Britain, France, and historical play
One issue to discuss in the postgame is the extent to which the different major nations should have different incentives, or should be treated the same in the victory conditions. The current rules treat them as essentially the same, with the one exception that only France is subject to having its government overthrown. In particular, Britain has no more reason (though no less) to ally with Austria or Prussia than it has to ally with France.
We discussed this between NWOL-1 and NWOL-2 (and before NWOL-1 as well) and concluded that it is better to give the players freedom to do what they want, than to constrain them into particular (historical) patterns of play. However, at this point there are at least some people who want to re-open that discussion based on the experience of NWOL-2, particularly where Britain and France are concerned since they were allied for essentially all of the game.
The problem is that it is very hard to prevent Britain and France from working together if they choose to do that. The rules can ban them from allying, but cannot force them to fight one another. Even if they can't ally, they can (for example) both declare war on Prussia, with France invading by land and Britain attacking by sea. So a simple rule saying "Britain and France can't be allies" won't solve the problem.
I've received several suggestions that are more complex than that. In broad strokes, they fall into three categories.
1. Least extreme: Give Britain and France incentives within the victory conditions to be hostile. For example, say that if France achieves hegemony, Britain pays a 20% VP penalty. That would encourage Britain to strengthen France's rivals. A variant of this says have Britain pay a 20% VP penalty (or greater or lesser amount as needed) if any other nation achieves hegemony, but of course France is the nation that is most likely to do so, hence would be Britain's natural concern.
2. More extreme: Explicitly say that if France wins, Britain automatically finishes last. Make it impossible for them to ever have compatible interests. Or, more complicated changes to the victory conditions that have essentially that effect.
3. Most extreme: Give up on diplomatic freedom entirely. Go to a two-sided game, with France on one side and Britain on the other, and either the British side will win or the French side will. Probably if we did that, we'd start in the 1805 position. This forces the game into very historical channels, but considerably restricts what players can do - in particular, it junks most of the diplomatic module.
Comments, thoughts, suggestions?
Steve
Who's new
- koolguy66
- Sakkal
- David Adams
- rkimler
- AZTiger98
Adjusting VP's At End of Game
I suppose that, if it were contained in a treaty (and treaty language could be made to allow this), any coalition allies that received the same number of VQ at the end of the game could make a provision to even up the VP's/VQ's somehow so both would be "winners". Unless one wanted to break the treaty at the very end...
Hey, wait! Prussia was part of the Confederation at the end of the game! We're winners, too! Now I feel so much better... Whew! And I thought the battle of Bremen turned out poorly for us... ;)
endgame VP adjustments
As GA I would not allow any treaty agreement that would be designed to affect the order of finish. I would allow one that fixed the quantity, either directly ("France agrees to give Britain 500 VPs at the end of the campaign") or indirectly ("France agrees to give Britain one-third of the VPs she earns during this campaign"). But I would not allow links to the standings, so "France agrees to give Britain enough VPs to move into second place" would be vetoed. Also the provision that the giving nation must receive something of value would apply. In cases like this, I would imagine that military support would be the thing of value, and I would require that such a treaty be signed before the campaign began. Once the campaign was nearly over, and Britain's support was already given, then the treaty would not be acceptable.
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
I am not sure that will be
I am not sure that will be the best way to prevent Britain and France from being allies. In the first game they were allied against Russia. Then they were enemies in the end game. They are the two most powerful nations. It was unusual for them to stay allied this game as long as they were. I think it was a combination of personal contacts and situations that held it together. The game was an anomoly of what would normally occur.
Don C.
National Goals
I bring this up every time there is a discussion about the game, and I am brutally shot down every time. Hopefully there is enough discontent now that people might listen.
We need to scrap the current victory conditions and replace them with a set of national goals for each country.
This would solve several of the issues that have been raised thus far, particularly the UK-France one.
Historically the goal (oversimplified of course) were something like this:
England-Maintain the status quo in Europe to facilitate making tons of money off the situation.
France- Upset the status quo and spread revolution.
So there wasn’t much room for working together there.
In NWOL the goals look something like this:
England- VQ 3 Major powers and score VPs
France- VQ 3 Major powers and score VPs.
Seems like there is a lot of common ground that can be found there.
What we should do is try and have the object of NWOL look more like the historical and then players will have to behave in a historical manner if they want to reach those goals.
The other thing is does is eliminates the “coalition victory” mentality. You either meet your goals or you don’t. If you do you win and if you don’t you lose. There are no coalition goals, only national ones.
So a coalition can exist only to the point that it is working towards overlapping goals. Once the overlap ceases the coalition will break apart.
We can debate the exact goals of each state, but what do you all think of this in theory?
-Nick
National Goals - Price agrees with someone elses opinion!!!
Yes, yes! Well said!
Nick is 99.9999% right.
((hug))
If someone tries to shoot you down, I will throw myself in front of you!
[making myself very small and low - after all, this is Price]
Victory conditions set by attainment of pre-submitted national goals, perhaps supplemented by an
uncomplicated and much weakened vp award will make it much more pleasurable.
The .0001% reservation is my strong belief in the coalition mentality, so a national goal of "A" could
be to form a coalition with "B" "C" and "D"... if it doesn't work out with "A" & "D", you are knocked down
accordingly in the standings.
Otto von Baden
Seiner Durchlaucht Markgraf von Baden-Durlach
Rat der Fürsten des Heiligen Römischen Reiches
Minister für auswärtige Angelegenheiten des Heiligen Römischen Reiches
Flottillenadmiral
coalitions
The coalition mentality is the best (I think the only) reason for making it a two-sided game. If players are going to treat it that way anyway, then it's better than it be controlled by the rules so it can at least be historic.
I concur that coalitions are surprisingly stable, more so than they would be historically. But I cannot write rules that force people to break up coalitions. I confess to some surprise that Britain did not break the alliance against France at any point; I think Britain could have won by doing so. However, the British players have already explained at some length why they didn't.
Part of the problem (compared to CWOL) is the small teams. Denmark, for example, had only two players. If you don't form durable coalitions, then as a Danish player you have only one other player in the whole game you can really trust. That's a little demoralizing, to have to be on your guard against everyone else the whole time. I think if we had triple the number of players, so the Danish team had four or five players and the majors had ten or twelve, then we'd be able to form "team loyalty" among one nation, or at least among smaller groups of nations, and then coalitions would be more likely to fragment. Anyone know 80 other people who'd like to join? :)
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
What if...
What if each country set up its own objectives and the GAs reviewed them and based upon the difficulty a given objective could be worth so many VPs. Another option, what if the GAs set up a series of objectives for each country with an associated set of VPs. If a country wanted to propose another one to the list then the GAs would assign a VP prize for that one. These objectives would be known only to each country. They could go for the ones they wanted to, the more they got the more VPs they would get. VPs would also be given for city conquering based upon the economic value of each city (not all cities worth the same). Allied countries who participate in the fight for the city or are present when captured get a portion of the VPs for taking the city based upon share of force in the fight.
So in this manner if Britain wants to ally with France that is fine but they would get no points for getting a VQ from France and thus their ability to win might be greatly reduced.
Jerry Gouge
Goals of the Game - historical vs game-playing
The first and primary goal of the game is Survival. It is moot about who can align with whom unless you can guarantee by force of arms or by diplomatic means your own countries survival.
At the beginning it was possible a grande alliance could have overwhelmed France - indeed it was their intent to do so. To have a bar on potential alliances limits the options that should be available to any and all nations.
I have no issue with possible repercussions from unlikely allignments - ( the good vs neutral v evil scenarios where a higher cost is borne by more opposed National characters ), but disagree with absolutes.
Even the end confrontation with 2 majors vs 3 ( well sort-of) with Minors and Frags on both sides was not a bad result and could have turned out a lot different.
The possibility always existed for potential splits in any alliance either due to fundamental disagreements, opportunism or individual pettiness.
France and England did not split but there were pressures throughout that could have resulted in different outcomes.
Whilst we are simulating the Napoleonic era does not mean we have to culminate at Waterloo rather we reflect the context of the times including their military/national identities.
Summarising, I would not have absolute rulings, I would not disapprove of diplomatic/economic hurdles and would approve of incentives to encourage certain actions.
Phil
re: National Goals
I was originally dubious of the idea as I am not sure about setting too much limitations on national goals, however given the last game I am much more receptive to it.
re: National Goals
The idea wouldn't have to limit your game play.
Ideally I would like each nation to have a list of historical goals, of which you need to complete a certain number to be victorious. So if Austria decides they want to be friends with Prussia and don't want to compete in Germany or Poland, then Austria is basically stuck trying to compete against the French in Italy and whatever else is on the list. But if they get whupped by the French in Italy they have to either accept defeat or reconsider their position elsewhere.
The other elements is working to prevent others from completing their goals.
The real trick is getting your allies to help you complete your goals under the guise of preventing a common enemy from completing theirs.
The only difficult thing with the national goals is developing a workable list of what the goals would be and making sure they are balanced. We are a bunch of smart folks that I am sure can meet the task if it is approved.
-Nick
Here we go...
The problem with limiting the options of Britain and France lies in the fact that one of the major dynamics of the period is not represented and I am not certain how easy it will be to do so. Follow me here please…
The Monarchist and the Republicans are at odds in this period if we are going to be completely honest. Sure the game starts before the removal of heads begins, but I don’t see how we can get past this fact. Surely we will need to move the game up to the point where France becomes Republican in order to make any scheme work. If France can remain a traditional monarchy why should Britain have any reason not to ally with them. However, if we make France a republican nation at the start then the other mechanism can go into effect. The Houses of Europe would certainly not desire their peasants or subjects to catch the cold that France has. Joining forces with France would cause massive trouble in ones noble orders and landed gentry. This mechanism has got to be reflected or we are placing limitations on only one nation when others should be in the same pickle. The fact that some countries were closer to France is possible to represent by cities rising up if the country does not move to some extent to the French positions. I believe the same should be true of other powers that would seek to ally with the republicans over the more typical view of those that would rule the areas inside ones country. This will keep the game in historical check to some extent. The bottom line is that you either have an open field or something along this line. Restricting one set of nations is not correct in my opinion.
On another matter… I notice that much credit is being given to only few in the coalition. I will state that the British plan for economic warfare was a huge coup in this game. IN the beginning many in the Confederation didn’t care for it, but the British and the French pushed on. Indeed, when the game was over the British Treasury was still in the Black and never went below the negative mark. Hannover did only once because I flubbed up a transfer. I would be most interested to know of the financial conditions of other powers throughout the game.
CRV
I agree
The key element in this last game was economics. The war was prosecuted as an economic one with targets chosen and policies determined based upon their economics. VPs factored in as well. I can tell you that the Iberian team planned based upon profit versus cost. I was not really in favor of the Crimean expedition as it did not pay out, very costly. However from a war with Russia standpoint it made sense and offered high probability VPs.
Iberia went for the Med islands as once taken they would be easy to hold given the Coalition naval strength. And once taken they could fund other expeditions.
I think that the Britain versus France thing was even more to do with the fact that they seem to always be enemies. I cannot imagine them joining forces.
Jerry Gouge
Why were they enemies?
Let's see if we can work through this logic... (fat chance)
Perhaps we should explore why they were enemies. Most probably both wanted to control as much of the world resource pool as possible. When they are at war they are fighting over resource pool. Also it give's the people of their nations someone to focus on as an enemy and to blame all of their ills. It creates national pride. What I suggest is that we implement a nation morale statistic. If France and England ally then their morale drops, their ability to raise troops and generate income drops. Also, what if as the war proceeded and as a result of loses on the front, morale drops, troops levies drop, enconomy drops and then the nation has to sue for peace. Right now we fight as if it is total war and victory or death. I sugges that we need a means to force players into more historical mentality.
Jerry Gouge
India?
Britain and France weren’t adversaries simply for the sake of being adversaries. There were several things that went into that consideration. Unfortunately many of those factors are not represented in NWOL. Since the factors affecting the policy are different it is reasonable to expect the outcome to be different. Thus the more factors that negatively affected the relationship we include in NWOL the closer the outcome will be to the historical one.
One important one that is currently absent is India. Although I suspect it would be too difficult to include India in GITM and PATE I think developing an India Mini-game would be worth doing.
It would work something like this. At the start of each campaign each nation (it won’t be limited to UK and France) will decide what resources they want to dedicate to India. This would be troops, ships, and cash. Then based on some mathematical formula it is determined how much control of India they have for that campaign. Based on the percent of control they will get additional income each turn. (The base income of each nation would have to be adjusted if it assumes an income from India in its calculation).
This will lead to a situation where it is in Britain and Frances economic interest to be able to keep the other from dedicating resources to India. The best way to due this is to force them to commit the resources to Europe or the Caribbean instead by keeping these under threat.
Even if they are able to see past their differences and ally, they would still have to commit resources to India, since if they don’t the control of India will revert to the Indian kingdoms and they won’t get any income, which will keep the troops from fighting whoever it is they are allied against.
Thoughts?
-Nick
Yeah
That was a bit of what I was trying to get at. If Britain and France are not stealing from each other than they do not individually have as much money to spend.
I think it would be cool if we could transport ships to India and actually fight there. I also think it would be cool if we had more varied troop types.
Here's another idea for the raid issue. What if each time an enemy unit enters a city there is a probability based upon the nation morale statistic (if this is implemented) which can result in the automatic raising of a new unit designated as a CI. This would be the citizens of the town rising to deal with the invasion. And the invader would have to kill them off to take the city. This would also serve to reduce the recruitable manpower in the city. There should be some impact on manpower when an enemy takes over, simulating rape and pillage.
Jerry Gouge
"Imagined European Wars of the Napoleonic Period On Line"
Perhaps I am too simplistic . . .
The object of the exercise is Napoleonic Wars.
We set the stage:
The French and the British are antagonists. Monarchy/Republic, Rights of Man, etc.
Allies flock to them for wide varities of reasons/promises/crowns.
They create alliances on their own terms.
The object is for the French Alliance to conquer the British Alliance and vice versa.
NWOL2 was absurd!
I loved it!
It was improbable and impossible!
It could not, but it did happen!
I was proud and ashamed of it at the same time.
We CANNOT permit France and Britain to become allies.
If we do, we should call it:
"Imagined European Wars of the Napoleonic Period On Line"
We have all the flexibility of the benefit of 200 years of thought and tactics.
Let's set the playing field boundaries by saying "no Anglo-Franco alliance permitted."
They can elect not to attack each other, elect not to embargo, but - bottom line: no
alliances of any kind - no loans - no ship sales - no raising British troops controlled by
French generals - no treaties to permit advances across territories - - - they can elect to
become benign participants vis a vis each other [ there may be diplomatic reasons for it], but no shared VPs, etc.
No penalties - it just cannot happen by the Rules. Period.
Price can still skulk around and promise Lannes that England will conquer Holland, then will sit back and leave as the French move in to take it over, but there can be no crowns exchanged, French ships used in landing British troops or VPs exchanged. It would become an exercise in futility - and stupidity - yet still keep the "object of the exercise" intact.
I am truly saddened the game ended one turn too soon - I was about to be awarded more titles and medals . . .
Otto von Baden
Seiner Durchlaucht Markgraf von Baden-Durlach
Rat der Fürsten des Heiligen Römischen Reiches
Minister für auswärtige Angelegenheiten des Heiligen Römischen Reiches
Flottillenadmiral
Newsflash: Kaiser Agrees With Price! Hell to Freeze Later Tonite
For once I agree with Price. A simple rule of "England and France can never ally" would work for me. All the other majors and most of the minors were on both sides at some point from 1789 to 1815. Apart from the Peace of Amiens, England and France were never at peace, let alone allied.
I think part of the appeal of a Napoleonic era game is knowing, no matter what else happens, England and France will be foes. Minor (and major) powers crushed under the Bonapartist boot could always look to England for even just a glimmer of hope, eventually. France and her allies would always know that the guineas to buy allies were out there, lurking behind the wooden walls of the Royal Navy.
Having said this, the Prussians will always look askance at island nations messing around on their borders without asking, even if it does force an ahistorical alliance ... ;)
Why just England?
I personally am opposed to any blanket restriction on diplomacy.
But if we are going to do such a thing we should have it match historical possibilities in some way.
To the folks saying alliances between England and France are not allowed under any circumstance, what is your responce to this situation?
It is 1805, after a brillant naval victory of the spanish coast the French army lands in England and captures London and several other cities. after the British surrender the French demand they send troops to fight for them on the continent. The British FM says sorry we the rules won't let us.
What I would recommend (if we are stuck going down this road) is that NO MAJOR can ally with France until they have been VQ'd by France.
Ideally I would like for this condition be set only if the French team elects to off King Louis. They would get some revolutionary benefit from doing that at the cost of having to go solo against the majors. That way if those choose to play more diplomatic they could.
-Nick
That would work, too. At
That would work, too. At least the British would have fought the French for this to happen...
Are we not assuming, since the game begins in 1793, that Louis has met his maker?
Louis
The problem then is that we should also assume that France would start the game at war with everybody they were at war with in 1792, which severely impacts the diplomatic possibilities. If we are taking one historical leap why not the other?
-nick
Britain, France and historical play
There are two schools of thought - one, the game is fine as it is - two, a French/British alliance is not historical and should be discouraged in some way. The majority is of the second opinion I believe.
I would like to propose an alteration to the rules that still permit an indeterminate outcome. Any of the three options makes it simple and predictable to calculate the options.
My proposal puts it into game play - no predetermined penalty, no predetermined position of finish (to me finishing second is the same as finishing last), no two-sided game.
Change the following rule in SOW.
2.3. Occupied cities in Europe produce only half their normal income. Occupied off-map ports produce 75% of their normal income except if France initially captures an British city/port or if Britain initially captures a French city/port, for which 100% income is produced for the captor. Handoff of cities from Allies is not permitted, i.e. the normal income rules apply if a city/port is originally captured by another Nation and then later becomes a British or French possession.
I believe this kind of financial solution is more palatable for the folks who think the game is fine as it is, and it will still have the desired affect for those who are opposed to the non-historical French/British alliance.
This will have a side affect of making PATE a more important part of the game - making an English invasion more desireable (it was for Napoleon) and making the Caribbean possessions more valuable for England and France.
It will take some code change I imagine, and that is the downside.
John Vanvark
Re: Britain, France, and Historical Play
John,
I like the idea, but I am not sure it goes far enough to achieve the desired effect. I believe what you are describing is exactly the same situation that the German and Italian frags experience in the present NWOL setup (Italy even has a couple of off-map ports). And we just finished a game where all of the Italian frags remained unified from start to finish despite that (even when half of them disappeared from the map). This might be oversimplifying things a bit, but you understand my point.
I also don't believe England and France should be given economic rewards (beyond what the status quo already provides) for doing something that I feel they should be doing anyways. And I kind of hesitate at giving either of them more economic incentives period after having watched most of Europe just get crushed by the financial might of these two.
Finally, while I totally agree that "everything after first is kind of irrelevant", I also believe this view is not shared by some of the other players in the game. Because of this, I think that final rankings/scores do have some significance. I submit a brief message from a fellow NWOLer sent to me at the early stages of one of the games. At the time I told him he was trying to bluff me or just posturing, but in the end he played it pretty much that way.
"[Redacted] does not necessarily have to be declared the Victor in any conflict when the crowns are finally counted. What matters to us is that our self-set objectives were met and we wind up on the winning side, perhaps, being a "kingmaker" in a world of kings."
Reply to comment
RE: I also don't believe England and France should be given economic rewards (beyond what the status quo already provides) for doing something that I feel they should be doing anyways.
For NWOL2 I believe, PATE battles between Britain and France did not exist. If those Caribbean possessions start to become valuable, both Britain and France will sink more money into the Navy, and less money against Continental powers.
You are right, the French and British may just agree to join and forget about the incentive.
That leaves the options described initially, which imply predetermined outcomes - X # of Victory Points - if one is first the other last, or England and France are automatically at war. I do not like a game with a predetermined outcome, but that is only my view.
Regarding the positive reward for the French and British, perhaps the reward should be as follows: At the end of the first "WAR" campaign, if France and England are not at war with each other, then every nation that is at war with someone gets a 50% bonus on their end of T15 $C balance. This is as arbitrary as Victory Points but different in that it can be applied in the actual game - not at the end of the game.
John Vanvark
Caribbean
There was an enormous game incentive for Britain to break with the coalition and attack France's and Spain's (particularly Spain's) Caribbean colonies. There are 13 French and Spanish colonies out there, at 200 points apiece, plus the points from defeating the French and Spanish navies if they come out to fight, plus the economic gain from the colonial income, plus reducing French and Spanish income.
If Britain doesn't want to act on that incentive, making it still bigger won't help.
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
Caribbean
If you take the French possessions(only) in the Caribbean, the comparitive seasonal income goes from a French C$12000 advantage, to a British C$1000 advantage - or almost dead even.
With Britian being an Island, I like a pure Naval play for England for at least the first campaign.
Do not wait for RAR to even finish splitting the continent. After the Caribbean play, then work the rest of RAR.
Was this attempted at all for NWOL1 and NWOL2? If Hannover is the issue, sell Hannover to the Dutch in exchange for their Caribbean possessions - which they cannot protect anyway. Even give them some monetary compensation on a per turn basis, to keep them out of it.
Negotiate with Spain. Do not touch their possessions. Give them Gibraltar if you have to - just to keep them out of it.
I think a balanced revenue situation between to top two majors will on the whole be more satisfactory for any of the Continental powers.
John Vanvark
Reply to comment
At the end of the first "WAR" campaign, if France and England are not at war with each other, then every nation that is at war with someone gets a 50% bonus on their end of T15 $C balance.
Historically France and England weren't at war with eachother at the end of the first war campaign (Spring 1792), since France didn't DOW England until Feb 93. So why should there be a punishment for behaving historically?
Britain not at war in 1792
I have no problem with the historic idea that Britain should have joined the coalition against France in 1792, but didn't because of internal political dissent, and should be penalized in game terms for not doing so. (On the other hand, I don't feel so strongly about it to have written that into the game; clearly I have not included that.) I know there are those who think Britain didn't really have motivation to fight until the execution of Louis XVIII in early 1793, and I respect that opinion but don't agree with it.
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
Britain not at war in 1792
England had nothing to gain in getting involved with a spat between the French and the Prussians/Austrians in 1792. Even with the King executed there probably wasn't enough cause for war. But when the French actions were going to hurt England in the wallet then the course was clear. The French knew it too. That is why they DOW'd England and the Dutch on the same day.
-Nick
Britain not at war in 1792
Nick,
It's my understanding that the British electorate and press were very strongly in favour of war after Louis was executed. Britain was perhaps the only true democracy in Europe at the time and any government that failed to react appropriately would have soon been looking for work. In other words it is my understanding that the government of the day felt compelled to go to war.
Jim
Jim Voege
So why should there be a punishment for behaving historically?
Nicholas
I presume you are interested in one of the suggested 3 solutions below, but which of the following is historical?
1. Least extreme: Give Britain and France incentives within the victory conditions to be hostile. For example, say that if France achieves hegemony, Britain pays a 20% VP penalty.
2. More extreme: Explicitly say that if France wins, Britain automatically finishes last.
3. Most extreme: Give up on diplomatic freedom entirely. Go to a two-sided game, with France on one side and Britain on the other.
My suggestions are financial incentives to lead Britain and France to behave in a historical manner. The incentives themselves are not historical - but I do not understand which of the three other suggested solutions above are historical?? I have not heard a historical solution except for 3, but that prevents game play as far as I am concerned.
John Vanvark
historical
I'll encourage Nick to comment, but meantime I'll say that I think 2 is historical, in the sense that Britain, which needs to maintain a balance of power to prevent an invasion, loses if any nation achieves hegemony on the Continent but particularly if France, a naval power, does so, and France can only win by achieving hegemony.
3 is historical in the sense that that's what actually happened in 1805, but not in any other sense. It would also be very hard to reconcile an explicitly two-sided game with Prussia's lukewarm support of France after 1806 and Austria's after 1809.
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
historical
Steve...so what you are arguing is that if the French forces are rampaging through the streets of Berlin, Vienna and Moscow that the British are actually the ones in the worst position?
That is kind of like saying that a small Baltic protectorate that was completely wiped off the map is in first place. Oh wait...
-Nick
Britain, France, and Historical Play
Let me begin by saying Congrats to the French team (again) and the other winners. And Britain did a heck of a lot better than me too, so hat's off also.
I am one of those who thinks something needs to be done here, and I lean towards option #2. While I agreed with giving players freedom to act after NWOL1, the NWOL2 experience goes so far beyond the realm of historical possibility to me that a change is needed. We have played two iterations of NWOL, and in both of those the situations were very different. But both diverged from historical accuracy in regards to Britain (especially) and France. Regardless of whether certain nations were actually allied with one another for a small period of time during this historical period (something that has been brought up before), it is difficult to deny that France and Britain were consistently the major European historical adversaries throughout this period.
I go back to a point Steve S. made a long time back...(I am paraphrasing here) that a player in our modern era does not act and probably should not be expected to act in the same manner as a historical leader from that time. Some are going to play to win the game...pure and simple...whether that goes completely against the historical realities or not. Some are not willing to accept the same diplomatic realities that an actual leader would. And you cannot really blame them? They are going to be playing a new nation in the next game instead of actually living with the ramifications like an actual leader would have had to.
Under these circumstances, I think that the diplomatic rules need to be changed. I don't think it is overstating it too much to say France and England were the driving force (directly or otherwise) behind much of the hostilities during this period. I think this needs to be better replicated in NWOL. Since I don't think option #1 does enough to ensure that, my choice would be #2. It does not explicitly prevent those nations from helping one another, it just makes the repercussions for doing so exponentially more costly (and I would say, accurately so).
re: Britain, France, and Historical Play
Britain and France were historical enemies in 1792. Austria and Prussia were historical enemies in 1792. In 1792 French action threatened both Prussia and Austria so they put aside their historical animosity and worked together.
So if in a completely hypothetical situation, if Prussia and Austria declare war on the UK and have Russia backing, should be British be limited in their ability to work with the only remaining Major?
In reality though anybody that allies with France is likely going to be playing for second place, since the acquisition of VPs seems to be easier with Frances large and high quality army. That alone should limit the desirability of the alliance, unless there are no better options.
-Nick
re: Britain, France, and Historical Play
Nick,
You're absolutely right, its alliance with France virtually guaranteed Britain second place -- no better and no worse. Many of us recognized this months and months ago and patiently waited for the alliance to break up as Britain sought to win the game. But it never happened. In discussions with other players it has been suggested to me that the British were satisfied with second place. I find that hard that to believe when Britain is so obviously a leading contender.
So I for one would be most interested in knowing what was going on inside the British strategic mind throughout this last game. Any chance of you playing "fly-on-the-wall"? ;-)
Jim Voege
Indeed France was satisfied
Indeed France was satisfied with second place. Though the probability was that we would come out on top it was stated early on that we would have to satisfied with second place if that is what it came to. It was a position I opposed, but was unable to alter.
The confederation should have fallen apart and I think the notion that there is a second place is incorrect. There should be one winner in each category, and the rest share the position of 'not winner'. That might go some way to influencing diplomacy and alliances and making them more fluid.
This is very simple
Jim,
It is all very simple. The people who joined the Confederation agreed that it was going to be a team effort and that if the team won, we all won. We made the contract and stuck to it. It was as simple as that. The victory in the game by France was a joint win for England and France. They were co-major winners. Spain, Portugal, and Holland were joint winners. There was no way that we could control the VPs sufficiently to make them come out equal. We each had a part to play and played it. There was a coordianted naval effort, there was a coordinated army effort, there was coordinated transporting, coordinated production and transfer of supplies. Not everyone saw what was going on but there was a huge amount of cooperation and coordination. At then end I was commanding French troops taking the last two cities in Venice as there was not much going on for me to do among the Spain/Portugal/Italy team.
Were there times when there was distrust? Yes. Early on there was less trust. But I have to tell you I woke up one day and said to myself, damn everyone is going to honor their agreements. It was so very refreshing that there was no back-stabbling like in other games where people did not honor their agreements. I have to say I am proud of the players that worked together and made it all happen.
Salute to you all!
Jerry Gouge
Actually I joined the
Actually I joined the coalition, or at least supported it in cabinet, because we (France) had been outmanoeuvred diplomatically in Italy and stood in a dangerous position with Prussia and Austria looking to move on us.
My understanding at the time was that this confederation would get us through a tough spot, and then we would re-address the situation.
I never trusted Britain and my every suggestion of Army, Navy and Economic effort was to secure France as the dominant force in this confederation. Once we were dominant the need to re-address the situation was not needed on our part, and it was only my personal feeling of guilt over the position of those outside the confederation that made me feel sometimes like 'reneging'.
If France would have bee on the obvious loosing end of the deal I would have pressed very hard to attack Britain, and if the response had been about 'our word' or honour then I would have approached the GM to ask exactly how I supply a Parisian mob with a list on names and a guillotine? ;-).
I think that this is how a statesman should be played. I would have been fine with carrying the reputation through the game, both of backstabber and associated strategic realist.
Only one winner
On this, I will have to respectfully disagree. There was one winner in each category, and everyone else was a loser in this game. This is not about who can form the best Napoleonic version of NATO or the U.N., it is about who can win the game, pure and simple. If it makes some of you feel better to be the first-loser instead of the fourth-loser, so be it. But the game will acknowledge and we will all talk about who won the game. After all, the objectives and victory conditions don't talk about shared victories or mutual good-will. They talk about winning the game, and in my opinion, all players should play the game accordingly.
After all, on one hand you are calling for the frags to flip on their allies anytime they are threatened or lose a city and then you sing the praises of your alliance staying together.
The rules are clear on this
The rules are clear on this point already. There is only one winner. Well 3 actually, but really only the MajorPower winner gets any real recognition. So there is and can be only one winner and that is that.
But there is a distinct difference between 2nd place and 5th place. The first and most obvious difference is the last place finishers had their countries overrun and the 2nd place finishers were probably doing the overrunning. I think it is disrespectful to group them together as equal losers.
But it is awfully frustrating to know an alliance should eventually break apart and it never does. And that all your efforts to bring about may have been a complete waste of time as is there was never any chance of bringing it about no matter what you did.
And that works both ways. If the 4 majors had stayed together for the destruction of France, dont you have 3 of them settling for 2nd 3rd or 4th place?
I think to the victor goes the spoils. And if the winner wants to include others in his victory then he gets to do that.
I totally agree. I think this
I totally agree.
I think this should be stated in the game rule thingumies, that you either win or loose, there is no ranking of nations. That might co some way to 'inspire' accurate diplomatic relations without the need to change code and such.
ranking nations
Ranking nations is a necessity, so that nations that are far out of first place still have something to fight for. At least according to the rules they do - I recognize the problem that what the rules say nations should fight for may not be what players actually do. But at least in theory, a nation in fourth place which can't possibly win can still be trying to get back up into third.
Certainly among the minors, as Denmark I was quite aware that three of the nations were pretty close to one another for second place, and I was doing a number of things diplomatically to keep Denmark in second place. For a while I thought Spain would catch up, but they had a bad turn or two and slipped just far enough back. But Portugal was so far out in front that catching them was hopeless and had been for quite a while.
If you don't have that incentive, then a nation which is convinced it won't win, or possibly several nations which are convinced of that, have no incentive to do anything at all, and become complete loose cannons. They may think, "I can't win, and it doesn't matter if I lose by less, but I can still screw up Denmark's chance to win so by gum that's what I'll do!" Ranking all the nations at least gives people something to do other than that. By and large I think it works fairly well.
This is also the reason we announce winners by campaign; a nation which is doing poorly in the game standings can say, "let's try to win this campaign at least." And if they can win a couple campaigns they might be able to get back into the race.
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
ranking nations
I will refer back to the national goals here. As long as each nation has goals they have something to work towards. If it appears one of their goals is untenable they can shift their priority to working on another one, or work some diplomacy with the nation that is in the way of their goal to try and work something out.
Equally important is that it will direct players efforts better. if a state doesn't have a dog in a certain fight they won't have to go along just because it is the only game in town, they can try and find a way to take advantage of the general chaos of war and make strides towards what is actually important for them.
-Nick
First loser
Agreed. This was discussed often. The one that comes in second is simply the "first loser", after all. There should absolutely be no notion of a "team win" or "coalition win" or any "Miss Congeniality" awards, either.
Unfortunately, the problem is...just as we can't dictate that nations act "responsibly" and do whatever was historically-necessary for them to retain some semblance of autonomy instead of riding their Götterdämmerung into national oblivion (color me "guilty", as well, I like a challenge and don't like to take the "easy road", so sue me)...we can't also, of course, force players to "behave" as they normally would, without some artificial rules in place to make them do so.
In either event, it doesn't matter if there's collusion between England and France against everybody else or collusion between every other country against France. Either way, it's wrong. It might be "fun", for some (although I think that word means something different to others), but it's still wrong.
Me? I prefer a challenge, sure, but even "tilting at windmills" gets old, after awhile...so there has to be some play-balance. This really isn't a "free-for-all", with everyone starting-out on an equal-footing, after all.
Wouldn't it be better to establish some "handicaps", in order to establish who really "wins" and who "loses"?
For instance, the proximity-factor to France should weigh against you if you choose to side with them. Portugal siding with Spain should definitely cause a "slip", because you've just eliminated your worst enemy (this particular iteration is even more heinous, to me, than an Anglo-Franco alliance...because it's the only occurrence of two, adjacent minors)
In short, reduce your potential point-yield for any unrealistic, a-historical combination with another nation that you would not have, historically, sought an alliance with.
Sure, it's a pain...but any playability formula is, in and of itself, difficult. But, then again, that makes the game better.
Steven
Steven Mathena
I am in marketing. I make you buy things you don't need. SGM
I love it
Spain and Portugal thank you.
Once the alliance of Spain and Portugal was a go and the concept of "team win" was in place it spread from there. There may be some in the Coalition nations who did not see all of the cooperation, but in the Med there was enormous cooperation in logisitics, naval patroling, sea lifting, etc.
I submit that the use of a national morale could help cause nations to act more historically. If Britain allies with France then each nation's morale suffers, troop levies reduce, income decreases and thus the ability to prosecute the war reduces.
Same with Spain and Portugal or countries where historical hatreds keep alliances from being plausible.
From a game stand point (last game) it is only prudent for Portugal to ally with Spain and prudent for Spain to ally with France and for Spain to ally with Britain. Portugal could easily be whiped out by Spain. Spain cannot stand up against France. Spain needs to ally with Britain to protect her Caribbean interests. To me it all was very logical. The only country we might have wished not been in the Coalition was Holland so that Spain could have gone after her Caribbean colonies.
Ask King William, Lord Price, Count Santiago or Count Fransciso if they feel like losers today. I think the effort was greatly rewarding. That is not to say that we should continue in this vein going forward.
Jerry Gouge
Alliances
Question: from a historical perspective if five countries ally during the real Napoleonic wars and they win, were they not all winners? Didn't they all feel good about winning and being on the winning side?
It seems to me that the only ones who are arguing that the members of the Coalition were not indivdually winners or cannot consider themselves winners are those who were not in the Coalition.
Obviously the game says there is one winner in each category and thus the record stands. To me the goal is to see how big an increase you can get in your point total. Not everyone is set up to move it as much as others and once in an alliance it is difficult to play a part other than what is most logical for winning the war.
One thing I think all of us (or at least I do) have issues with is going back on our word. That is a tall yardstick against which to measure actions. If you keep your word you might not technically win. To some keeping their word is more important than being precisely in first place. A solid compromise is to share in the team victory.
Jerry Gouge
Hear him! Hear him! Huzzah!
When Wellington left the field at Waterloo, do you all suppose only the British won?
There was most certainly not one winner in this past game.
Reflect a moment. When Price proposed a 'Confederation" and Lannes added "Of European States" and Portugal fought for Minor representation ---- those outside the Confederation never knew that the sum total of our discussion was MOST CERTAINLY NOT to have one winner. Our goal was to collectively defeat our enemies.
You should read those first e-mails . . .England and France had mutual distrusts - first a two season non aggression pact, than declaring the caribbean a war free zone - watching, waiting then finally trusting and going in for the whole hog!
We even asked the GA how we could declare multiple winners, since that was our object, but that was not within the programming. So we all decided to pool our assets and responsibilities.
Case in point - France needed the crowns to conduct the land war that would accumulate mega VPs, so France 'mothballed" her fleets.
England took up the blockades, the raids, the destruction of the Russian Navy and with Spain and Holland the building transports and troop movements - all costly, not many VPs attached, but we worked for the commonweal.
I do not consider France the unltimate winner, despite what the numbers say - the Confederation members can proudly say WE DID IT!
Each member worked for a common effort.
You don't have to believe it. The Rules and Reports will never describe it that way, yet quite factually, that was the way it was.
There was no problem "holding together" the Confederation - after our initial over the shoulder looking to see who was going to turn on the others, and seeing that no one did - we had land and sea commanders, we begged, we wheedled we acted out our parts like a fine orchestra [1812 Overture?] - we gave our enemies a view that we were constantly bickering when bickering was at a minimum.
I say Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah! for the winner of NWOLII - The Confederation of European States!
No, Britain was not the sole winner at Waterloo - they only had the General in Charge.
Otto von Baden
Seiner Durchlaucht Markgraf von Baden-Durlach
Rat der Fürsten des Heiligen Römischen Reiches
Minister für auswärtige Angelegenheiten des Heiligen Römischen Reiches
Flottillenadmiral
Rules are rules
I agree that the Confederation worked well together. We all did our part to help the French win. It is like the Tour de France. It take a whole team of people to win the race, but there is only one Lance Armstrong that gets to be the actual winner. France is Lance Armstrong, Britain is that other guy and Spain is what's his face.
I may be in the minority in the Confederation, but the rules clearly dictates who wins and who loses. The Confederation players clearly read the rules very carefully, which is why we won, but for some reason they can't seem to grasp the rules defining victory. The British had the second highest percent increase so we finished in 2nd place. You can construe it as a silver medal or you can say we were first among the losers. you can argue that the Confederation took both gold and silver, but you can't say England actually took the gold medal. OK you can say it, but it doesn't make it true. Russia can say they won too using whatever definition of victory works for them.
If you don't like the victory conditions for the game (I personally think they stink) then argue to get them changed. Argue for having a provision for coalition victory. But don't just ignore the rules you don't like and pretend they don't exist. It ultimately isn't fair if one side is playing according to the rule and actually wants to win using that definition and the other is ignoring the rules and making up their own definitions.
-nick
Back to Lord Wellington
Britain did not win Waterloo . . . allied forces defeated the French and their allies.
This also effectively happened in NWOLII. The allied forces defeated their allied enemies.
Quod erat demonstrandum!
The nation with the most points is the NWOL winner.
France had the most points. Under the NWOL Rules, France won. I give you that.
I dance in circles of joy knowing that France is the gold medal winner, but I leap
gazelle-like in the fuller knowledge that while the points flowed down the Seine,
the ultimate victory was won by major and minor and frag nations shoveling points away
from themselves and I take comfort in that fact that the Confederation achieved it's
goal.
I truly believe - maybe I am the only one - that from of the point of view of those players who
played to defeat our enemies, that we won. The Rules are flexible enough for us to follow them to
the letter while we are advancing our own goal - that is their beauty.
For all cybertime it will be recorded that France was the victor - - - but we who were there will know
otherwise!
Q. On overall analysis, what really brought the game to such a quick demise?
A. The way Britain kept everyone at war and pressed and pressed an Economic system that
we believed must lead to world economic collapse. Our pre-game discussions were spot-on!
It really did work!!!
Note the word picture - Price leaping like a gazelle!
Give me another crumpet . . .
Otto von Baden
Seiner Durchlaucht Markgraf von Baden-Durlach
Rat der Fürsten des Heiligen Römischen Reiches
Minister für auswärtige Angelegenheiten des Heiligen Römischen Reiches
Flottillenadmiral
Exactly the Point...
The game plan from the start was to keep the world at war because we could afford the massive expenditures and the rest of the world couldn't if they wanted to fight. I must admit that the cautious nature that I have at times wanted to call a halt to it on more than one occasion. The policy of economic warfare was at the start and it was exactly what caused the end.