From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Subject: Re: EiA: Problems
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:31:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.163521.11497@cis.ohio-state.edu> farrell@satcom3.cis.ohio-state.edu (christopher k farrell) writes:
> 	Our group has been playing an EiA campaign  for several weeks now and
>I thought I'd make some comments ...
>
>        I'm afraid this game is starting to loose some of it's considerable
>charm.  And no, to my fellow players, it is *not* because of that really
>nasty battle Wellington lost; that was a risk I was willing to take.

Stuff deleted....

>        Finally, the bidding.  The bidding is fantasically important; a bad
>bid can easily loose you the game.  In our game, nobody felt confident enough
>to play France except me, even though they were mostly quite capable; 
>I got Britain for a high (46) bit, and France went for only 16 (my bid was 
>about 35)!  Then Austria found selling their soul to France to spite the Czar 
>better than accepting a conditional surrender, so Austria and France are now 
>pounding the hell out of Russia, handing France the game on a silver platter
>by allowing them to set up the perfect rotation (Prussia, Russia, Austria, 
>then Spain if they're bored) with enforced peaces.  Suffice to say that without
>Austria, France cannot be stopped; while Turkey, Russia and I were trying to 
>work somthing out, we just can't get around Austria; he's in the way.  Since he
>has turned into a French lap-dog, we have to invade him; will Turkish feudals,
>even backed by Wellington and a bit of British I, be able to stand up to the 
>Grand Armee?  Especially after a bloody war with Austria? I don't think so.
>
>        The point is, that with the stunningly low bid for France, the game 
>becomes kinda bizarre.  Sure, France would have had a much harder time of it
>had Austria bit the bullet and fought and surrendered, but even then, with the
>16-point bid, France would have been tough to beat.
>
>        So, why didn't they make the VP requirements more reasonable?  Like,
>increasing the number of VP's for France and GB by, like, 20?  So that things
>like this, due only to inexperience or lack of logical thought, don't
>happen?
>
>        Anyway, I'm far from wanting to resign my position as Great Britain.
>*BUT*, I'm starting to have a few reservations about the game which I so
>unequicolly praised before.
>
>                                                        Chris


I don't think that the problem is with the bidding, but with the fact that
Austria sold out to France.  This combines two of the most powerful armies
in the board into a nearly unbeatable combination.  Why did the other
powers allow Austria to slip into the French orbit?  Your post suggests
that Austria was angered by Russian aggression against Austria and de-
cided to play to spite the Russians rather than to win.  Allow me to
suggest that THIS IS A PERFECTLY RATIONAL STRATEGY for a player who
feels that he has been or is being screwed over by others, albeit one
that is not particularly historical.  It is the best defense of the
weak powers against the strong.

The question is how -- or whether -- to modify the game to reduce the
likelihood of such a strategy being employed.  The first and most
obvious suggestion is to play with a little more diplomatic subtlety.
I prefer to avoid picking on a country just because it seems weak.
I don't want that country throwing in permanently with some more power-
ful friend to make life more miserable for me later.  If you're going
to gang up on somebody, or stab somebody in the back, pick on the
frontrunners.  Avoid driving someone into an irrecoverable political
point hole until late in the game.  If he has no chance of winning,
his only remaining standard of rationality is likely to be a desire
for vengeance.

Failing that, I have sometimes considered an optional rule requiring
all players to pony up a sum of money at the beginning of the game.
How much of that money you get back at the end of the game would de-
pend on the relative order of finish (as determined by percentage of
final victory point requirement acheived at endgame).  This would
give a country some incentive to avoid running his own country into
the ground completely just to spite someone else.  Or heck, don't
bother with the money, but do keep a record of order of finish so
that, instead of just winners and losers, you have 1st-7th places.

-- 
Gary Charbonneau
charbonn@silver.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board