Variant Rule Games: What Would You Like?

I think some maybe missing two key points regarding the two nation idea.

Firstly. Will players have the time to play two turns in one go. Two positions per turn.? A lot more time needed. From what I see, often players apologising for not sending letters due to time. A lot of players would not have time to do this.

Secondly. Will Richard have to time to complete a turn with many more positions involved without delaying the turns considerably. Looking at turnaround time now, I fail to see how Richard could keep to current timescales. Which some bemoan are too long now.

Yep, two good points there.

In my case, for sake of discussion, I would have the time to play two positions as Rozwi isn't a huge time drain and diplomacy is basic. However, I'd only want to take on a smaller position in addition in the same Game. As, A) I wouldn't want to sicken myself with the repetitiveness of running two nations and doing the same tasks, one and after the other, seesawing both nations. And, B) I couldn't afford to pay for another nation requiring additional orders payments, as I don't have the disposable income to do so - mainly as such money gets spent on toy soldiers for wargaming, at present.  

However, in all honesty, I doubt I'd pick up another nation, in any game, as I don't want to spoil the good thing I've got going with Rozwi. Playing two games of TGOK might just be the straw that broke the camel's back for me and make me get sick of playing for whatever reason. Looking at it sensibly, I think the better option for myself would be to play a Swashbuckler character in Game 10, but a character with some clout and importance in the game - maybe even a female lady / minor noble who can mix it up at court in an established position that likes to roleplay, or as a character introduced into a TGOK position where the main player isn't so much a roleplayer and would be willing to work as a team and allow such a Swashbuckler character to add something else to the nation being played and help Honour to be raised through diplomacy and roleplaying in the newspaper?

Adding a Swashbuckler character, such as the above, might be easier to shoehorn into a game then adding a 'second-played' nation, for both the players and the GM.

Maybe an idea would be to have the larger powers bulked out a bit so you have all of China, all Of the Holy Roman Empire, The full Ottoman Empire. British Empire. French Empire Russian Empire,Spanish Empire.A Baltic Position combining Sweden& Denmark. & Basically have less players but with Much larger positions.With some of the remaining smaller powers acting as vassal states So you would have about 10-12 Major positions, which is probably about the same number of active players we on average have in a game.

That's an interesting idea!

Yes. I like the idea also.

The only snag could come for some people would be cost. The bigger the position the greater cost per turn. Or could Richard keep costs the same as less work on non playing positions.?

If such a game came up for lgdr, I would be in.

J Flower wrote:Maybe an idea would be to have the larger powers bulked out a bit so you have all of China, all Of the Holy Roman Empire, The full Ottoman Empire. British Empire. French Empire Russian Empire,Spanish Empire.A Baltic Position combining Sweden& Denmark. & Basically have less players but with Much larger positions.With some of the remaining smaller powers acting as vassal states So you would have about 10-12 Major positions, which is probably about the same number of active players we on average have in a game.

For sure some of the positions actually splitted aren't so attractive as the full one. but i think is more a balancing issue.

Let us say you play all Ottoman empire in just one go. It would be very hard, i think, for richard to recreate the fleebile basic power of the sultan, the massive intrigue & so on. So sooner or later you would have a reinassanced ottoman empire conquering the world. Having it splitted in parts, thus less attractive if you can't manage to gather a bounch of friends to play (wich is anyway a good marketing option) helps keeping it in balance i think, as you can't be as coordinated as one, and different honour goals can simulate the different objectives any position has.


Might i propose a slightly different element?

In the moment i'm writing we have no info on the "level of occupation" of the active games. We also have a slightly different perception of the available positions, as for example we all thought Milan was playable, when in truth it is not.
Would be nice to have a list of available position per game, and may be a list of players wishing to join if some conditions exist (i.e. I would not play Ottoman alone, but i might consider joining a team of players).
silly?

How about a team game? You join with other folks on a team of nations?

So for instance, "The war of Spanish Succession". You're on the side of one or the other and it's on!

Your nation could choose to switch sides, maybe with honour impacts, and you're free to act, but you start as part of a pre-defined team.

Could do something similar with some of the smaller positions in Germany, maybe.

Deacon wrote:How about a team game? You join with other folks on a team of nations?

So for instance, "The war of Spanish Succession". You're on the side of one or the other and it's on!

Your nation could choose to switch sides, maybe with honour impacts, and you're free to act, but you start as part of a pre-defined team.

Could do something similar with some of the smaller positions in Germany, maybe.

I think you could achieve this results by moving slightly foward the starting date of the game. War of spanish succession and great northern war are triggered, and you have to play.
But probably it would also change somehow the flavour of the game.

Deacons idea of a team game brought me onto the idea of a mixed game, a mix between a Napoleonic Battles( with rules adapted for Historical period/ reality) & Lgdr, It could go either was either LGDR with battles, or Wargaming tabletop style with higher levels of diplomacy, Probably best as a team game, with teams locked into Historical framework, so for example Savoy would have the option at some point of swapping sides. Probably best not as a global game, but rather only those positions involved in the actual war. If you were to play for example the WSS then you could also have a point where historically the game ends as well.
Although there are only a few large positions, extra positions could be filled with Generals & Admirals.

Or you could go a step further down & only have the generals & Admirals, with Agema running the National framework. A bit like the old WW1 game.

If such a game ever happens Jason volunteers to build and command the Russian Navy in the GNW

Not sure if the GNW would work on a Govt/HQ (s) and fronts basis like the Agema WW1 game but I think the WSS has possibilities. Since this is a war fought on different fronts and Govts had to make judgements about what resouces to send to which front commander(s).

So historically French campaigns in Spain & Italy were stopped by major defeats in Flanders & the resources of the Emperor was greatly sapped by the success of the revolt in Hungary.

The fact that the French Govt/HQ commands the vast majority of resources on one side and is involved with Spain/Flanders/German/Italian & Naval/Colonial fronts while in the other side resources are split between English/Dutch/Imperial could well bring out the united V divided command issues which helped Louis in his earlier wars but which Churchill & Eugine coped with so well.

Still it will be interesting to see how things play out if Churchill & main English Army goes to Spain & Eugine spends all his time in Italy/Germany.

I am willing to sink any navy I'm given command of, admitted having me as a naval commander on your team may not inspire you, but at least you know you had better win the land battles as there will be no evacuation by sea.