How should we handle player changes?

[Jimmer]

There was a large problem that faced the board game, and it also is a problem with this version: How to handle players who need to be replaced.

When a player leaves, his entire nation will sit in whatever condition he left it. It doesn't matter what his strategy was, tactics, diplomacy, etc. What matters is the specific game components that are in place RIGHT NOW.

If that player had decimated his nation, the new player will be playing with a decimated nation. If he left the nation in a poor political position (say, in instability or fiasco), the new player will be faced with that. If he left with only a small percentage of the VP needed to win, while his opponents have larger percentages, again, the new player is stuck with that.

I've never come up with a satisfactory solution to this problem. We tried granting them a boon of X victory points and adjusting the PSD to his default starting position. That helped, but didn't solve the problem, because of the many tentacles this issue has.

What other ideas have people tried when dealing with this kind of issue?

Did they work?

Will they still work in the computer version (if different)?

[Kwik E Mart]

Why is this an issue? A player that takes over should understand what they are gettting into. This is a long game in which things can change a lot from one year to the next. In one game that I am in, we lost the Brit after the first year...he managed to go up against France, Spain and Russia at the same time, with predictable results to his navy and home country. The new Brit is facing a huge deficit in VP's and little or no navy. The rest of us understand that if we don't check Nappy right now, the game will be lost. This should give the new Brit time to rebuild. I think the better question is why some players insist on playing Diplomacy (old AH title) instead of using diplomacy. The results of bad decisions in this area can be devastating, as evidenced in this game. New players should heed the maxim, "buyer beware".

[pzgndr]

I've never come up with a satisfactory solution to this problem.

One solution in this game is having a decent AI. The computer opponent won't care what you give it.

[NeverMan]

I agree with Kwik E Mart.

If you are honest, and I mean really honest, with the player about the state of the nation they are getting and they still agree to play then I think it's all good.

I think that most of the time you will find out that replacement players, like myself, are just people who want to play the game and make the most of it. I play for the ride not for the destination.

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

I agree with Kwik E Mart.

If you are honest, and I mean really honest, with the player about the state of the nation they are getting and they still agree to play then I think it's all good.

I think that most of the time you will find out that replacement players, like myself, are just people who want to play the game and make the most of it. I play for the ride not for the destination.

Well, im not sure.
One of the pbm games im in just died, because we could not find a replacement.
Thats aprox 2 rl months down the drain, now imagine if this happens after say 4-12+ months ?

Regards
Bresh

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: bresh

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

I agree with Kwik E Mart.

If you are honest, and I mean really honest, with the player about the state of the nation they are getting and they still agree to play then I think it's all good.

I think that most of the time you will find out that replacement players, like myself, are just people who want to play the game and make the most of it. I play for the ride not for the destination.

Well, im not sure.
One of the pbm games im in just died, because we could not find a replacement.
Thats aprox 2 rl months down the drain, now imagine if this happens after say 4-12+ months ?

Regards
Bresh

What's the alternative? Lie to the replacement player so that he comes in, plays a month and then leaves, never to be heard from again?

It's just the risk with this game, it happened all the time in the boardgame.

Now if you are suggesting that the AI could take over, then I'm all for that, assuming the AI can at least play a decent game, which right now it doesn't look like.

[gwheelock]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: bresh

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

I agree with Kwik E Mart.

If you are honest, and I mean really honest, with the player about the state of the nation they are getting and they still agree to play then I think it's all good.

I think that most of the time you will find out that replacement players, like myself, are just people who want to play the game and make the most of it. I play for the ride not for the destination.

Well, im not sure.
One of the pbm games im in just died, because we could not find a replacement.
Thats aprox 2 rl months down the drain, now imagine if this happens after say 4-12+ months ?

Regards
Bresh

What's the alternative? Lie to the replacement player so that he comes in, plays a month and then leaves, never to be heard from again?

It's just the risk with this game, it happened all the time in the boardgame.

Now if you are suggesting that the AI could take over, then I'm all for that, assuming the AI can at least play a decent game, which right now it doesn't look like.

If a mp is so hosed up that you can't find a human to take over; I would just turn it over to the AI no matter what.
(If a country is in that bad of a shape; I don't think the AI can screw it up any worse no matter how bad it plays)

[Jimmer]

OK, maybe I wasn't clear: I want to know if anybody has found a way to balance the game for a player in this condition.
 
I DON'T want to hear statements that this isn't a valid problem. If you don't think it's a problem, then go ahead and join a game. This thread is for the rest of us.

[moopere]

Its potentially quite dangerous, from a game perspective, to risk unbalancing things by offering bribes to new leaders of shattered nations. You invite risky violent moves because a 'rescue package' will always be forthcoming once the leadership is changed. Also, don't completely discount some completely dishonourable players leaving your game under one name and coming back as the supposed replacement player under a new name....collects his reward at the door and continues on with an anarchy and mayhem strategy.

I'd turn such countries over to the AI. Much like a previous poster though, I am in this game for the ride, not for its final conclusion. I'm not even sure yet that any decent games will -ever- end!

Cheers, Moopere

[DCWhitworth]

The only way it can be balanced (if you see the need to do so) is by the actions of the other players. e.g. Going easy on the surrender terms, giving them money, giving them breaks diplomatically, etc

I don't believe there is any way to change things within the game directly. However I know elsewhere a minor game editor has been proposed that would allow the host to adjust army strengths, money etc which would presumably do what you wish.

Another point worth considering is that if you started such a trend, people might start to expect benefits as the price for taking over a country and keeping a game going ?

Also on the flip side, should there be any constraints placed on a new player ? I have played (board) games of EiA that have been spoilt for me by a player changing and the new player then totally changing the diplomatic position of that nation.

[NeverMan]

The problem is if you decide to "reward" the replacement player with things (army, money, PP, VP, whatever), then you are really being unfair to all the other players that are still playing.

[gazfun]

ORIGINAL: bresh

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

I agree with Kwik E Mart.

If you are honest, and I mean really honest, with the player about the state of the nation they are getting and they still agree to play then I think it's all good.

I think that most of the time you will find out that replacement players, like myself, are just people who want to play the game and make the most of it. I play for the ride not for the destination.

Well, im not sure.
One of the pbm games im in just died, because we could not find a replacement.
Thats aprox 2 rl months down the drain, now imagine if this happens after say 4-12+ months ?



Regards
Bresh

Well thats just the reason why a good community of players who are serious about wargaming should exist, and stick together.
Thats one reason a game like this will be able to go on longer, than 2 or 3 months. You can tell who are not going to last long in a game pretty quickly.
I was able to spot this easily, and we kept it to ourselves.
There are always the people around who play, without much thought or commitment in what they are doing, they can really mess things up for that country, and make it near impossible for anyone to take over.
The AI was originally designed to take over, when that happens. I know the AI isnt good right now, and even when it is better, nor will it ever be good as a lot of human players, but it certainly be better than a lot of human players especially newcomers, or spoilers.
For those who change there ID as someone said here, I refer to the first paragraph and say, a leopard never changes his spots regardless what he calls himself.
Thanks
Garry

[gazfun]

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

The only way it can be balanced (if you see the need to do so) is by the actions of the other players. e.g. Going easy on the surrender terms, giving them money, giving them breaks diplomatically, etc

This correct
When people start demanding unconditional surrenders around the place early in a game, its really an ego thing, for them, not what I would call something that a group of well meaning players would do to each other, as a whim.
These issues as David mentioned should be thought about seriously by players, if they wish to play again, or be involved in a game long term.

[eske]

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth
The only way it can be balanced (if you see the need to do so) is by the actions of the other players. e.g. Going easy on the surrender terms, giving them money, giving them breaks diplomatically, etc
...
Also on the flip side, should there be any constraints placed on a new player ? I have played (board) games of EiA that have been spoilt for me by a player changing and the new player then totally changing the diplomatic position of that nation.

I prefer to view it as a parallel to an actual chance of ruler, which did happen historically. And the new ruler often had very different loyalties and priorities. Leading to a periode of "softness" from other nations, frequently also changes of alliances. I'm sure - at the time - some felt their "game" had been spoilt [;)]

To return to the subject, I think it fair to let a new player make it his own game, and only require the same lvl of VP's from him as if he been there from the start. Something like if 25% of gametime has gone and the nation only scored 20%, then declare him a winner or co-winner, if he reaches 95%.
(Picked that one up from an old tread on the "a player can't win"-problem.)

About unconditional surrenders, playing styles and such: Consider how much more of an achievement it is to win this game and everybody agrees that you deserved it and you've been their friend - compared to you win, but they consider you a doublecrossing nogood twit who - IF - they wan't to play with you again, it's only to get back at you. Diplomacy is a skill. It's not a game by AH !

- my 2c

/eske

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: gazfun

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

The only way it can be balanced (if you see the need to do so) is by the actions of the other players. e.g. Going easy on the surrender terms, giving them money, giving them breaks diplomatically, etc

This correct
When people start demanding unconditional surrenders around the place early in a game, its really an ego thing, for them, not what I would call something that a group of well meaning players would do to each other, as a whim.
These issues as David mentioned should be thought about seriously by players, if they wish to play again, or be involved in a game long term.

IMO, it's not even about being a well meaning player. You should play to win the game but a lot of players don't realize the game is long and balanced is needed. Too often I see Russia and GB not support an anti-French coalition early in the game and France goes for unconditionals. Then a few years down the line Russia realizes that it can't win because France has a nice Pr-Au cycle going and is constantly riding high in the dom. zone. GB then really has no alternative but to try to be the winner by default, which at that point is really hard.

You don't have to be a well meaning player, you just have to play the game well. If you are playing the game well then you know that a certain balance has to be kept. JMO.

[Jimmer]

Well, it seems there is nearly unanimous support for not doing much.
 
I guess I won't be taking over for another player in any games, then, since I appear to be the only person who thinks it's unfair to saddle a player with another player's bad choices or bad luck.

[Murat]

Everything is connected to everything else, man  Any balancing for the new player is done at the cost of the old ones - the force must stay in balance.

[Kwik E Mart]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Well, it seems there is nearly unanimous support for not doing much.

I guess I won't be taking over for another player in any games, then, since I appear to be the only person who thinks it's unfair to saddle a player with another player's bad choices or bad luck.

if i felt like i was going to get "saddled" with bad choices or bad luck, then i wouldn't *volunteer* to take over an MP...but then, i guess i wouldn't be *volunteering* to take over the MP...gotta love circular logic...

[Kwik E Mart]

ORIGINAL: Murat

Everything is connected to everything else, man  Any balancing for the new player is done at the cost of the old ones - the force must stay in balance.

your jedi mind tricks are useless here! [;)]