Little and Large

A little time to think and reflect in the aftermath of Christmas. My previous position was France in Game 8, which I eventually surrendered into more energetic hands because it seemed to have got too large and onerous for me (or else, perhaps, I'd got it to a point where the next step was towards a war somewhere, and I hand't got the strength to contemplate that). I moved to a much (much!) smaller position in Game 10. But what I have noticed is, that when my French turn arrived I would immediately pile in to working-up the reply, sorting out orders, writing letters etc. - and usually ending up getting my orders in quite early; but now I have a much smaller position with less (quantitively) to think about, I put it off and let it ride with a few background thoughts, and put off the typing-up and risk missing the deadline (which I have actually done once, though I was spared by Richard's thoughtfulness). Does anyone else recognise this syndrome? What are the effects on the player of operating a large or small (or intermediate) position? Any thoughts?

I can see what you mean in myself. The way I dealt with it was to have an overarching plan for the direction of the country and I'm actually planning the next turn as soon as I have sent the current one in to Richard. Then when the turn arrives it is more about if anything has happened in the turn I receive back and do I need to change my priorities and what letters do I need to reply to and/or change orders due to content of letter received.

For me too much turns up in the rest of life at the same time as the turn arrives so it can be difficult to fit it all in and to be motivated at times due to everything.

When I have time I also look into the folklore surrounding a nation and start playing around with that. When I played Transylvania I started playing around with vampire legends and even raised a spy as a flower seller in another nation so I could get a supply of garlic flowers - maybe flowers are in the blood and helped me recently get tulips late in the year? Other nations I tend to stick to folklore of the nation as it was not something put on them. I suppose I'm saying I tend to go beyond the mechanics of the game and put some flavour that I want to explore even if only Richard sees it, I want to see how something plays out rather than be the biggest economy or army or...

It helps invest me in the game and I've really only stopped playing a nation if and when redundancy has loomed - quite a few times unfortunately but I always come back It also helps on my commute to work as I have something to think about (currently 3-5 hours a day) and I use the time try to find an approach that may not be the most obvious, and think how it may play out.

Hope this ramble helps.

The large positions can be overwhelming. Getting the whole position into shape is just a lot of orders, so tends to make for expensive turns.

That said, I found that you tend to have a lot more resources, so you don't have as many key choice points as with the smaller positions. As a big position, it's "all of the above." For the smaller positions, you can't afford to do everything, so you tend to spend more time thinking about what your focus will be and where to invest.

This is an interesting question Revenant and one I spent some time wrestling with when trying to choose a new position.

The main advantage of a larger position is that you should be able to defend yourself better against wargamers so theoretically you can spend time nation building and exploring the culture and other issues around your country. But one way or another larger positions tend to be the centre of attention and are expected to provide some kind of leadership to shape the tone of a game. Doesn't always happen, of course, but if a large position plays quietly, almost afraid to be seen as active, then diplomatic leadership will pass elsewhere and a more dynamic larger position will probably build an unassailable lead. It doesn't surprise me that as France you dived in immediately the turn arrived as you probably found that many of the things you needed to do were responses to what other players had instigated from the newspaper. As G7 England I find exactly the same - the first thing I have to do is tick off which orders have been done from the previous month to find which have been messed up and need repeating; then check those orders necessary to support allies or to respond to others (and usually checking what new trap Spain's set for me each turn), before I can get on with the orders I had planned to do towards my own game objectives. I found Marshall's reply very interesting - and yes, with larger positions it is easy to go overboard and create a position which takes so much basic maintenance it can become crippling so a way has to be found to keep on top of it. For me it is precisely these other aspects that make the choice of country so interesting - the more you look into the culture/history, the more you find to do. I don't just plan ahead 1 month, but have a file full of ideas which I then write up into orders and select from these so if I am running short of time one month I can get a turn done within 30 minutes (leaving only letters to reply to). It also helps me think more strategically and plan where I want my country to get to and what has to be done to get there.

I'm not necessarily advocating my approach - I'm sure it can be improved. A few months ago I sent Richard part of my England file (about 35 pages of it) as orders before I realised I had sent the wrong attachment. Quite what he made of it, I can't imagine, but I did send the correct attachment as a replacement and possibly out of relief the correct orders were completed. I think Deacon is also right in that it is easier for larger positions to be overwhelming, but there are ways to make them less demanding time-wise. Overall I don't think it is possible to play large positions on the minimum game turn fee unless you are simply going to sit there and watch the cash/recruits pile up which is rather boring (who really cares how much cash you accumulate?) - the temptation to either declare war on someone or become a target of others eventually becomes overwhelming. And it is once a large position is at war that it becomes really expensive, even if you have prepared well with garrisons in every town.

But I have also found that I put arguably more time into playing smaller/medium-sized positions. I use precisely the same approach - more research, but having done that have fewer resources to guard against being attacked. Diplomacy becomes more important, but so does doing basic things to try to guard against disasters - as a small position you simply don't have the resources of a larger position to stand up to multiple famines. You also need to be much more disciplined in what you build and research. My Papal file is only a third of the size of my England file, but that is mainly because the orders apply to a smaller number of towns. The advantages of playing a smaller position is that infrastructure is often cheaper, as are things like doctors/vets/priests (even lawyers if you really must) and of course (my favourite) night soil men.

My feeling is that if you try to play a small position as you would a large position, you'll go bankrupt very quickly and possibly antagonise others so you get invaded. It needs a different mindset. That said there is no reason for you to run out of things to do - just do a bit more research and don't feel the need to do everything in a single turn. You might not feel motivated, but that happens at times in larger positions as well - possibly more so with larger positions because sometimes simply having to grind through essential orders can feel like a chore. It is quite nice to play a smaller position and not feel that you have to do something every turn to drive things forward - you can just pay the minimum fee and sit back and watch the power play between various larger nations before deciding if you want to involve yourself or take advantage of something they've missed. Or you may find ideas from one game that have relevance in your other game: it doesn't always happen in a positive way and sometimes I do wonder if players are stretching credibility a bit far when they use a character I introduced in G7 in a completely different way in G10. Part of the challenge of a smaller position is to do things in a smarter way, so instead of building fortifications everywhere in a single turn, do 1 every 6 months, and concentrate your effort on diplomacy/letters, building up allies just in case you need them. Regular communication between smaller positions can be a big advantage and it is rather satisfying when another position defends you in the newspaper without being asked and in a much more imaginative way than you could have done yourself. One thing I have noticed is that in nearly every game, someone somewhere has what you need - you just have to find them and then convince them to provide it. With a smaller position you are more likely to be successful at this than if you are a larger position simply because you are unlikely to be a military threat.

It is much harder as a small position to drive the agenda of a game (this does tend to be best left to the larger positions), but it isn't impossible. As I think Jason2 has mentioned elsewhere, as a smaller position you do have time to concentrate on writing things for the newspaper and on driving up your own honour. If you look at G10, 7/10 positions on the honour table are taken by smaller/medium sized nations. It is harder to do a comparison for G7 since most of the nations on the table are inactive! Of course the observations above do depend upon playing a small nation rather than a pirate position (Blackbeard is on the G7 honour table despite having been killed a few times in the game) - a pirate position can simply react and try to do as much damage as possible which might suit some players, but not me.

Roleplay is possible in both small and large positions, but perhaps there is more time to develop characters in smaller positions since you will not be distracted every turn with something more urgent? And as a smaller nation it is still possible to expand and for that expansion to make a big difference to your recruit/tax base if you are really struggling. Large or small the better you get to know your country, the more opportunities you will find and the more enjoyment you will receive in trying to make them happen. If you pick a country which you know a little bit about and perhaps has a natural strength which you are interested in anyway, then that can be your initial focus with other goals developing from there. The Papacy was a bit harder because after the judgement I was stuck working out what to do with the position so I could continue to play in a positive way, that wasn't just playing in my own bubble. To a lesser extent I imagine the same applies to non-European nations who can sometimes feel stuck out on a limb - the Spanish Succession is irrelevant to them, and I would think that it is more fun being Ottoman/Chinese if there are more than 1 Ottoman/Chinese player in a game. I guess one day we'll all have a shock when someone signs up to play the Sultan of Borneo and he gets 15 years worth of tax/recruits in his first turn, plays very quietly building up his forces and then suddenly conquers Japan or lands in Europe to expand his Empire. Never underestimate smaller positions - the game would be much poorer without them.

I'll start by saying my thoughts and comments on this are more about me and not in any way a comment on how anyone else plays their positions

I found Rev's original comment interesting.  For myself I have not noticed any difference in my reaction to receiving a turn, based on the size of the position I am playing. Perhaps sometimes I am more in a rush to read through a turn based on my enthusiasm for it at that time, but that is unrelated to the position size.

I tend to find my attitude to a position is like Marshal's in which I develop a plan (and like Deacon, who I am sure has said, in the past, tha  he develops a several year plan for a position, as I do myself).  Like Marshal I also go for cultural aspects to build into a position, as I have with Scotland and Kwantung.  Also, I found that Papa's comments mirrored my own views on positions and playing them.

I tend to have a plan and am often planning the next turn as I am playing this one.  Indeed in some games where I have had a plan for the year ahead, I have also had a plan for each month, 12 months in advance, in regards military orders.

When it comes to minor positions, I do think these have become easier to play over time.  When I first started the games, back in 1999/2000/2001 (I am no longer sure, maybe Richard knows?) you had only "fortresses" (and stockades), cathedrals and palaces; all large and expensive (to build and maintain/garrison) institutions.  Now we have a range of fortified positions (down to the block house with a single fortress cannon), chapels and churches, and manor and town houses.  It's now cheaper to build things than it used to be (lets ignore maintenance).

Papa quite rightly drew attention to my previous comments on smaller positions.  I do think that when playing a smaller position its more important (and easier?) to focus on diplomatic options, to raise your profile in the paper, etc.  Let's look at two positions I play, Russia East in G7 and Scotland in G10.  Both minor positions but in G7 I tend not to focus on raising my profile, promoting what I do...and as a result 99% of the time I doubt most people are aware "Russia East" is a played position based on newspaper coverage, comments on the forum, etc...compare with Scotland in G10, where I shout "here I am" all the time, and it's rare for there not to be a mention of the minor position of Scotland in a turn...

I am in the unusual position of playing two "fictional" (not the right term but let's use it for now) positions-Russia Department East and the Hanseatic League.  
Russia Department East (G7) is based on Singapore and has no historical basis.  Makes it great fun to play but also means, well, you have no historical basis from which to play it.
The Hanseatic League (G8) has a bit of a historical basis..the League was effectively down to Hamburg, Lubeck and Bremen by 1700 but was more a notion than a realistic entity
Both give some unique insights into the game and how to play it...

One thing I will say is that a long vacant-minor-position doesn't instantly  mean you get an accumulative treasury and recruit base.  You might join a game a few years in and you might, if you are lucky, get a boosted treasury or recruit base (or if lucky, a slightly boosted both) but it's never equal to the number of years a game has been playing...so you might get extra recruits or a bit more money in the treasury...or a few more recruits and a bit more in the treasury...but never x years of both...

The greatest thing about minor positions is they are more FUN.  To a large degree France, England, Spain, Austria, UDP, Ottomans, Russia...you have to play in a certain way but Scotland, Saxony, Bavaria, Tuscany, Chinese etc you can have more fun...Bavaria can focus on beer regulations, Chinese and Scottish can just insult everyone, Saxony can build fancy castles etc

Lots of post-indulgence thoughtfulness, with a fairly common theme about researching culture, communicating, being in role, and always planning turns ahead - all of which I do and have done. The game virtually forces ahead-planning anyway: you build an Academy to research an Advance to deploy the Advance to achieve an end; you build and train an army with certain tactics and weaponry to deal with an envisioned situation/use; etc. I'm doing as much of that with my current little state as I did with previous large ones (in fact, in terms of cultural research, even more in depth - with France I could wikipedia lots of hints and info, not so much with the Assante, where I've resorted to an actual book!)

I think for me the reduced impetus to "launch into it" when a turn arrives is down to two factors - one, that there's just so much less to type, less than half-a-dozen orders and some atmospheric blurb, maybe one letter, and I'm done. The second factor also influences the first, the reduced opportunities for diplomacy for an outlier nation (wouldn't apply to small European states I imagine). I feel I'm already stretching the boundaries of probability by having several ambassadors out there in Europe, though the colonial dealings feel appropriate (now we have the "postal" situation sorted [a sarcastic "thanks Richard!"])

Anyhow, still enjoying the game, just feeling a little "short"...

Well as a small position player ,Abyssinia G10, you have to know your limits and do what you can.

I did focus on reducing if not ending slavery the Pope declaring slavery immoral among the Catholics its a bold move and hopefully other nations will follow.

But on other things one does have to focus right now food and water security is high on my agenda and trade using a tactic I hope will work. For defense ,well, its a strong consideration going for quality not quantity. But will we ever have say a working high end road system its unlikely anytime soon.

So it can be fun to be the little guy but it has limits.

The Revenant wrote:Lots of post-indulgence thoughtfulness, with a fairly common theme about researching culture, communicating, being in role, and always planning turns ahead - all of which I do and have done.  The game virtually forces ahead-planning anyway: you build an Academy to research an Advance to deploy the Advance to achieve an end; you build and train an army with certain tactics and weaponry to deal with an envisioned situation/use; etc.  I'm doing as much of that with my current little state as I did with previous large ones (in fact, in terms of cultural research, even more in depth - with France I could wikipedia lots of hints and info, not so much with the Assante, where I've resorted to an actual book!)

I think for me the reduced impetus to "launch into it" when a turn arrives is down to two factors - one, that there's just so much less to type, less than half-a-dozen orders and some atmospheric blurb, maybe one letter, and I'm done.  The second factor also influences the first, the reduced opportunities for diplomacy for an outlier nation (wouldn't apply to small European states I imagine).  I feel I'm already stretching the boundaries of probability by having several ambassadors out there in Europe, though the colonial dealings feel appropriate (now we have the "postal" situation sorted [a sarcastic "thanks Richard!"])

Anyhow, still enjoying the game, just feeling a little "short"...

I understand what you mean as I did have a similar situation as G9 Kwantung in regards diplomacy, etc.  When you're on the edge it can sometimes be a bit harder to get the attention of the European parts of the game.  It was what led me to start writing pieces for the paper with Lord Fong passing comment on the happenings in Europe.

The situation can be similar for smaller European nations, it's partly why in G10 Scotland makes so much noise in the paper, goes on about naughty pirates...to remind the big boys I am there

It is an interesting question, and one that does resonate. I think scale does impact your need to ‘dive in’. I have had tremendous fun with G10 Genoa, but it’s scale does lead to responding being put off occasionally. Even with it being ‘in the thick of it’, as it were, my orders generally do not get past 2 sides of A4, 3 being a big month. That includes speeches & set pieces that I write for the paper. I then have 2-3 letters. Ultimately, I can write the lot in a clear afternoon, with a few hours proof reading & editing a few days later. It can lead to procrastination (as it is a relatively bite sized activity).

G9 Spain & G8 France, are just a different level of commitment. Maybe it is because I ‘play to the detail’, but my orders average 7-8 sides of A4 each, with a topside of 10. As Spain, I usually have 2-3 major speeches & 4-5 other set pieces, along with military orders, government orders and ‘special circumstances’ activity. Then 3-6 letters each. Sheer scale prevents procrastination, and I know I need a solid base to the orders after the first weekend of receipt, as G8 France turns up the following week.

When G10 turns up, I read the paper & have a good laugh, get it printed & then pick up over the next few weeks. Spain & France require a response. Before I took on Spain & France, my G10 responses were quite lackadaisical, but the size of commitment forces discipline.

Luckily, I thoroughly enjoy it, or else it could be quite hard work!

Hmmm .. These things make me worry . I mostly send 6 orders each of 2 or rarely three lines each .

Kerensky wrote:It is an interesting question, and one that does resonate. I think scale does impact your need to ‘dive in’. I have had tremendous fun with G10 Genoa, but it’s scale does lead to responding being put off occasionally. Even with it being ‘in the thick of it’, as it were, my orders generally do not get past 2 sides of A4, 3 being a big month. That includes speeches & set pieces that I write for the paper. I then have 2-3 letters. Ultimately, I can write the lot in a clear afternoon, with a few hours proof reading & editing a few days later. It can lead to procrastination (as it is a relatively bite sized activity).

G9 Spain & G8 France, are just a different level of commitment. Maybe it is because I ‘play to the detail’, but my orders average 7-8 sides of A4 each, with a topside of 10. As Spain, I usually have 2-3 major speeches & 4-5 other set pieces, along with military orders, government orders and ‘special circumstances’ activity. Then 3-6 letters each. Sheer scale prevents procrastination, and I know I need a solid base to the orders after the first weekend of receipt, as G8 France turns up the following week.

When G10 turns up, I read the paper & have a good laugh, get it printed & then pick up over the next few weeks. Spain & France require a response. Before I took on Spain & France, my G10 responses were quite lackadaisical, but the size of commitment forces discipline.

Luckily, I thoroughly enjoy it, or else it could be quite hard work!

I'm standing in awe of admiration.

How much does Richard Charge for every turn?

How hasn't your wife already complained about the amount of time devoted to the game?

How do you manage to keep track of all activities and potential development?

are you willing to consider the idea of teaching some online classes?