PBEM 109

[06 Maestro]

That's it? Because of another game? I can't believe this shit. I'm out. There is no PW for Turkey-have fun.

Edit: A reminder to self; do not jump to conclusions-especialy online.

[terje439]

Sorry, got the reply earlier but work has been too much these last days [:(]
Seems it will be hard even longer (two more weeks). I am prepared to offer my seat here.

Terje

[IronWarrior]

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

That's it? Because of another game? I can't believe this shit. I'm out. There is no PW for Turkey-have fun.

I was kidding! Sorry, sometimes I think I'm the only one who finds me funny. [:D]

What shall we do then? With AE out and super-diplomats in this one, I have less motivation to make sure 8 players still want to continue. I'll send out next turn and if I get 7 back, I'll keep going.

[Mus]

I hope we continue playing. If there is some reason for the delay in your turn like extra work please just let us know.

Thanks.

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: IronWarrior

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

That's it? Because of another game? I can't believe this shit. I'm out. There is no PW for Turkey-have fun.

I was kidding! Sorry, sometimes I think I'm the only one who finds me funny. [:D]

And I thought I had a dry sense of humor.[8|] Via the internet, sometimes it is not easy to "get it". All is good.

So, I'm in.

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: terje439

Sorry, got the reply earlier but work has been too much these last days [:(]
Seems it will be hard even longer (two more weeks). I am prepared to offer my seat here.

Terje

No need to apologize for a heavy work load-just let us know. This will happen to me next Jan through May a few times.
RL takes precedent-including chow time and rest.

I thought you were reeled into the world of the Pacific war and just left us hanging. You seem to be a dedicated player-I should not have made the assumption, but I did not "get" the joke.

Not that I'm a 'mono gamer"-almost the opposite, but I do feel that PBEM games should come first in gaming time.

[terje439]

Yeah, my big mistake was not getting to the PC and post about it, for that I am sorry indeed.
I will give a warning, this might happen again for the next two weeks, after that everyone has had their vacation and everything should settle down. I will however try to post if this happens.

And @06 Maestro, rest assured, pbem games comes first (well save work, sleep and eating).

Terje

[Anthropoid]

Wow, you guys are like squabbling school girls arguing about whose got the cutest tea cups [:D]

My sense is that all of us in this match are some pretty committed gamers. It is not often you find a group of even 4 let alone 7 or 8 guys who will stick with a PBEM for even 20 or 30 turns let along ~100 or whatever it amounts to between this one and the various other ones ongoing that several of us are involved in. Even if we don't agree on some mid-stream house-rule changes, and even if some of us might be pretty frustrated at having our plans thwarted and our Empires "rocked" by our devious human opponents, I think we can all agree that this is a fun match we are embarked on, and it would be a shame to let it go down the drain. Am I wrong there?

I have been in a couple PBEMS that lasted a very long time. One of which had about 8 guys and lasted over two years. There were some sparks toward the end there as inevitable defeat became more inevitable, but overall we all got along famously. The key I think was that we were all patient while simultaneously being communicative and always _encouraging_ (not demanding) of keeping things going.

For me, my main problem is time. I'm coming to the realization that playing two PBEMS at once is really just a little too much for me, and on top of that, playing the same nation in the same scenario with many of the same forum members is just a wee-bit confusing.

But then, having two shots doubles my chances for ultimate victory I guess, eh!?

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Wow, you guys are like squabbling school girls arguing about whose got the cutest tea cups [:D]

It's not a matter of squabbling, its a matter of not wanting to be wasting time. Although I agree there are a good group of gamers here, and that things are going to happen over the long spell, if the game is not moving, it is frustrating.

This scenario will take at least 8 times longer to play MP vs SP. I consider the added value of MP mode to justify the extra time. There is a limit to the value of MP games though in my opinion. 8 months, perhaps 12 months of added scenario playing time is still worth it, but not 40 months. When it starts heading in that direction, it looks like a waste of time, not only because it is taking so long, but it is very unlikely that it will be completed.

We will all most likely be affected by RL during the next year which will interfere with gaming. No doubt that was expected by all. To know that a fellow player is still in the game-and interested-is not too much too ask.

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

But then, having two shots doubles my chances for ultimate victory I guess, eh!?

With two games, yes. With two shots of booze it may triple your chances and further justify your glorious cause.[;)]

[Mus]

Who is in and who are we waiting on?

[IronWarrior]

aprezto was away this weekend, I think I'll get his file today as NZ is almost a day ahead of us.

[aprezto]

War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition. It has just been released by Matrix. Terje is playing a PBEM game an writing an AAR. Bill and I are also having a game. Good stuff so far 'Onward the mighty forces of Imperial Japan'!

[Anthropoid]

So about this INSURRECTION thing . . . why exactly did we vote against a house rule against it? Or rather, who is the one who is intending to use their super-diplomats to wreck havoc? Com'n now, speak up, you know who you are [:)]

ADDIT: Just wrote this in the other thread (Another PBEM) so thought I might as well post it here too

I realize my initial response was undecided, and when I saw that Matto was pretty much opposed to it, my initial response was to be against such a house rule. But a couple things have changed in the week or so since the topic was first brought up.

First, there was that thread in which the game designer(s) (most notably Ericbabe) engaged with us in a dialogue about "how to fix it" in a future patch.

Second, I have seen how it works. This is not to say that I didn't 'trust' you guys who were speaking up about it, just that: until you SEE something yourself, it is hard to be as decisive about it.

I read in one of the other threads someone said something like "lets just play it as designed," which is a perfectly reasonable sentiment, provided that the game designer had the foresight to design it in a balanced way, and that the game designer still maintains with all available information that it remains "_the_ design."

Point one above shows that this is not the case. Ericbabe has acknowledged that there is an imbalance in how it works, at least in MP play, and indeed, from my perspective also in SP play. It is just simply too quick and easy to rip away large tracts of territory from other nations. Certainly insurrection should remain in the game, and should continue to be a viable strategy (provided a player focuses sufficiently on that strategy to magnify starting potentials) but I believe that at present, most of the problems are occuring with more-or-less the starting compliment of diplomats.

We've already had a vote and at least one (two?) players have stated that they are opposed to such a house rule, but I still think a bit more dialogue may be warranted. A couple additional ideas:

A) the real problem with the insurrections is that it is too easy to tear away whole nations, so one option would be if players must give a two-month advance warning BEFORE they move a diplomat into place to cause an insurrection. Given that the pro-insurrection fellows have disagreed to impose a house-rule it seems very unlikely that they will agree to this one, so one witih option (B)

B) if we rationalize what is happening with the game mechanics at present in terms of game role-play . . . this kind of massive shifting of whole nations one-way then the other is a bit of an exaggeration relative to real history, i.e., it is not very realistic. Granted it could have happened, but it likely didn't for two reasons: resources were not allocated that way, and also perhaps the international relations impact for the instigator nation might well have been very large. International relations at this time was after all, largely about "playing by the rules" even if those rules were "written" by the more powerful and imposed on the less.

So, an idea along these lines would be that, any time someone instigates a successful insurection in a posession of another player, the "victim" post here in this thread with the details of what happened, where, when, who, why, etc.

At that point, I would suggest that it become a topic of international discussion, and possibly a matter for cooperative punitive measures (e.g., breaking of trade, alliances, or even DoWs).

There seems to be a majority of us (at least 6 out of 8 isn't it?) who agree that the insurrection function in the game is imbalanced, and that some house-rules to at least moderate their use are warranted. While it would not be fair to impose new house-rules in mid-game and expect those in the minority to go along with them, it is nonetheless, TOTALLY fair for those of us in the majority to gangup on the "transgressors" [:D]

I don't think we need to be specific as a quorum about the details of what "ganging up on a transgressor" would comprise. We can cross those bridges when we come to them and decide as a group on a case-by-case basis. But I do think that we should see if we are in agreement on this general plan: Whenever anyone uses insurrection, there will be a public discusion, if not also private PMs and emails, and the possibility of cooperateively executed punitive measures against the insurrector may well be an outcome of such discussions.

If you are in agreement with Plan (B) please respond in this thread by saying "Yes to Plan B."

[06 Maestro]

We had one player vote to keep it in. So, its 7 to one, but its in.

I agree that insurrections in Nations is far fetched. Perhaps we could come to an agreement that this assignment can only be used on small country's.

[aprezto]

Well certainly as the current holder of Bavaria insurrections are a very real threat. It basically makes the Bavarian army pointless. They must stay at home.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: aprezto

Well certainly as the current holder of Bavaria insurrections are a very real threat. It basically makes the Bavarian army pointless. They must stay at home.

They don't have to stay at home. Contrary to what the manual says keeping Corps in an area doesnt actually seem to stop an insurrection. We saw countless insurrections in "Another PBEM" while huge forces were in the territories involved.

Anyways, regarding the house rule, it was decided to make the vote unanimous since we were already well into the game before discussion on it came up, and the vote failed.

Once we decided against adopting a rule - and because of that players built diplomats - I would be against a house rule, even though I was one of the ones pushing the hardest for it.

[aprezto]

Oh, I thought that insurrections were suppressed by armed forces.
 
So there is no defending against it. That seems a little unreal, governments don't appear to be that fragile.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: aprezto

Oh, I thought that insurrections were suppressed by armed forces.

So there is no defending against it. That seems a little unreal, governments don't appear to be that fragile.

I agree, which is why I advocated adopting a rule in all the games I am in, unfortunately none of them adopted one.

[:o]

There IS some defense however. A diplomat with a high legal rating stationary in friendly territory on capture/expel can do a decent job of kicking diplomats out of your territory.

And to reiterate my opposition to adopting a house rule at this point, it's 3 years in, textiles having been spent on courts and diplomats in many countries because of our official decision not to adopt the house rule when it was brought up, and it wouldn't be fair to change the rules once massive amounts of resources (400+ money and 100+ textiles just for 1 diplomat) have been spent.

So we know the theoretical defense to insurrections, we are kinda beta testing so we can tell WCS just how unbalanced it is so they can introduce a correction for it in the patch without nerfing it and making it useless.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

ADDIT: Just wrote this in the other thread (Another PBEM) so thought I might as well post it here too

I replied in the other thread, but I will do so here as well so people not in that game will read my response.

I find this "Plan B" idea even more gamey than people overusing the insurrection tactic.

It isn't fair to penalize or conspire against players for using a tactic allowed in the game and not in violation of any house rule.

Furthermore, I have come to agree with Kingmaker in part that it's important to see just how unbalanced insurrection actually is and how effectively or ineffectively it can be defended against by using defensive diplomacy (capture/expel) so that WCS doesn't overcorrect the problem and make insurrection useless.

[terje439]

ORIGINAL: aprezto

War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition. It has just been released by Matrix. Terje is playing a PBEM game an writing an AAR. Bill and I are also having a game. Good stuff so far 'Onward the mighty forces of Imperial Japan'!

I'm actually DOWN two pbems since this game started [;)]
Now all I do is
1xWitp
1xWitp:AE
1xFoF
2xCoG:EE

Guess I need to start some more soon.