Problems with Winning The Game

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth
I think we actually have quite similar game views actually. I like historical games that play realistically and give you an insight into the events of the time. I mostly play for the interest and pleasure of the game, not to win as such, I'd rather enjoy the game and lose than win at all costs. If I want a simple game I play chess.

I don't have a 'winning is the only thing that matters' attitude so when I suggested that nations winning by manpower addition effectively came second (indeed my group used to refer to them as secondary winners) I was not implying that if it was me I'd be unhappy with that position.

In the example game Mardonius mentioned earlier in this thread I am playing France. In all honesty whether I win (by VP), win (by MP addition) or don't win (if the rules don't change) will not make much difference to me and how I feel about it, I've enjoyed the game, it's been a great challenge and for me that it reward enough.

Yeah, I think we're in the same ballpark: I play for the fun of it, not to win (although, I DO play to win; that's just not the overall goal).

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth
Forgot to answer this point. In 1812 Austria and Prussia were allied to France (albeit none too willingly but an alliance is an alliance) and as such provided troops for the invasion of Russia. In the later phases of the conflict they then changed sides and broke their alliance with France.

Right, I remember now. They gradually (and reluctantly) joined France. And, they truly did stab France in the back, in a manner of speaking.

It's the reluctant part I'm speaking to, though. A France who, in game terms, "forced" a nation to join her should not operate under the illusion that the are friends.

On the other hand, this example is handled in the board game rules using "corps on loan", where such corps are a victory condition. The only problem is that Prussia's "loan" of the corps was about 6 years earlier (and Austria's, 3).

(An aside: I don't think "corps on loan" exists in the computer game, does it?)

So, was it really a backstab? No, not really.

Actually the backstab I find more to truly match the name is France vs. Spain in 1808 (if memory serves).

But, my point holds: They are rare. And, not built upon trust. It was no secret that neither Prussia nor Austria went willingly, so it shouldn't come as a surprise.

What I'm talking about is where two powers are conversing ostensibly as friends, and then one of them, without significant warning, goes to war with the other. When a power is negotiating one month to create a formal alliance the next month, but then goes to war instead, THAT is what I'm talking about. An extreme example perhaps, but it illustrates the point.

[NeverMan]

I play for fun, but I realize this isn't a WWII game, it's a game that has a lot of diplomacy involved. I'm not going to pack up and cry if someone back stabs me, I'm not sure grown men should act this way.

[Skanvak]

What would you think of secret objectives cards based on historical goals of each MP? As they would be secrets, that would prevent the every one on the first player (real level of VP would be unknown), encourage alliance and encourage a more historical approach of their country interest.

[DCWhitworth]

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

What would you think of secret objectives cards based on historical goals of each MP? As they would be secrets, that would prevent the every one on the first player (real level of VP would be unknown), encourage alliance and encourage a more historical approach of their country interest.

It would be an interesting idea but it would move too far away from the original concept of the game I think.

[MarshallEllis]

Actually EiH 3.0 had some similar individual VP awards for certain conditions that certain nations reached. Lot's of different scenarios!

[Skanvak]

I will need to find this rules. Thought, the important part is that they must be unknown otherwise this does not change the problem.

[DCWhitworth]

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

I will need to find this rules. Thought, the important part is that they must be unknown otherwise this does not change the problem.

If you were looking to create some such thing the alternate dominant powers rules would be another place to look. On paper I like them but they are game breakers really.

[Skanvak]

I think I agree, they are interessant but are a bit incoherent (especially the +10/10 eco).
Could you develop how they are game breaker? (I have not that much full campaign experience on the original)