Matrix Games Forums

I must respectfully disagree with the last post.

If you are France then you can and probably should thumb your nose at GB in every way possible.

If you are any other country, a de facto rule that you should oppose GB will almost always have the result of you becoming a client state of France. I say "amost always" because there is always the possibility of a French player who has an objective other than accruing victory points (and thus winning the game).

One important (and realistic) factor of the game is that the level of VPs France needs to win (especially when compared to the other powers) is so high that the French player must employ a strategy that meets her voracious need for those victory points. Thus, more often than not, the French player will be forced to adopt Napoleon's axiom that he'd "rather fight allies than be one."

The period of 1805 was primarily about the power structure between France and GB, and to a lesser extent Russia. The other countries were important but Prussia was the only one of those 5 that wasn't in the midst of a long decline (though she had declined from the time of Frederick the Great she would eventually be the cornerstone of 20th centruy Germany). Thus the game models the bi-polar GB-France world and players would do well to understand that dynamic.

Typically, not always, players must work to bring down France (not GB) if they want a shot at winning the VP race.

Jason

As GB I try to trade as much as possible. Nothing will send Countries running to the French alliance quicker then a GREEDY GB. In Games where GB has been wrecked, it was because they wouldn’t trade and didn’t spread around any $$.

Wellington12347 wrote:I must respectfully disagree with the last post.

If you are France then you can and probably should thumb your nose at GB in every way possible.

If you are any other country, a de facto rule that you should oppose GB will almost always have the result of you becoming a client state of France. I say "amost always" because there is always the possibility of a French player who has an objective other than accruing victory points (and thus winning the game).

One important (and realistic) factor of the game is that the level of VPs France needs to win (especially when compared to the other powers) is so high that the French player must employ a strategy that meets her voracious need for those victory points. Thus, more often than not, the French player will be forced to adopt Napoleon's axiom that he'd "rather fight allies than be one."

The period of 1805 was primarily about the power structure between France and GB, and to a lesser extent Russia. The other countries were important but Prussia was the only one of those 5 that wasn't in the midst of a long decline (though she had declined from the time of Frederick the Great she would eventually be the cornerstone of 20th centruy Germany). Thus the game models the bi-polar GB-France world and players would do well to understand that dynamic.

Typically, not always, players must work to bring down France (not GB) if they want a shot at winning the VP race.

Jason

Poppycock!

Are we forgetting that this is a multiplayer game????

LOL! The real Napoleonic Wars were won by a coalition of nations and NOT by any single nation. (Don't let the propoganda fool you.) It is clear that not one single nation could win it all by themselves, most of all England.

That is my dear friends, a group of nations gathered together to defeat their chosen enemy. There is no reason why a different kind of coalition that could even include France cannot happen. Whoever plays this game can choose their own bad guy to beat up on and it doesn't always have to be France. YOU DON'T HAVE TO ALWAYS PLAY HISTORICALLY.

You get have your diplomacy go in any direction that you want.

As for me, when I will play this game, I won't care so much about winning ---as a seperate player. I will care about the coalition that I am part of. There is a BIG distinction there.

Some other player can have the most VPs. As long as I'm allied to him/her, I will be a winner too.

Anyways, what does it really matter if you are having fun playing the game?????

Le Tondu wrote:Poppycock!

Are we forgetting that this is a multiplayer game????

LOL! The real Napoleonic Wars were won by a coalition of nations and NOT by any single nation. (Don't let the propoganda fool you.) It is clear that not one single nation could win it all by themselves, most of all England.

That is my dear friends, a group of nations gathered together to defeat their chosen enemy. There is no reason why a different kind of coalition that could even include France cannot happen. Whoever plays this game can choose their own bad guy to beat up on and it doesn't always have to be France. YOU DON'T HAVE TO ALWAYS PLAY HISTORICALLY.

You get have your diplomacy go in any direction that you want.

As for me, when I will play this game, I won't care so much about winning ---as a seperate player. I will care about the coalition that I am part of. There is a BIG distinction there.

Some other player can have the most VPs. As long as I'm allied to him/her, I will be a winner too.

Anyways, what does it really matter if you are having fun playing the game?????

How many EiA games have you played to come to this enlightend conclusion?

You don't have to play the game a certain way. But due to the dynamics of the game there are some consistanly good stratagies. Not all stratagies will lead to victory but some will ensure defeat. People would be wise to take notes from those who have played before. As it is with all games people get better faster if they listen to more experienced players and learn the subtle do's and don'ts of a game.

The problem with playing just to be allied with the winner is that you will most likely be played like a fiddle by a master player. He will use you to get points for himself. The only thing that prevents that is when people play for self interest.

Don't be fooled! In 1814 the Quadruple Alliance was made up of nations with different goals. They didn't even all agree on what to do with Napoleon. They almost went to war over the issues of Saxony and Poland. Russia wanted Poland, Prussia wanted Saxony,Austria was wary of Russia and Prussia didn't want them to have either, and Great Britain wanted to prevent any one of their allies from becoming too powerfull. Remember that in 1812 Prussia and Austria were allies with France. They only switched sides when it was in their best interest.

Countries didn't form alliances for the common good but when their individual goals line up with other nations. The same holds in EiA. That is why it is such a good game.

Le Tondu wrote:Poppycock!

Are we forgetting that this is a multiplayer game????

LOL! The real Napoleonic Wars were won by a coalition of nations and NOT by any single nation. (Don't let the propoganda fool you.) It is clear that not one single nation could win it all by themselves, most of all England.

That is my dear friends, a group of nations gathered together to defeat their chosen enemy. There is no reason why a different kind of coalition that could even include France cannot happen. Whoever plays this game can choose their own bad guy to beat up on and it doesn't always have to be France. YOU DON'T HAVE TO ALWAYS PLAY HISTORICALLY.

You get have your diplomacy go in any direction that you want.

As for me, when I will play this game, I won't care so much about winning ---as a seperate player. I will care about the coalition that I am part of. There is a BIG distinction there.

Some other player can have the most VPs. As long as I'm allied to him/her, I will be a winner too.

Anyways, what does it really matter if you are having fun playing the game?????

I will certainly agree that France was defeated by a coalition--I never argued otherwise. However the linchpin of that coalition was the OTHER power of the period: GB.

Though I will not attempt to put words in Le Tondu's mouth it would seem that it is not as important to him to gain VPs and formally "win" (having allies with excess VPs does not allow a player with deficient VPs to "win," the rules are explicit on this). If one has more fun fighting wars then that is certainly a legitimate rationale for spending the time playing the game. However, as I stated, some players will not be motivated by "winning" and this will thus change the natural dynamic inherent in the game.

If most players are motivated by VPs, then typically the game will follow the flow I described. There is still plenty of room for forging your own, unique, diplomatic situation though.

Jason

Linchpin? LOL!

England was the bankroller -plain and simple. Buying the blood of other nations so it could solidify and enhance it's own Global Conquest. The truth is out there for everyone to see. History speaks for itself.

Back to the game.....

Just an idea.

What if I play France and forge an alliance with say Russia I tell the Russian player that he can have the VP win and I will go along and help him do that. France will not lose any of it's territory and it will get some territories along the way. Both armies will act in concert and in support of each other. The Russian player ends up with the most VPs and "according to the written rules," ends up being declared the "winner."

My French armies will have been covered in Glory and I will have had lots of fun along the way. Will I care if the Russian player "wins the VP total?" Heck no. I will have tasted success and accomplished what I wanted to. If that isn't winning, then nothing is.

The parameters of success do not necessarily exist on paper or in digital format alone.

Tondu,

Here's the situation:

I'm France and you're Russia. I come to you and tell you "Let's act in concert this game, and you can have the VP win..." What are you gonna think?
(IMO, the more powerful the country that allies with France, the higher the proportion of benefit for France.)

I love reading your posts, Le T, but I ain't buyin this one:) If I'm ever in a game with you, both eyes are on you!

How about this situation L T.

I'm Russia and your Prussia. The French just wants to have fun and will let me win the points race. We both crush you and destroy your chances at winning or fun. Want to keep playing that game?

The only way from having unbalanced games is when everyone plays to win. I only play games in which everyone is ambitious and wants to win. A game isn't much fun for the whole group if one or two people throw the game to one country.

I was in a game in which a newb was playing Russia he allied with GB and helped him go around destroying the French, Spanish and Turkish navies. Within two years of game play the GB player was in an unbeatable position. We all thought it was a lame game except the Russian and Brit and we never play with the guy who played Russua anymore.

L T's way of playing will lead to a coalition of the strong powers (GB, Fr, Ru) victimizing the weaker powers (Pr, Au Sp Tu). That might be fun for the few but most people will quit those games fast.

Le Tondu wrote:Linchpin? LOL!

England was the bankroller -plain and simple. Buying the blood of other nations so it could solidify and enhance it's own Global Conquest. The truth is out there for everyone to see. History speaks for itself.

Back to the game.....

Just an idea.

What if I play France and forge an alliance with say Russia I tell the Russian player that he can have the VP win and I will go along and help him do that. France will not lose any of it's territory and it will get some territories along the way. Both armies will act in concert and in support of each other. The Russian player ends up with the most VPs and "according to the written rules," ends up being declared the "winner."

My French armies will have been covered in Glory and I will have had lots of fun along the way. Will I care if the Russian player "wins the VP total?" Heck no. I will have tasted success and accomplished what I wanted to. If that isn't winning, then nothing is.

The parameters of success do not necessarily exist on paper or in digital format alone.

If GB was in a position to have other countries as its hirelings so it could pursue it's own Global Conquest, then I think that supports my argument that GB was the other dominant power of the period (is it any wonder that EIA treats France and GB as the "dominant powers?")

As for playing for fun, I believe we are in complete agreement. A game where a player (especially when playing a "key" power) is not playing to formally win will bring quite different dynamics than a (typical) game where players are playing to formally win.

One may not play to win and that is their choice. If you have fun that's all that's important. But a typical game and typical assumptions will presume, unless otherwise stated, that all players are playing to formally win.

Jason

I suspect that some people may be taking a position on this for the sake of taking a position. However, a game in which France deceides that he couldn't care less abotu winning the game and would rather just romp around Europe is a game I don't care to be in. A useful heads up for me if I end up playing by email - make sure everyone is playing to win! Of course I will take pleasure out of the game in many ways that have nothing to do with winning, but if you don't play to win you subvert the game system. France has so much power in the game because it has to to reach it's monumental VP requirements. As such French (and to a lesser extent British) play requires unpleasant actions from time to time to ensure the flow of VPs. This dynamic is built into the game system, and a France who'd rather not take any risks and ensure that he can win all his wars is a France who will be eaten quite easily (most likely by his ally, as already pointed out) and is also a France that I don't want to play against.

I'm all for fun. But I'm against subverting the entire game, and ultimately all the other players' fun, in order to have fun with the game. In my opinion the game is meaningless, and a tad silly without the VPs.

I think that you guys misunderstood me. My imperfect example was just an illustration to show that we do not have to play this game the way that Jason is telling us to.

No single nation won the Napoleonic Wars. A coalition won it.

I'm just saying that a coalition can win the game easier than a single nation could. The motivation for being within the coalition and what one does within it can be as varied as the individuals.

To me, when the coalition achieves their goals, everyone in it is the winner even though "the rules" don't allow for it. Afterall, that is what happened historically, didn't it?

Don't listen to my propaganda. Just read the RULES of the GAME. It's in there.

As for winning your "own" way. Yes, If France teamed up with Prussia and maybe even another country and beat up on another country, say Austria, I guess they "win." But only insofar as they don't loose.

In real life France could have beaten Austria by themselves and did. It would have been even less challenging to beat up on Austria, or any country, with the aid of a second or third. That's the whole point of VPs, they handicap the game. A game where powers have unequal strength would be ridiculous unless there were a handicapping system. If not for a handicapping system you'd have powers winning the game just because they started off stronger and ganged up on the powers (possibly by teaming with others) that started off weaker. The skill of the individual player would be worth less than his luck at bidding for the stronger power (under a non VP victory system you woudn't be able to bid for powers and selection would have to be based on chance).

I don't like that result. That's why the VP system is there and it insures that players like Le Tondu only win in their head, and not by any legitimate, objective, and open standard that others agree with and recognize.

As said before if the [lack of a] challenge of having France team up with others to eviscorate other countries is "fun" then don't let VPs get in the way of that.

Jason

I am in no way saying that I would only want to play as the French player. To me it doesn't matter so much. (Sorry if the username confuses things.) I celebrate the entire Napoleonic Era. There was enough valor and glory to go around for all to emulate.

In real life, France only got as far as it did with the help of her allies, but France by herself obviously couldn't (and didn't) beat them all. Remember that in 1809, it was her Bavarian, Hessian, Saxon, Italian, Westphalian, etc... allies that really did tip the balance. To model a nation that plays one against all for endless conquest in this game is a historical mistake, IMHO.

Now there is winning as a subject. Ah, but there isn't time. My Chardonnay is calling.

This game allows one to do as they wish in alliances which is one thing that I like about it.

Take this as my formal declaration that I will certainly intend to win any game that I participate in. Doing otherwise would not be very fun for me. As I've never played the boardgame, I certainly don't expect to win my first couple of games, but after getting my feet wet, beware.

This is the way I see it. The role of England is to create obstacles to a potentially very dangerous France, through money inducements. The role of France is to overcome these potential obstacles from a very bothersome England. The role of everyone else is to maneuver through this overiding dynamic in such a way as to remain standing at the end in as good a position as possible. I'm guessing that Prussia and Austria have a very difficult time riding this rollercoaster.

Arinvald, you show that you understand the game.

I was in a game in which a newb was playing Russia he allied with GB and helped him go around destroying the French, Spanish and Turkish navies. Within two years of game play the GB player was in an unbeatable position. We all thought it was a lame game except the Russian and Brit and we never play with the guy who played Russua anymore.

I agree! I ended up not playing with a group fast myself. To make a long story short, one member's girlfriend ended up allying and practicaly giving everything to him in order to wipe everyone out. Amusingly, he also wiped her out very early in the game as well.

After that, I simply quit playing with that group again. Sometimes I wonder if perhaps I do have a slightly negative attitude, after all, it SHOULD be about PLAYING the game that counts, just not winning (umm, right guys? ).

But I have to admit, when you know this stuff is coming, it tends to make you not want to even bother. I assume it is just human nature for most of us.

The REALLY convoluted thing about this game is that technically EVERYONE can win! But if nobody wins, GB wins! Which leeds to my least fav rule. 8.1.2 The GB VP reduction rule.

The GB VP reduction rule often augers for powers not wanting to war (at least not for long) with GB--it can sometimes be prohibitively expensive in VP terms. I'm guessing that was part of the reason for the rule.

Jason