource wise, than I imagine?

my list is too big,

However in a nutshell, how much time can you devote to a position?

Big nation require a lot of work, medium are ok, small are fun,

then there is special ones:

These I play for fun and just laugh .

"My best" positions for cauing mayhem were: Venice and Blackbeard

Venice because it is small and hard to get money in BUT you can do a lot with a small budget. Blackbeard because you can anything to any one and get honour, but just keep being bad

Big Nations: Russia, Russia and Russia again. Have a soft spot for Russia loads of potential and expansion.

Meduim, Poland is hard unless you have players in the other part of the commonwealth, German states are good.

so take your pick

Syuat Bailey wrote:3) Great Lord of Poland & Elector of Saxony/King of Poland - Have attempted twice to do something with the Commonwealth in its current more historic form (In G1 & G2 it was a super power). Twice attempt ruined by famines but it just seems impossible to make progress. I think the Commonwealth needs several players willing to co-operate. And those players need to be good diplomats, good with finance and very patient. I wish the G10 Great Lord all the Best.

If you can get 4 players into the commonwealth, then as a Russian player and sweden I would be very afraid, they will take most nations down. Historically in Game 1 it was 1 nation and nearly swamped Europe, hence why Richard made it a 4 player commonwealth.

Kingmaker wrote:

Syuat Bailey wrote:3) Great Lord of Poland & Elector of Saxony/King of Poland - Have attempted twice to do something with the Commonwealth in its current more historic form (In G1 & G2 it was a super power). Twice attempt ruined by famines but it just seems impossible to make progress. I think the Commonwealth needs several players willing to co-operate. And those players need to be good diplomats, good with finance and very patient. I wish the G10 Great Lord all the Best.  

If you can get 4 players into the commonwealth, then as a Russian player and sweden I would be very afraid, they will take most nations down. Historically in Game 1 it was 1 nation and nearly swamped Europe, hence why Richard made it a 4 player commonwealth.

But technically, if you play Saxony you should be also the king od Poland AND have unlimited access to Polish resurces (ie taxes and Manpower), even if only to implement the polish kingdom, or not?

King has no power he is an elected monarchy it needs all 4 heads of the commonwealth to agree to go to war and every one in the Polish Sjem must vote in favour. The King is head of state has no power

The great lord of Poland is the one who controls Poland and can spend money and recruits king is just a prestige position to have no power

Kingmaker wrote:The great lord of Poland is the one who controls Poland and can spend money and recruits king is just a prestige position to have no power

cool, thanks!

Personal opinion is that if you want a reasonably safe position, or just want to try & get a feel for the game then some of the German states are good beginner positions, Especially if the Kaiser is doing his job. Basically the HRR, is a loose "team " position. There is/ should be a degree of self interest from fellow Imperial players to see you get off to a good start, the imperial safety net is there to help you if you fall.

Virtually all of the Germanies have respectable military traditions, albeit they are usually small. The smaller populations also allow for the development of Population based improvements for example Judiciary, Medical services. Also the development of various infrastructure projects are all within reach in a relativly short space of time.

There is also the bonus of not having to invest huge amounts of real time & money unless you really want to, which for beginners maybe a bonus. If you wish there is also a great deal of scope for developing your rulers personality in more of a role play direction, which could open up new game aspects a sort of bridge between the Swashbuckler game & the main frame positions.

There is always the danger of having your position invaded by a larger neighbour & expansion of the initial position isn't easy as it probably means that you will end up attacking a fellow Imperial Prince which may upset Vienna. But that is where your diplomatic skills need to come to the fore, Or maybe folloe the Historical path & go for dynastic union through marriage .

Baden, Wurtemburg, Hess Kassel, Hess Darmstadt, Brunswick, Munster, Liege-Cologne,Hanover, BAVARIA, are all good starting points all have potential, all could have most probably have risen to prominence like Prussia was able to had circumstances & history gone differently, Then again that is what LGDR is all about.

J Flower wrote:Personal opinion is that if you want a reasonably safe position, or just want to try & get a feel for the game then some of the German states are good beginner positions, Especially if the Kaiser is doing his job. Basically the HRR, is a loose "team " position. There is/ should be a degree of self interest from fellow Imperial players to see you get off to a good start, the imperial safety net is there to help you if you fall.

Virtually all of the Germanies have respectable military traditions, albeit they are usually small. The smaller populations also allow for the development of Population based improvements for example Judiciary, Medical services. Also the development of various infrastructure projects are all within reach in a relativly short space of time.

There is also the bonus of not having to invest huge amounts of real time & money unless you really want to, which for beginners maybe a bonus. If you wish there is also a great deal of scope for developing your rulers personality in more of a role play direction, which could open up new game aspects a sort of bridge between the Swashbuckler game & the main frame positions.

There is always the danger of having your position invaded by a larger neighbour & expansion of the initial position isn't easy as it probably means that you will end up attacking a fellow Imperial Prince which may upset Vienna. But that is where your diplomatic skills need to come to the fore, Or maybe folloe the Historical path & go for dynastic union through marriage .

Baden, Wurtemburg,  Hess Kassel, Hess Darmstadt, Brunswick, Munster, Liege-Cologne,Hanover,  BAVARIA, are all good starting points all have potential, all could have most probably have risen to prominence like Prussia was able to had circumstances & history gone differently, Then again that is what LGDR is all about.

That is EXACTLY was i was thinking about. Russia is a huge, massive, great & beautiful position to play, but it takes time to develop, and a lot of work and devotion. It becomes difficult then to take everything under control and you lose a bit of roleplay (wich is an aspect i love).

I wonder if there is scope for mini positions in game that would overlap between Swashbuckler & Main game, somewhere like the Duke of Lippe- Schaumberg (Detmold) or the Free Hanastic City of Hamburg, they would have small territories & armies where Numbers are not needed because the CinC is on first name terms with his troops & their families. May encourage some cheap start up positions where for little effort you get a feel for both games before taking a plunge into either.

Lippe? Wasn't that the place that during the 7 Years War managed to have an all-arms army of something like 1,100 men and a population of 15,000?

I do agree,I think there is space for this sort of micro-position and not just for new players. I think they would generally be rather fun positions to play.

Hamburg would be particularly interesting, small army and in 1700 a more powerful navy than Scotland (ok 3 ships but more powerful than Scotland's 3) and quite a trading (and banking?) city. I think it would be a great one for a bit of character roleplaying, lots of statements in the papers, indulging in a lot of diplomacy.