Is it just me?

[Mus]

Am I the only one who dislikes the early game scenarios? I find them to be VERY incomplete, particularly for the "long haul" uses people seem to want to put them to. Also far from giving the "smaller" countries a chance I find the longer timeline helps the more powerful nations develop at a more rapid rate and fill the larger minor nation power vacuums more quickly.

Does anyone want to play an 1805 game?

I find it ironic that the most complete scenario is never played.

[morganbj]

That's why we like to play them.  A country can be MUCH stronger (at least economically) by 1805 than they were historically.

[Anthropoid]

Yeah, I was wondering if Russia would have actually been able to achieve "zero corruption," 1000 national morale, an army of about ~300K, and a (so far) successful war against Britain, Prussia, and Austria by 1798 or whatever date we are up to in PBEM 109. Britain with a stockpile of ~5500 gold and mounting three or so separte military formations as expeditionary forces in Central-Eastern Europe also struck me as being a wee-bit ahistorical?
 
I haven't even LOOKED at anything but 1792!! [X(]

[IronWarrior]

As usual I agree with you Brian. The thing is that in the early scenarios I notice that the smaller countries fail to unite against the stronger powers and end paying the price in the long run. A great example of not seeing the "forest for the trees" or however it goes. [:D]

[Marshal Villars]

I think one problem is people are playing 23 year scenarios and I think the system just isn't ready for that. I think people should be playing 10 year scenarios max right now. But that is just my opinion.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

I think one problem is people are playing 23 year scenarios and I think the system just isn't ready for that. I think people should be playing 10 year scenarios max right now. But that is just my opinion.

Our 1796 2000 glory game was really good I thought. Believe that ended up about 10 years long before I squeeked over the finish line.

Had it been an 1805 game I think it would have been even better.

Missing generals make earlier scenarios less interesting, but the balance issues are definetely there with all the earlier ones as well. The 1792 scenario with the Polish wildcard seems to be the most unbalanced of them all, yet it has been the most widely selected for our PBEMs thus far.

[Marshal Villars]

LOL. Yes. Polish wildcard. That IS a big one. It makes for all kinds of interesting weird play.

In GoingAgain, Russia and Prussia invaded it on the second turn and Sweden (me) got it as a protectorate and Russia and Prussia refused to cooperate or give ANY of it to Sweden. Swedish/Polish forces handled the defense well with assistance from Britain once the first defeats of the Prussian armies were handed in. Now, Sweden has conquered Westphalia, Breslau, East Prussia has declared its independence from Prussian rule, and Prussian morale sits at -984 with 120,000 Austrian/Polish troops in its capital. That went wrong for Prussia.

But it ain't over until the fat lady sings. Russia is still bugging Sweden.

Yes. The Polish wild card. It does make the game risky/interesting.

[Anthropoid]

Without a lot more designing, it seems ahistorial outcomes are the expected norm.

[06 Maestro]

I would be interested in an 1805 scenario.

I wonder how well that would play with only 4 human players?