The 'I cant win' effect

[Sardonic]

Often in this game, after say 36+ turns into the game.......

It becomes obvious to even the dullest of players that he is NOT going to win, unless the other players delibretly
throw the game to him.

The causes:

The #1 cause of this situation is BIDDING TOO HIGH. Sometimes with delibrete intent.
Alot of people simply dont wish to play Spain or Turkey. They bid high to NOT be forced to play
those powers. Some people are ONLY interested in playing France or England.

The problem is that you can easily bid yourself right out of the game.

So we assume that this situation now applys to you!

Most players simply quit, or go inactive. They dont get asked to play again.

Some players simply attack random other players to kill time.

The wisest course here....is to identify who it is, that is preventing you from winning.
That is not always the point leader.

Once you identify who that is, you HURT him. Knowing that you cannot win, give you incredible freedom
of action. You can do anythimng you want. Unrestrained by sanity, because you know you wont win anyway.

The victim of this attitude can only blame himself, for making the game 'un-fun' for you.

You can literally fight it out to the last man, and it wont change the outcome (for you) at all.

Some players hate this so called 'spoiler' strategy. My answer then is, 'Force me to surrender then, because I am attacking'

At the very least, you make this person hesitate doing this to you again, in the next game.

[Will_L_OLD]

I've seen this happen in a few games that I've been involved in though it didn't occur because a player overbid for their position. Generally it has happened with the Prussian player when we've had an extremely aggressive and vicious French player who chooses severe peace conditions.

Spain and Turkey have always been among the more popular positions to play in the groups I've been in for their "fun" value, my preferences are Russia, Turkey and Austria. It is true that some people only want to play France or Great Britain and their bids get very high (36-44 for France, 26-32 for Great Britain, saw a 60 bid for France once at a convention) but they've always done pretty well because we did projections during the game so players would know where they were relative to others, what they needed to average to stay the course, how many vp they were behind the leader(s), and when they would reach their victory total. So if someone started to get ahead they usually got their chain yanked and dragged back to the pack.

If faced by an enemy that won't quit you just have to force them to peace, seems to me that it backfires most times to be a gadfly in this manner because everyone starts to jump on the bandwagon for cheap political points the second and third time the war comes around. I agree with you that declaring a vendetta against a player that has crippled your position, for the remainder of that game only, can sometimes be an effective deterrent to them doing it again in other games.

[Camile Desmoulins]

I'm according with you. This is has a delicate balance between players, and some players, if a player it´s not a good player or only play to win immediatly and see that it's impossible, play only for his own amuse and break the game for the other players.

A solution for this problem is limit the amount of bid, or home rules. People that don´t want continue must say and transfer his place to other gamers. Of course, there are the blacklist solution, but it's a sad solution.

Camille

[iamspamus]

I agree that this is a big problem. It is compounded by the factor of having a weak player. So, at a time when all need to gang up on FR or GB to take them out, one player will be talked out of it and give FR or GB the game.

I would say that the biggest "flaw" in EiA is "the rotation". France beats AU and PR then gets 6 or 18 months difference in their ability to attack. So, beat AU again in a year, then PR 6 months later, then SP, then AU etc. Especially, with a weak player (or newbie who doesn't understand), it can be exceedingly frustrating, especially for a game that lasts so long.

What have you guys done against this?

Jason

[Will_L_OLD]

As far as fighting the Au/Pr rotation in our groups its usually been a large coalition against France the second time around. We've also been lucky in that the groups have had French players who don't particularly enjoy the rotation once they've done it. It's kind of a been there, done that kind of thing.

[malcolm_mccallum]

A solution to this effect that my playgroups have found on other multi-player games is to set up a system where the winner is not a single player but rather, as the game progresses, players declare their co-winner if they win. In EiA it would have to be someone that the winner is allied to at the time.

This also prevents the gang-up on the winner problem that develops in games where there is no incentive to work with the one in the lead.

You can change who your co-winner is (not second place. equal co-winner) at any time prior to the end of the game but that allows pettiness, diplomacy, and integrity to come into play.

It also rewards the idea that the game isn't just about winning militarily. If you are in bed with the winner, you win.

[montesaurus]

In regards to the "I can't win effect" if I remember correct more than one player can be a winner in EIA. There is of course the overall high point scorer, but at the end of the game when a player has achieved the points necessary to win, then all the manpower points, etc are figured in, this would allow any player who achieved the necessary victory points for his nation to be considered a winner. Correct me if I'm wrong, but to me this gives players an incentive to keep playing, even though they might not be the overall winner. I've also experienced players who because they are not doing well lose interest in the game, much to the dismay of the other players. If a player's ego is so fragile that he can't remain a good sport when not doing well then I suggest he never start the game in the first place. It's extremely frustrating for all when one player quits or loses interest because his plans didn't work out.

[McGuire]

Well, actually I don't remember one single game where my plans worked out!
A plan works well - until you see the face of the enemy...
Just my experience!

But more to the point:
Is't adjusting to a new situation one of the real funs in the game?
There is always an alternative - though it might not be obvious!


@Sardonic
I am one of the haters of your "spoiler strategy". Because you messed up you spoil the game for someone else! And if YOU bid wrong - YOU messed up!

If I would see this happen (and not be the victim), I would gladly ally with all other players just to kick that one out! Even if it meant surrendering uncontitionally to GB/FR if I was FR/GB.

From my point of view: Ruining a game is worse that simply quitting!
I'd give a quitter another chance - but someone who did a thing like this: NEVER!

[iamspamus]

ORIGINAL: montesaurus

In regards to the "I can't win effect" if I remember correct more than one player can be a winner in EIA. There is of course the overall high point scorer, but at the end of the game when a player has achieved the points necessary to win, then all the manpower points, etc are figured in, this would allow any player who achieved the necessary victory points for his nation to be considered a winner. Correct me if I'm wrong, but to me this gives players an incentive to keep playing, even though they might not be the overall winner. I've also experienced players who because they are not doing well lose interest in the game, much to the dismay of the other players. If a player's ego is so fragile that he can't remain a good sport when not doing well then I suggest he never start the game in the first place. It's extremely frustrating for all when one player quits or loses interest because his plans didn't work out.

Yes, you can have two (or more) players win in EIA. I've done it as Russia with Austria. Quick Synopsis...

Basically, we started the game as allies and secretly vowed to win togther. Without knowing this, Prussia decided to sit out the first war with FR...(dumb ass) and so, predictably, when we went to peace with Fr (him winning, but not overwhelmingly), PR was crushed. Fr then tried to get a coalition against England, which was fine, but at the same time AU/RU cleaned up on Tu (gaining Ru the needed provinces for Dominance). Eventually with TU currently neutered or even anti-fr (I forget), it was au, ru, en, pr and maybe tu vs. fr and sp. All spain had to do was hold ONE fr city to satisfy his committment. He marched very slowly up to the fr border and half-heartedly held one city until chased out of it. Meanwhile, even with Au/pr capitals held by Fr, the coalition had fr down to a couple of cities. Sp pulled out and headed for madrid. fr surrendered and then au/ru, then gb/pr, then fr/tu or fr then tu each fought and took a peace (or piece) of Spain. Funny. Good thing we played with the keeping three provinces rule.

After that it was payback for Prussia. We took the stuff for Poland. Immediately thereafter, Au surrendered to me giving mee the province needed for dominance. I became dominiant with no enemies in sight (except gb), and immediately in one year, we re allied and fought off the splintered coaltions that formed to win. hurrah.

So, it can be done!
Jason

[iamspamus]

ORIGINAL: McGuire

Well, actually I don't remember one single game where my plans worked out!
A plan works well - until you see the face of the enemy...
Just my experience!

But more to the point:
Is't adjusting to a new situation one of the real funs in the game?
There is always an alternative - though it might not be obvious!


@Sardonic
I am one of the haters of your "spoiler strategy". Because you messed up you spoil the game for someone else! And if YOU bid wrong - YOU messed up!

If I would see this happen (and not be the victim), I would gladly ally with all other players just to kick that one out! Even if it meant surrendering uncontitionally to GB/FR if I was FR/GB.

From my point of view: Ruining a game is worse that simply quitting!
I'd give a quitter another chance - but someone who did a thing like this: NEVER!

It still stinks to have a long game die in the middle. On that note, however, I have killed a game…

Basically, au/pr/ru (me) decided to kill France. (I just love killing the Fr in EiA. I mean it’s like fighting the Americans in ASL. They have the morale, movement, dominance, gd, art, nap…whine, whine. I always paint a target on them early, except if sp, tu)

So, au (a newbie) backstabbed us early. Pr/ru surrendered to fr and attacked au. Now there is that point when a war is more expensive than it’s worth. You only have a few inf, gd, cav in an army that is about to get smacked or whatever. Au got to that point and wouldn’t surrender (even conditionally). Ok, so we continued on. Each turn we asked about a surrender. No dice.

So, I said that if there was no surrender, we would “go to town” on them. Snickers and such, especially from France. (We needed to really begin to gear up for our next fight.) So, with about 3 factors left in any au space, they were finally forced to surrender. Don’t have a map here, but I annexed Galicia Hungary and maybe Illyria or something else. Anyway, it split Au into like 3 or 4 pieces that DIDN’T TOUCH. They also lost all of their cav, gren, inf, everything.

All the other players sucked in their breath, but thought that it was justified. Needless to say the game died at that point.

Too bad, but…
Jason

[Joisey]

Limiting a countries' losses to only 3 provinces, maximum, keeps everybody in the game.
 
Having a bidding cap can also save players from themselves.  In the event of a tie at the ceiling cap, make the players roll a die for the tie breaker.

[Camile Desmoulins]

There is a similar problem: the quick victory or broke power player. A typicall french player that in january 1805 declare the war and in march are fighting against a powerful alliance. Defeated in september, deserted teh agme in december 1805. A year, many efforts and 7 players without game. Nobody want's France without possibilities of victory, perhaps without Napoleon... The same question with Great Britain (delicate great power for a newcomer... you can't lost the fleet!), for instance.

Some players are most dangerous than a unconditional peace agreement.

Camille

[Joisey]

Only a year into the game, just reset it and start over.

[morvwilson]

I have to agree with Joisey here, the fun is in the contest. If it is clear who is winning and who is not, crown the victor and start again with different countries.

[Norden_slith]

ORIGINAL: Camile Desmoulins

There is a similar problem: the quick victory or broke power player. A typicall french player that in january 1805 declare the war and in march are fighting against a powerful alliance. Defeated in september, deserted teh agme in december 1805. A year, many efforts and 7 players without game. Nobody want's France without possibilities of victory, perhaps without Napoleon... The same question with Great Britain (delicate great power for a newcomer... you can't lost the fleet!), for instance.

Some players are most dangerous than a unconditional peace agreement.

Camille

I agree!
This one I tried 3 times in email-games, all ended after soemone was soundly beaten after 1 to 1½ years. What I wouldnt give to have 6 fellow players with the right attitude for this game. The worst game I had was a French player who didnt back down against a large coalition RU/PR/AU/GB after losing 2 large battles. Instead he first whined and then accused everybody to play for Russia, his wording getting more and more insulting.

I like the limit to a countries losses, good rule. The bidding cap makes not much sense, as a bidding with a maximum is illogical. Instead one could average all bids for a country and if someone gets too far away from the average, his bid is ignored. This wouldnt work with lowbid countries, of course, so a minimum acceptable bid should be in place, like 10 points, perhaps.

Norden

[malcolm_mccallum]

There is a strange benefit to all this psychological balancing that is required.

If I crush Austria too much in year one, the player will likely quit and the game is ruined so..... I need to take his whining and 'immature' playing into account when I look at our 'map of Europe'.

Keeping everyone interested in the game, hopeful of winning and having fun is a necessary part of a successful plan to win the game. The length of the game demands that the players treat each other as playmates more than as foes. That is a great aspect of the game.

That is what sets it above Risk, Axis and Allies, or Diplomacy. This game actually requires, *GASP* Diplomacy.

[Sardonic]

ORIGINAL: McGuire

Well, actually I don't remember one single game where my plans worked out!
A plan works well - until you see the face of the enemy...
Just my experience!

But more to the point:
Is't adjusting to a new situation one of the real funs in the game?
There is always an alternative - though it might not be obvious!


@Sardonic
I am one of the haters of your "spoiler strategy". Because you messed up you spoil the game for someone else! And if YOU bid wrong - YOU messed up!

If I would see this happen (and not be the victim), I would gladly ally with all other players just to kick that one out! Even if it meant surrendering uncontitionally to GB/FR if I was FR/GB.

From my point of view: Ruining a game is worse that simply quitting!
I'd give a quitter another chance - but someone who did a thing like this: NEVER!

OK? What is your point? I ally with the winner? Never. In any case, I dont bid high, so it isnt an issue.
But if you imagine that a player who realizes he cant win, will play the same, as a player who
CAN win.... your deluded.

[Will_L_OLD]

ORIGINAL: malcolm_mccallum

There is a strange benefit to all this psychological balancing that is required.

If I crush Austria too much in year one, the player will likely quit and the game is ruined so..... I need to take his whining and 'immature' playing into account when I look at our 'map of Europe'.

Keeping everyone interested in the game, hopeful of winning and having fun is a necessary part of a successful plan to win the game. The length of the game demands that the players treat each other as playmates more than as foes. That is a great aspect of the game.

That is what sets it above Risk, Axis and Allies, or Diplomacy. This game actually requires, *GASP* Diplomacy.

Not only diplomacy but *Tact* as well [:)]

[McGuire]

ORIGINAL: Sardonic
OK? What is your point? I ally with the winner? Never. In any case, I dont bid high, so it isnt an issue.
But if you imagine that a player who realizes he cant win, will play the same, as a player who
CAN win.... your deluded.

First:
My point is: Noting is worse than spoiling a game! To ruin the fun of the game for someone else is .... low!

Second:
Someone can't win - and plays differently! Absolutely crystal clear! All I'm saying is:
You spoil a game - I try my very best to kick you out! Even if I'm not your target!

And last - but not least:
Yes I am deluded! How can you tell? Surely not from my posts - because when I have delusions, they're the really big and satisfying ones!

Like delusions of godhood! [&o]

[Sardonic]

ORIGINAL: McGuire

ORIGINAL: Sardonic
OK? What is your point? I ally with the winner? Never. In any case, I dont bid high, so it isnt an issue.
But if you imagine that a player who realizes he cant win, will play the same, as a player who
CAN win.... your deluded.

First:
My point is: Noting is worse than spoiling a game! To ruin the fun of the game for someone else is .... low!

Second:
Someone can't win - and plays differently! Absolutely crystal clear! All I'm saying is:
You spoil a game - I try my very best to kick you out! Even if I'm not your target!

And last - but not least:
Yes I am deluded! How can you tell? Surely not from my posts - because when I have delusions, they're the really big and satisfying ones!

Like delusions of godhood! [&o]

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.