New game end conditions
I have updated the rules on game end conditions. Now, only France can vanquish another nation, and Spain is a major nation. The game ends if France vanquishes four other major nations, or Britain and any other two. This means if France ignores Britain, they have to vanquish Austria, Prussia, Russia, and Spain, but if they can get Britain, then any two of the others are sufficient (Spain and Prussia would perhaps be easiest). This seems to provide France with a pretty good incentive to go after Britain at some point, since it is equal in value to any two of the others in terms of winning.
Note that the promotion of Spain to a major means that France cannot install a revolutionary government there. I could instead keep Spain a minor but allow it to be vanquished, or I could promote Spain to a major but have it be the only major that can have a revolutionary government. On the whole, I dislike those two alternatives more, and I'm prepared to say that Spain cannot have a revolutionary government. (The actual character of the Spanish government from 1808 to 1813 is subject to considerable interpretation.)
This change does not affect the scoring at all, and it remains the case that victory is determined by point standing, nothing else. Thus, France can win even if the Revolution is overthrown, if they have had significant success prior to that happening. (I would argue that that is how the outcome of the real wars should be interpreted.)
Steve
Who's new
- joequ1oeil
- koolguy66
- Sakkal
- David Adams
- rkimler
Vanquishing Britain
Steve,
Painting a bulls-eye on Britain sounds like a good idea. It should help replicate the historical situation where Britain never felt able to make a substantial commitment to the continent until they had secure command of the seas.
OTOH, lets not forget that other new rules will result in Britain being hit with a significant VP penalty if it loses Hannover and perhaps Bourbon territory. These seem a little rough if the uberrules are making it very difficult for Britain to commit troops to the continent and hence difficult to hang on to its client frags -- a difficulty not faced by other majors who have clients.
Jim
Jim Voege
Britain and the Bourbons and others
I don't think I'll include the Bourbons in the British score, for precisely the
same reason Jim suggests - it makes them too scared of Bourbon losses,
which they shouldn't be. He's correct about Hannover, of course.
The Bourbon monarch will not be the British monarch, he will be a different
player, though he will effectively be a member of the British team unless
the British dump him or he walks from them, in which case he'll become a
member of the next country that picks him up.
On which note: if the Bourbons depart Britain, where should they go?
Seems to me they should move through a succession of powers opposed
to France, so that they always have a possible home unless France has
vanquished enough majors to win the game anyway.
The main question for me is whether they should go to Holland or not.
(I was briefly toying with having them start in Holland, but in retrospect
I think having them start in Britain is going to work a lot better.)
The sequence I have in mind is: Britain, Holland, Austria, Spain, Prussia,
and presumably they never need to go farther.
I could also permit the Bourbons to choose which powers they move to
if dumped or they walk, on the grounds that they will tend to choose the
power best placed to resist the French which is probably the one we
would want anyway.
Steve
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
So what do we mean by "the Bourbons" anyways?
Maybe just a little clarification is needed.
What exactly do the Bourbons represent?
The French emigres were far from monolithic, and just about every anti-French power had some sort of emigre forces under their command (at least in the early years). Several places provided funds to important member of the Bourbon family.
So what exactly does "controlling" the Bourbons give a country. Also, do the Bourbons need to be controlled?
Any additional details could be helpful here.
-Nick
Bourbons
Essentially what the Bourbons represent is:
1) the political forces that pressured the major monarchies into seeking the end of the Revolution and the restoration of the prewar monarchy;
2) the ability to create a French monarchist goverment in captured French cities (ie, as in Toulon in 1794)
Having the Bourbons will primarily mean the ability to raise troops in captured French cities, and earn full income from them. This, in turn, will tend to entail rivalry with France, as the French presumably would like to see the power that controls the Bourbons become too weak to be a threat to them.
What I am still turning over in my head is whether there should actually be a Bourbon player, or whether the Bourbons should be a playerless state which gives certain powers to the major power which controls it. I would in principle like to have a player representing the Bourbons diplomatically. However, if there is only one Bourbon player and that player goes out of comms, we have a problem; and I don't think we can spare two players for the Bourbons. So I am leaning towards having the Bourbons be a playerless state, but instead would be staffed by the British government initially, and then if the British lost control of the Bourbons, would then be staffed by the Austrians or Spanish or whoever they go to.
Basically, the Bourbons should be something that gives you some additional options in dealing with France but which also is something of a headache - you'd probably rather not have it but if you got rid of it you'd pay a big cost, and so you put up with it and make the best of it you can.
Steve
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
Well actually...
... having the Bourbon player being out of communication at crucial moments and generally messing up any plans that were based around them would be pretty historically accurate. :-)
I think that having the Bourbon player being a player (if only one) is important, for three reasons.
A- The Bourbons historically were leeching funds off of everybody that they could, until they pissed them off and kicked them out of the country. If they are under firm control of one of the other states then i imagine other would be reluctant to actual deal with them.
B- If you are a Major nation officer acting as the Bourbons, you have an actual boss that you have to listen too who is actually in your chain of command. So you will behave like a subordinate and not an ally with its own agenda.
C- if you set up game mechanic triggers to determine when the Bourbons switch control then you can game those requirements to your advantage. We aren't formally allied with France, but we are sending them money and blockading their enemies. So the Bourbons still love us, right? If the Bourbons have their own player they can switch benefactors whenever they feel that they would get a better deal.
-Nick
Revolutionary Spain?
Steve,
I agree with you. The ability to install a revolutionary government imports the notion that all of the resources of Spain ie. the raising of troops and, perhaps more importantly, the building of supplies, could be turned entirely to France's account. This seems to be to be horribly unhistoric, indeed exactly the opposite as Spain (and Portugal for that matter) sucked off far more French resources than they ever contributed even when they were largely subjugated.
Jim
Jim Voege