The 'I cant win' effect

[morvwilson]

I always thought that EiA (as well as any other game) was supposed to be a game among friends.
Would you deny a friend a chance to save face? It is a lot easier to be a good sport on the losing end if the others are not rubbing your face into it.
For instance in one game the GB player had Welly facing off against the TU and kept rolling 1's in every combat roll except when he was trying to outflank! That's the time you laugh at the luck of the rolls not rib the guy for his bad luck!

[Joisey]

Indeed, I've seen friendships end over people being treated shabbily in an EIA game.

[Sardonic]

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

I always thought that EiA (as well as any other game) was supposed to be a game among friends.
Would you deny a friend a chance to save face? It is a lot easier to be a good sport on the losing end if the others are not rubbing your face into it.
For instance in one game the GB player had Welly facing off against the TU and kept rolling 1's in every combat roll except when he was trying to outflank! That's the time you laugh at the luck of the rolls not rib the guy for his bad luck!

I am not the person advocating tossing a player out of the game.
It is a game among freinds, and in reality, if I could not win, I would side with the person
who had treated me the best, and do what I could to make HIM win.

But free will exists.

[morvwilson]

Not accusing you or anyone Sardonic, just trying to illustrate a basic point in life.
 
Life attracts, death repels.
 
 

[Grand_Armee]

THe worst 'I can't win' affect I ever saw was when everybody with fleets ganged up on England because he was in the lead and viscious when it came to going after anybody else with a fleet.  He bailed when he was left with only the England province.  Kinda killed the game.

[megalomania2003]

I would not regard ganging up on GB as a "Cant win effect", rather as a "He is winning effect".

When I am to the point where winning is impossible I tend to look for (not necessarily in this priority):

1. How can I do better in terms of position and land.
2. How have the other powers been behaving in general (abusive, breaking agreement -even if not with me - subtracts)
3. How "nice" have they been towards me. Even if I have been at war with them (and I lost) I might not let it count against them, depending on why they went to war, how they conducted it and what surrender terme I was offered.

Then I decide whom to help

[ktotwf]

I don't get what you guys are complaining about. Everyone ganging up on England so he doesn't coast to victory makes sense.

France whipping everyone by setting up the AU/PR rotation is good strategy, and somewhat true to history.

[McGuire]

ORIGINAL: Sardonic
Well by doing that, you allow him to control your play. So he still wins.
And I doubt a pugnacious player is going to 'learn' any lesson from you.

Even if you 'kick' someone 'out', you just gimped the game. You cannot avoid it.

He wins...
So what? He's done everything right! I made a mistake! I bid too high (at least that was YOUR scenario)! So why should I mess up HIS game? There is no lesson to be learned! Apart from my own lesson!
Next time I surely won't bid too high!

[iamspamus]

ORIGINAL: ktotwf

I don't get what you guys are complaining about. Everyone ganging up on England so he doesn't coast to victory makes sense.

France whipping everyone by setting up the AU/PR rotation is good strategy, and somewhat true to history.

In my opinion, these are different scenarios. Everybody ganging up on the leader is good (and sometimes difficult to arrange). However, due to game restraints (ie. the enforced peace or whatever) NOT being able to do that is the problem in my opinion, especially when playing with at least one or more newbies and/or a weak player. And maybe you guys are lucky enough to play with friends and the same guys over and over, but I've not had that luxury.

So, the problem is that for such a long game, the latter rotation or even someone getting their own country trashed and then quittting, can cause a tremendous problem for such a long investment of time. Someone else mentioned having to coddle or prop up a player to keep the game alive.

This fragility (and the huge monster stacks...another issue) are the main problems that I've seen with the game. Overall though, it is one of my favorites.

Jason

[Russian Guard]

ORIGINAL: iamspamus

ORIGINAL: ktotwf

I don't get what you guys are complaining about. Everyone ganging up on England so he doesn't coast to victory makes sense.

France whipping everyone by setting up the AU/PR rotation is good strategy, and somewhat true to history.

This fragility (and the huge monster stacks...another issue) [snip]
Jason

Yeah, monster stacks...uugh. But that's another tired argument, there's still players out there who believe they aren't optimal...

I've played literally dozens of campaigns over 20+ years, of EiA. I have seen everything in this thread - players quitting because they are so behind in VP they can't possibly catch up. Players quitting because other players do "bogus" things (like mutual flechette pounding for cheap VP). Players quitting because of arguments about rules interpretations. Players quitting because another player - who can't win - starts acting irrationally (useless wars, etc, the "spoiler" type). Newbie or weaker players relentlessly manipulated by stronger players...the list goes ever on.

I love the game but stopped playing it when I realized it caused more grief than it was worth. I know of two friends who haven't spoken for 5 years because of this game.

I'm hoping the computer version (if it ever comes out) will allow me to play the game again, with an intermediary - the computer!

[montesaurus]

One way to control the bidding wars would be to create a max number of points that can be used during bidding. Say, 7 points. In that way no one will over bid, and when there are ties you just roll the dice to decide who gets to play that country. With 7 points as a max you prevent players from bidding unrealistically high for any one country, which is how EIA says ties are to be handled. Plus it helps prevent those who "just have to play a certain country" from spoiling it for the others by paying absurdly high bids for countries, and then finding they have no chance to win. It also prevents players from participating in suicidal wars just to get Political Points to help them overcome their deficit.
Montesaurus

[rod]

7 point max makes the game way to easy for the 3 "big" nation GB, france and russia. If you really want to have set point, then set a point for each nation, and roll to see who picks first, but anything under 30 for GB or france is to little. In the games i played GB and france have allways gone for min 40 point, and done ok or won the game. But has allso allways been experienced players that know how to play.

[Frank McNally]

So what happens in this game if France loses its first war because Austria/Prussia/Russia and GB stand together?  Can France recover from even and informal peace after loing a year with little net PP? Any chance if she actually surrenders?  I'd love to hear stories about games where France was rebuffed in 1805 but did manage to win or get back into competition.
 
I assume the outcome of this type of event is that GB is in a very strong position.  And a grand alliance against Britain would be very hard to make work, espacially since Britainn could selectively inflict VP penalties. 

[Mark Breed]

As France, if I find myself starting the game at war with Prussia, Austria, Russia, and, of course, Great Britain all at once, I try to quickly engage the enemy main force in battle, on enemy soil. If as a result of that I find myself being on the losing end of that battle (one, which I could actually have won, but lost too many troops). I surrender immediately to Austria and Prussia. I take my lumps and, then, go around and try to gobble up all of the minors that have not been touched because everyone was too busy worrying about my invasion. I have actually come out stronger in the long run, because I ended up with many more minors (and political points), which enabled me to rebuild my army.
 
If I am winning the battles, favorably, I continue to fight to build up the political points before seeking a peace.
 
Also, while all of this fighting is going on and during the peace, I keep the diplomacy going on with Prussia trying to convince him that it is far more profitable to be an ally than an enemy.
 
Rarely have I seen a situation where France's early defeat has kept him from coming back. It only happens when Napoleon is too stuborn to know when to surrender and to who.
 
Regards,
Mark

[iamspamus]

ORIGINAL: Frank McNally

So what happens in this game if France loses its first war because Austria/Prussia/Russia and GB stand together? Can France recover from even and informal peace after loing a year with little net PP? Any chance if she actually surrenders? I'd love to hear stories about games where France was rebuffed in 1805 but did manage to win or get back into competition.

I assume the outcome of this type of event is that GB is in a very strong position. And a grand alliance against Britain would be very hard to make work, espacially since Britainn could selectively inflict VP penalties.

France needs to be beaten two or three times or very BADLY to be out for good. Well, or perhaps, bidding an outrageous sum. For me, playing France is the fun. I mean you get all the toys. Anyway, as Mark said below.

ORIGINAL: Mark Breed
Rarely have I seen a situation where France's early defeat has kept him from coming back. It only happens when Napoleon is too stuborn to know when to surrender and to who.

Regards,
Mark

I think that this is the key for any power. KNOW WHEN TO SURRENDER. But back to your original question. Once France has taken one defeat, then the pirhana (sp?) start to circle and slash at each other. I've rarely seen an anti-French coalition survive the first victory, much less the first few battles. Of course, I as Russia, usually insist on it as a condition of my entry ... oh and Poland.

Hope that helps.
Jason

[iamspamus]

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard
I've played literally dozens of campaigns over 20+ years, of EiA. I have seen everything in this thread - players quitting because they are so behind in VP they can't possibly catch up. Players quitting because other players do "bogus" things (like mutual flechette pounding for cheap VP). Players quitting because of arguments about rules interpretations. Players quitting because another player - who can't win - starts acting irrationally (useless wars, etc, the "spoiler" type). Newbie or weaker players relentlessly manipulated by stronger players...the list goes ever on.

Hey Russian Guard,

BTW: The Napoleonic Russians are far and away my favorites...

Anyway, I just noticed your examples of cheez, so I thought I'd relate one of mine. Brits are allied with Prussians and move to pick up the Full up Prussian I, II, III corps, to help defend Britain or something and proceeds to dump them in the North Sea (not adjacent to land)! Wow, did that NOT go over well. Sheesh.

Jason

[Mark Breed]

"Brits are allied with Prussians and move to pick up the Full up Prussian I, II, III corps, to help defend Britain or something and proceeds to dump them in the North Sea (not adjacent to land)!"
 
Even though the rules do not specifically address this type of gamey play, one would think that this would be impossible as the soldiers would surely resist. Sounds like we have a very gamey player on our hands and one that I would not play with again and would probably walk away from that current game. Mind you, not because he backstabbed me but how he used a loop hole in the rules and gamey tactics to do so.[:-]
 
It will be interesting to see if the computer rules allow this particular type of play or requires the player to move in such a manner as to be able to disembark the troops when required.
 
Regards,
Mark

[iamspamus]

Yeah, this was in the group before I got there, though there was still plenty of hate over it. The person left the group. They changed the loophole to disallow that.

Jason

ORIGINAL: Mark Breed

"Brits are allied with Prussians and move to pick up the Full up Prussian I, II, III corps, to help defend Britain or something and proceeds to dump them in the North Sea (not adjacent to land)!"

Even though the rules do not specifically address this type of gamey play, one would think that this would be impossible as the soldiers would surely resist. Sounds like we have a very gamey player on our hands and one that I would not play with again and would probably walk away from that current game. Mind you, not because he backstabbed me but how he used a loop hole in the rules and gamey tactics to do so.[:-]

It will be interesting to see if the computer rules allow this particular type of play or requires the player to move in such a manner as to be able to disembark the troops when required.

Regards,
Mark

[fvianello]

ORIGINAL: McGuire

ORIGINAL: Sardonic
Well by doing that, you allow him to control your play. So he still wins.
And I doubt a pugnacious player is going to 'learn' any lesson from you.

Even if you 'kick' someone 'out', you just gimped the game. You cannot avoid it.

He wins...
So what? He's done everything right! I made a mistake! I bid too high (at least that was YOUR scenario)! So why should I mess up HIS game? There is no lesson to be learned! Apart from my own lesson!
Next time I surely won't bid too high!

Maybe I don't remember well the bid rules, but I agree with McGuire.
A player bidded high because he wants to play France? Good, go ahead. Show us how good you are. I'll take Turkey or Prussia (well, maybe NOT Spain ), but I'm not going to bid 50 on France just because i know someone will bid 49.

Of course, if YOU too bidded high because you TOO want to play only France or England.....your problem! Go ahead, show us how good you are

[dude]

When I use to play GB (I haven’t played in close to 17 years…) my 'fun' strategy was not to always go for the “win” in vp like everyone else but sometimes to just make sure no one else won… since GB wins if no one else does by the end of the game.  This generally made me less of a target since I wasn’t in the lead for VP but could play “spoiler” in any war if I felt someone else was getting too far ahead.  It also meant I could bid high for GB.  If I bid too for a vp win then I would always adopt this strategy.
 
This also allowed me to give my opponents reasonable surrender terms since I didn’t want them crippled allowing someone else to get easy points for beating them.  It also allowed me (on rare occasions…J) to surrender if things didn’t look promising using conditionals surrenders.
 
My French opponents usually hated this strategy but the others generally worked with me at one point or another to get my support.  The worst case were two games where the Spaniards wouldn’t admit defeat and conditional surrenders even when it was obvious to everyone else I was about to wipe out his fleets.  Why someone fights to the last man in this game is beyond me.  (Oh and in both case this was not late in the game where it was obvious that the players were going to lose… both were within the first 18 months!)
 
If you aren’t interested in playing any longer... then quit and use the UMP rules (or the AI in the computer version.)