Inflation in Glori du Roi Military Costs

The Rozwi standing army has been active since turn 1 - training and now campaigning - and I've got to admit that (alongside purchasing and upkeeping the country as a city-builder and 'Diplomacy-style' and RPG position) has seen the state treasury reach a fine balance of just-keeping-ourselves-afloat.

I was hoping the invasion and land-grab, victory and peace would have been done and dusted by the end of 1702 but it doesn't look like it. Maybe I should have declared war on the Ovambo first, got them to mobilise their army so we could get the fight out of the way and then I could have stood the army down to save some money. You live and learn so they say.

I fancy some of those Chinese, one to a man, repeating crossbows for my flanking units, though. Don't think it would be very historical

Well every nation should decide early on their plan for their longer term goals, and budget needs to be one factor, but this is true of any game using economics as part of it.

tkolter wrote:Just disband all the worlds armies and navies save for police forces of various kinds and trade ships and we can live in peace as brothers and save a lot of money.

However in game wouldn't keeping the economy none hot and keeping the forces modest in size solve lots of issues after all it seems wars are expensive.

anybody see the film "Waterloo " where a poor infantryman , I think , appears to be having just this idea " why must we kill each other " ....as the hordes of french cavalry surround the square he has broken from ...What a time to get into Philosophy or whatever category such thinking belongs to .

Part of the problem is getting a balance between playability & realisum, getting one will knock a bit off the othre, maybe one of the reasons game turn arounds ahve stretched out over the years is the increased complexity of the game , that we as players have come to expect for our ( in most cases) hard earned money.

Started playing the game when there were no suppliments just a tiny thin rule book, with a do what you want & set your own goals attitude, now everyone is busy with Technology research, trying to invent muskets that shoot further or faster than anyone else's.

Because everyon eis doing it we are all guilty of making a more complex game, which should also mean more enjoyment for all.

There is probably no workable solution ot maximal army size, unless you start to suffer higher attrition levels if you try & march too large a force through an area. I did notice in the last supplement there were some guideline to maximal numbers that can be comfortably controlled by a general, maybe tha tis a small step in the direction of limiting at least individual field armies .

Victim of its own success is possibly a way to sum up the slower game turns. As you say, Jason, the game is no longer a quick and easy to play and run 'wargame', but a wide-ranging in-depth game of multiple levels of game play and ways of going about the job (yes, I know, that sounds like business jargon straight out of the mouth of David Brent). The game is good. Richard's running of the game is good. The players, for the most part, play the game good. All of that creating a lot of hand moderating for Richard each turn.

I still want repeating crossbows for my not-Zulu Rozwi warriors, though!

Rozwi_Game10 wrote:Victim of its own success is possibly a way to sum up the slower game turns. As you say, Jason, the game is no longer a quick and easy to play and run 'wargame', but a wide-ranging in-depth game of multiple levels of game play and ways of going about the job (yes, I know, that sounds like business jargon straight out of the mouth of David Brent). The game is good. Richard's running of the game is good. The players, for the most part, play the game good. All of that creating a lot of hand moderating for Richard each turn.

I still want repeating crossbows for my not-Zulu Rozwi warriors, though!

Well, maybe talk nicely to who ever is playing Lord Fong

I regularly want to yell at Richard, but I agree, it's a great game and I enjoy the heck out of it.

I do think all the players have helped the game evolve into a much more complex game these days with many ways to approach running positions.

Lets see if I can come up with something here and there ... new.

The economic power of the world seems different to me in Game 10. Everything feels slower and more drawn out and I believe that it is certainly by design. While it has taken some getting used to I think it will allow for mistakes to cost all of us less in the long run. It might well be possible for someone to make a decision that ruins a position, but I think that Richard might be building in some safety valves or brakes to keep people involved after a defeat. I think the pattern has been in the some of the past games to make a run at something and if you fail just disappear and try it again somewhere else. Well with a limited number of players to make up the base I imagine it gets to a point to where we are all moving about until we have found some success, but that success means someone else has bowed out to seek his/her success elsewhere. Hard to have much to do with lots of NPCs...

Game VIII has a much more robust economic feel to it compared to 10. However, it is 1708 in Game VIII and that could certainly account for the feeling that I have. I have to agree with Jason that there is little to compare to Game II's economic status. As Britain was making about 300,000,000 pounds per year off trade the money simply couldn't be spent keeping the British fleet fitted out with brand new ships and likewise paying for the army and navy of an ally or two.

Complexity of the game has certainly changed in the years that I have been involved. I don't believe that I have helped calm the complexity down any either. If that is something that Richard would rather us curb I would hope he would tell us directly. I have gotten into characters in LGDR and SFE and begun to flesh out complex stories in some cases. I love the character that it brings to the overall story of the game.

The turns coming about every five weeks are not so bad for me as I think I have the games I am in spaced out enough to get my fix and not go over the edge. I know that the slower turn around gives me time to brood and think and still be late with my orders (more oft than not it requires a curt reminder). I hope this is something that Richard desires to keep up for years in the future for sure and certain.

Well isn't success well, relative. I was in one country game set in the modern world and got to run Haiti now it was a fourth world nation. In the end of the game after the GM's bowed out it was a second world nation with a decent agricultural base for domestic food needs largely met and a modest military, a shady legal trade in opiate drugs using the grey areas in the international laws and the drug gangs became a taxable base and well did other things to rise up. My goal was to make my little nation the best nation it could be.

That's my take in this game really make Abyssinia the best medium sized power it can be and maybe stand out in some areas like African condition agricultural research or innovative methods of defense planning or be a cultural icon a beacon without slavery and whom supports actions against slavers and the institution of slavery in their area of Africa at least. Who knows where I'll take her since I just started but there seem to me many options for approaching the game a war game or planning and building.

I note the slower game times have been mentioned.

I think this is by design by Richard, rather than too much orders and work within the games. I think Richard likes slower turns, as it leads to players taking on more games and filling more empty spaces within games.

Not sure why the game is slower these days, but the slower game discourages me from joining more games, rather than the reverse.

All your long term plans take too long to come to fruition.

I am possibly thinking the same. But the idea is that if the turns are longer, the cost is less per month or week therefore players can afford an extra game. Turns being
longer also makes players impatient and take on another game to ease the wait time for their original turn.

Well, I admit to being slow .After turning in the game turn I find it super quick in its return ..I find the game never leaves me and all I do is turn in a turn I am currently thinking ..2 days after turn in time I would have entirely different orders !!Oh ...Im off work for a week and timed it around where I think the next turn will arrive ...just saying

jamesbond007 wrote:I am possibly thinking the same. But the idea is that if the turns are longer, the cost is less per month or week therefore players can afford an extra game. Turns being
longer also makes players impatient and take on another game to ease the wait time for their original turn.

To be frank, if that is Richard's thinking it is on the verge of backfiring...at least with me...I am getting so frustrated with the pace of games (esp as it does seem now that a game month is longer than a 21st C month), I am wondering why I bother. Getting to the stage where I would rather not play any games at all.

I personally doubt that's Richard's thinking. I suspect that's just the pace of the game that works for him and he can sustain.

It has changed the way I play. I now don't make 5 year plans like I did when I started (Kingmaker's idea and a good one at the time). Now if I can't get to meaningful results in 2 years, I don't do it with few exceptions.

Richard had always tried to balance up Cost and Time. There are times when financially times are tough and perhaps a longer time between paying works better and a time when money is less of a problem and time wise turns can be snapped out quicker.

Richard is always looking at new games and ideas to introduce. I believe a Roman type game is in the thinking. There have been several other games working in the past. If Richard cannot speed turns up, then how can he possibly introduce another style game.? On that thinking would a 5 week turnaround change to 7 or 8.?

I agree with Deacon and Jason. 5 or more week turnarounds are too long in this day and age and it has put me off. I dropped from game 10 because of it.

I have to be honest and say that the slow game turns helped me to decide to drop Swashbuckler in #8 and China in #9. I had to let them go, anyway, due to financial constraints, but the speed of things has helped me to not miss them. But it is what it is, and I'm happy enough to just keep going, slowly forward, with Rozwi.

jamesbond007 wrote:Richard had always tried to balance up Cost and Time. There are times when financially times are tough and perhaps a longer time between paying works better and a time when money is less of a problem and time wise turns can be snapped out quicker.

Richard is always looking at new games and ideas to introduce. I believe a Roman type game is in the thinking.  There have been several other games working in the past. If Richard cannot speed turns up, then how can he possibly introduce another style game.? On that thinking would a 5 week turnaround change to 7 or 8.?

I agree with Deacon and Jason. 5 or more week turnarounds are too long in this day and age and it has put me off. I dropped from game 10 because of it.

Maybe Richard needs helpers, to get turn s in a regular four week cycle? Barring some situation come up but the monthly cycle is fine.

I guess the problem would be, extra help means extra cost for Richard?

I would just like to see the game go back to a 3-week cycle, and i would happily see more restricted turns (in regards orders) to see that

Jason.

What you posted sound good in practice. Would it work in reality.?

Imagine going back down the old road of very quick turns but only two mc orders per turn. Anything less than half a page of mc orders would be impossible for a wargame player or a very large position. In today’s age.

jamesbond007 wrote:Jason.

What you posted sound good in practice. Would it work in reality.?

Imagine going back down the old road of very quick turns but only two mc orders per turn. Anything less than half a page of mc orders would be impossible for a wargame player or a very large position. In today’s age.

Think it would work but you would have to strip a lot of the Additional kit and upgrades out of the game.

Following the introduction of improved sail & rigging, boomkins, silken sails, carronades, gun sights, drilled bored canon, vuban gun carriages, etc, etc I think the Spanish Navy has spent half the game in dry dock and at least half of my military change orders (currently running at eight per turn) include have be used up on upgrades and simple order to raise X number of line ships in Cadiz has now turned into a three/four line order.

Personally, I enjoy playing a building/civilization type game. But would be just as happy (and probably richer) playing a stripped down war/political game with a faster turn around.

Indeed I wonder if for some players with a more active mind set are finding some games slowing down and not much seeming to happen because other players will not make a move unless they have all their Cavalry drilled for 12 months and then their horses trained for another 12 months. Then if they breed a improved heavy cavalry horse that is another one to change horses and another 12 months to train the new horse.

Not quite the give me three months to raise another 50,000 Light Cavalry and we ride for Vienna!

Jason.

I like your idea of a stripped down, quick game. I would guess that I would enjoy playing a version of it too. Perhaps Lgdr has gotten too large and sophisticated. An interesting idea. Perhaps the next start game of Lgdr could be that kind of thing.?

Having missed military change orders as a thing . What did that involve . What was military change order ? " Rest units x and x " Equip units with new musket " Army 6 to take Copenhagen" . That sort of thing ?

Thelittleemperor wrote:Having missed military change orders as a thing . What did that involve . What was military change order ? " Rest units x and x " Equip units with new musket " Army 6 to take Copenhagen" . That sort of thing ?

How things used to work was that you could give as many orders to existing military units such as move from a) to B) and attack/defend/skirmish/rest/repair as you wanted. But if these acted on and how many units fought to full effect depended on your honour score.

But depending on your Govt running costs you were limited to two, three or four changes to your military units per turn. Normally this would involve raising new units but would also include dropping off garrisons, re-equipment and drilling troops.

Limited military changes plus a growth in the number of places shown on the maps was a bit of a nightmare for some positions. I am still sulking over being told to start my forces in 5 locations and limited number of MC per turn which resulted in the pirate sack of Havanna before it got a garrison.

But what limited Military Changes did mean was that players/rulers were more inclined to just oder their generals to use what they had to secure the political objectives of the state rather than messing around trying to produce the perfect Army. Interestingly the period offers examples of both types of rulers with the Great Elector and Joseph of Austria being the ultimate re-designers of uniforms, equipment etc,etc. While others just tended to stick with what was known and only make changes after a bad experience on the battlefield.

Limited number of Military Changes also resulted fewer but larger forces clashing more in the style of the WSS while with the greater numbers of military changes what we have seen is players trying to use multiple columns/corps to cut communications and campaigns/battles which must take Richard a lot longer to work out and which look more like Napoleonic battles/campaigns than our period.