Plea against gameyness

[sol_invictus]

In other historical strategic games I have seen glaring, gamey loopholes in the rules that go a long way toward either ruining the game or at least sending it spirling into the realm of pure fantasy. I have seen posts about EiA and some of the gamey moves that have been developed over the years and I certainly hope that these will not carry over into the computer version. I will be very disappointed if I am playing Spain and the British conquer Portugal in the first turn, which seems to be a normal British move in the boardgame. I would certainly hope that such a move would be preceded by some very heated diplomacy between Britain and Spain. I know if I were Spain, I would expect some serious compensation to let Britain keep Portugal. What keeps Spain from grabbing Portugal in the boardgame by the way? This game is going to be so much fun. I have stared at the map screenshots for at least an hour a day for the last several days. It's never to soon to plot strategy and plan acqusitions.

[Uncle Toby]

On the ‘Re-creation’ Vs ‘Strategy’ and ‘Paper game’ Vs ‘Computer game’ poles I’ll mark you as strong re-creation, computer game.

The problem with a re-creation of history in a game is you either have to model all the constraints on a player’s actions accurately and in balance (a daunting task, even to my imagination) or simply forbid certain moves (not realistic which defeats the object but also not effective as the loopholes simply move around requiring yet more prohibitions and exceptions). The only way I can think of to feasibly make a strong re-creation is to allow so little input from the players as to make the game trivial and simplistic.

[sol_invictus]

I agree it's very difficult to pull off but I and most others, I would guess, don't want a replication of history as this would as you say, take most of the gameplay out of the game. What I would like to see are outcomes that were historicly possible or even probable. This is a problem with most strategy games since everyone wants to quickly grab choice pieces of real estate on the first turn. I just hope EiA puts up enough roadblocks to keep the game from wandering off into fantasy land.

Even with Spanish compliance, I wouldn't think that Britain should be able to conquer Portugal in the first turn. I've never played the boardgame but this seems to be a standard British move. Is it possible to bring a minor into your fold without conquering them first? This would seem more realistic for Britain than launching a blitzkrieg on Portugal on the first turn. I just want to avoid the situation of an EU type game were everyone has to grab what they can, if for no other reason, than to keep the other guy from grabbing it. This applies to Portugal and many other minors I would guess. Obviously, if it's there for the taking, both Britain and Spain would want it. There just needs to be some control mechanism that makes grabbing it not so easy or imposes some diplomatic cost to such rapacity. That may already be in the game and I think that to a degree it is. It will be very interesting to see how the computer version handles this weighty issues.

[Uncle Toby]

I think I understand what you want, the problem is to model it in a game, that’s what I meant by trying to realistically create all the forces and balance them as in real life. To use the example of the Portuguese blitzkrieg, in reality Britain could not have done this for several reasons, some of which would be nearly compelling enough in themselves but when combined make it nearly impossible. The problem is to model them all. Perhaps the most compelling reason would be the fall of any British government which would conquer a neutral European country without making a compelling case to the public. This would require a model of British parliamentary politics and the culture of 18th century Britain which drove it. Nearly a subject for a game in itself. Then there is the exact reaction of the other Nations of Europe, far more complex than the simple Casus Belli of EU.

My point is to allow all or even most of the possible while effectively stopping the impossible historical outcomes is a very deep model. I doubt you could even get agreement on what it should consist of much less how to do it. To some degree it is a question of historical philosophy.

[sol_invictus]

I guess the boardgame used the Instability and Fiasco Zones to try to reign in any wild and crazy behavior by a state. While this is very abstracted, if it provides good reasons for a country to not always do the possible, this might be good enough. I'm just afraid there will be a land rush throughout Europe in the first few turns. I'm curious Toby, have you played the boardgame? Is there a workable mechanism to dampen down the Majors running amok; other than the other majors getting pissed off. I would think a major stability hit might make it hard to grab more than one minor in a several year period and might make it very hard for some Majors to do even once. Maybe make revolts, a decrease in tax revenue, and decrease in manpower a risk you might run for such brutish behavior. This of course would be nation specific as France could do it with impunity while Britain and Spain would have a tough time pulling it off. I'm curious to hear some opinions from anyone who has actually played the boardgame.

[Uncle Toby]

Yes I’ve played it several times about twelve years ago. It wouldn’t be hard to stop a specific action but without a complete model you would still get unrealistic behavior, you’d just change when and how it occurs. You won’t get much closer to a recreation and you’d likely get a worse game if only because you’d add a lot of complexity that served no game purpose. The criteria for a game are one thing and not frequently compatible with a recreation.

[sol_invictus]

Well I hope they can successfully pull off this project. It seems very ambitious but I have confidence it will be a classic. It's going to be a long winter wait.

[Hoplosternum]

Arinvald,

I played EiA a few times but it was quite a long time ago. As I recall there is a general swallowing up of the minors at the beginning. This may be rather unrealistic but did not really have too bad an effect on the gameplay which always had at it's heart the interaction between the Seven major powers. In fact it really got the diplomacy going with threats and bribes being employed by all as they tried to get the most out of this.

If you really wanted a rule to stop this you would have to change the basic production mechanics of EiA (not necessarily a bad thing). In EiA every province (Majors have many provinces, minors usually just one) has a manpower and a money value. If you control and own the province you get these. Hence by conquering minors you increase your production. This gives everyone an incentive to grab the minors.

However much diplomacy flows from this. You often need the cooperation or at least acceptance of others to take a minor. Take your Portugese example. Without Spainsh approval this is very risky for Britain. An early French-Spain alliance vs Britain can tie up all Britains fleets on blockade duty and will result in Portugal falling to Spain or France, Britain cannot defend it with their tiny starting army. If Spain does not want a war (and it is risky and restricts there own early development) it can simply grant France free access at a later date. Davout plus a couple of large French corps will soon capture Portugal.

There are many possible abuses in EiA but they mostly revolve around the Peace conditions and the scuttling of the largely irreplaceable fleets (probably Britains main aim in the Portugese gambit - scuttle that minor fleet!). I really hope Matrix addresses these. The grabbing of minors just adds to the player interaction IME. If you play the game as written against some players who play the rules to win you will see all sorts of really gamey stuff like:

- Everyone declares war on Britain on Turn 1. Thats just so they can destroy his biggest fleets after Britain unconditionally surrenders. If Britain is allowed a year or two to expand it's fleet while commando raiding against the other powers (scuttling any it can) then you get to a position where Britain can never be conquered (unlike everyone else). Hence the turn 1 war....

- Britain being constantly 'at war' with his natural allies like Austria so that if Austria surrenders to France the Britain picks the peace condition first....

- Countless other gamey abuses. I really hope these are addressed. Britain attacking Portugal on turn 1 just adds to the player interaction.

[Le Tondu]

Is it possible for a game designer to put in stops to cover every chance to abuse a game with this so called gameyness? Absolutely not.

I've seen plenty of computer games that can be abused like this. Actually just about all of them can be abused with "gamey" actions --one way or the other. They don't ruin a game. Players who play the game in the gamey way ruin it. Let's put the blame in the proper place, for heaven's sake. It's the player and NOT the game that ruins the experience.

It is important for a player of a historical game to have the complete freedom to do whatever was done historically. If the player doesn't have that freedom then it's not a very historical game--period. Having that freedom has it's price and keeping true to the historical period when a player chooses his actions within the game is crucial.

What is the answer?

Pregame agreements that outlaw the certain gamey practices. If someone violates the agreement and shows no desire to comply with what they themselves agreed to comply with, stop playing against them.

Always, always, always, always have pregame agreements and don't play without them. It is up to you and no one else to ensure that your gaming experience has the greatest possibility to end up being a thoroughly enjoyable experience. Without a pregame agreement, you'll just deserve what you get.

Chat with your opponent via email or the telephone (if it is possible) and find out what kind of game he/she wishes to have. Set everything up beforehand.

Heck, if anything, this agreement thing might just end up being a great way to begin a lifelong friendship. Good luck and happy gaming!

[sol_invictus]

Thanks for the insight Hoplosternum. As long as there is some sort of recourse and countermove for the Majors against such actions, I guess it will be fine. I just hope that the rules are tightened up as much as possible to eliminate the most glaring loopholes, or at least impose high penalties for conducting certain historicly unrealistic behavior.

[Hoplosternum]

Hello Le Tondu,

Of course you are correct that gameyness is a result of the players actions not the game itself. I don't 'power game' myself and like to play with those who likewise are looking for a more relaxed and fun game than those who just want to win.

However the rules of the game can influence the amount of likely gameyness. It can be hard to urge everyone to play not to win but in the spirit of the game In EiA I think the peace conditions and the Victory conditions encourage a lot of these problems.

EiA works so well as a solo game. If you play all the sides everyone behaves in a largely historical fashion. The powers fight wars even when they are weaker.

Once you have played a few games against others and everyone knows the results of fighting a war when you are the underdog etc. then this changes

I liked EiA and I am really looking forward to this game. I just hope that some of the well known abuses are addressed. I know some people will find new ones but there is no reason to make it easy for them

Arinvald,

The best thing about this game was the interaction between the Major powers. You cannot really do anything - neither take a minor or build some ships - without ruffling someone's feathers :)Sometimes the diplomacy created could lead to ahistorical things like having Russians in North Africa for example, but the heart of the game are the big wars in Europe. Shifts in alliances could occur over who owns small bits of Italy. If you look at this as part of the general manouverings of the Major powers rather than worry about the unhistorical nature of having say Prussians in Naples this has the potential to be a great game

[sol_invictus]

I'm not really bothered by Prussia controlling Algieria or Russia controlling Portugal; these events, while unlikely in a historical context, were in the realm of possibility. I certainly dont want an exact replay of history and one shouldnt expect it with seven greedy humans competing for glory. It seems that the first few turns will be the key as this is when everyone will be grabbing what they can get their hands on. Hopefully there will be some mechanism to limit this somewhat. After the initial landrush is over things will hopefully settle down into some tough diplomatic maneuvering. I really look forward to this game; should be excellent.

[Uncle Toby]

This is the can of worms I was talking about when I noted how difficult it is to reconcile game design with re-creation or simulation.

What sense does it make to have pre-game agreements about actions, or to play the game according to some unwritten code of conduct? If you are trying to produce a historical simulator, the goal is to lay down rules which model the real world. Conventions are an admission of failure.

We briefly went through a similar phase until we realized that pre-game agreements are made to be twisted and only playing with people who ‘play nice’ in ‘the spirit of the game’ means endless argument (over what that means) and insipid gameplay. In the end we decided one of the best things about computer games is the freedom to do whatever the program allows, to imaginatively exploit it, which you all deride as ‘gameiness’. It’s true this can ruin a game and make it unplayable, but the reason is not, as you all contend, the principle of exploitation, it is the shoddy, weak design of nearly all multiplayer computer games.

Having said that, what you all seem to want is less a game than a napoleonic world simulator and, though I think it should be possible to make better games than we usually see from the designers, a NWS is something it would take ten strong men just to think about.

Consider simple fundamental questions of it’s basis such as; How do you maintain government control? By making most of your people feel satisfied with the situation? How? By terror? By maintaining their basic needs? By ideological fervor? By appealing to nationalism, and glory? By setting one faction against another? By some combination of these? If so, how do they interact and relate?

Producing a napoleonic historical simulation in any detail would be a magnum opus of political philosophy, mass psychology, and history.

I would prefer a game, which asked the player to face some of the kinds of decisions (abstracted) which are exemplified by napoleonic politics and warfare. Personally I think it would be more interesting and useful to dump the whole simulation line and make abstracted countries, that way you could have different maps and scenario situations.

[Le Tondu]

The failure of pregame agreements can lie (I believe) not in the game but within the agreements themselves. Simple rules are what I am talking about that are agreed upon in order to have a friendly game. If it isn't specifically agreed upon, it is "fair game." They key here is to keep it simple and to not micromanage for every possible situation.

For instance, if one wants to have a historical game, then Russia would never be allowed to invade Spain or England because those things never happened historically. They're just too far of a stretch of the imagination for a historical type of game. France yes, but not Russia or the Ottoman Empire. The continental armies didn't ever have serious plans for those sorts of things for a real good reason. This type of game would be where the Napoleonic Era is simulated.

If it isn't a historical type of game, then it is an "everything goes" type of game. One or the other. Trying to get something inbetween can only lead to the type of failure that Uncle Toby's group experienced, IMO. This type of game is more of a fantasy type of game set in the Napoleonic Arena.

Pregame agreements can and do work. No one ever is totally happy with them. Even the one who writes them isn't always happy --because we are all human and cannot forsee every situation that needs to be addressed. We're all just doing the best that we can.

Whatever decision is made in a national situation in our game, it is done in seconds by the player and should be made along the lines of the agreed type of game.

This is the easiest way to tend to end up with a friendly game. It isn't perfect, but it is the best thing that can be done considering the game designers aren't perfect either. While a lot of the onus is on the game designers, I cannot and will not expect it to be entirely on them. That is just plain unrealistic. We, the gamers must step up and take responsibility for our own gaming experience. It is up to us and no one else.

Lastly, when you step up to a dinner buffet, no one expects you to eat everything. You pick and choose whatever you want. It will be the same for this game, I imagine. You just gotta be real clear on what it is that you want to put on your plate.

[Uncle Toby]

I don’t doubt pre-game agreements can work, it depends what you mean by work doesn’t it? What I’m saying is they get you no closer to the goal of a historical simulation. You approach in one way (a silly move is forbidden) and you recede in another as an arbitrary rule is introduced (in a proper simulation everything that is impossible should be so because of the system’s interaction). In the example of Russia invading Spain or England there is no reason why these things are impossible, everything depends on circumstances. I can easily imagine Russian armies operating in either country provided they could be transported and supplied. The problem is the way they can operate in EiA which is far too easy, quick. and possible on too large a scale The problem in short is the simulation is poor so you patch it by forbidding certain moves (which should be possible under unusual circumstances) and now your simulation is still poor in a different way.

[sol_invictus]

As I said, EiA shouldn't be an exact repetition of history and I dont think the majority want it to be. I do think the vast majority would like a game with 'reasonable' outcomes. Matrix just needs to determine what is 'reasonable'. This should be very simple.

[Uncle Toby]

Yeah, just like how everybody agrees on what’s reasonable in politics, punitive damage awards, stereo volume at three in the morning and divorce settlements.

Simple!

[Hoplosternum]

OK,

I think we are talking about different things here - at least I am

My desire is not to stop the Russians helping the French put down the Spanish. If that is what diplomacy leads to then so be it.

My problem is with certain aspects of EiA which lead to rational decisions being made by the players which quite frankly spoil the game both as a game and as a historical simulation.

The worst of which are (but are not limited to):

1) No wars - If you are likely to lose, and the advantage is usually fairly easy to determine after all allies have been called and joined or renaged, you unconditionally surrender immeadiately. Fighting will just weaken you further. A Napoleonic game with no fighting - great. Even the great man can be exiled before he has moved the Guard out of Paris....

2) Pile on - See your 'ally' being attacked by a lot of enemies. Don't just not help him but join in the attack to! You lose a lot of Victory Points by breaking an alliance, so may as well recoup some/ all by getting in on the Unconditional surrender to come.

3) Pre Game destroy Englands Fleets War - gamey, but probably necessary if you don't like England becoming completely invulnerable. England needs quite a lot of VPs to win but has a great chance to pull it off when she can never be forced to surrender after a year or two (especially with Economic manipulation). Only France can really also get into this position and that depends on good play on her part and bad play by her opponents. England just needs to keep a low profile for a year or two....

Now some of these, especially (2) are just going to be a factor in a Multiplayer game but the EiA surrender and victory conditions really encourage them. I believe these are real spoilers especially for Multiplayer games. I hope they change them in the games design.

As for ahistoric play, that is far less of a problem IMHO. I would however be happy to abide by any pre game agreements made. If I don't agree with them I can always not play in that game.

[sol_invictus]

That's what I'm talking about Hoplosternum. There should be a way to eliminate the most offensive loopholes that lead to gross gameyness.

[DodgyDave]

Some of those loopholes have been talked about before, if you now go and read the EIH part, then will you see they have sorted many of those problems as well, but off course given a few new problems to be solved, but i think there is less now then before