From: farrell@second.cis.ohio-state.edu (christopher k farrell)
Subject: Re: EiA: Problems
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:55:22 GMT

	Well, let me briefly defend Jean as Austria (but, I'm afraid, only
briefly).  He was angered because Russia refused to jump on the bandwagon and 
attack France (preferably by sending troops to defend Austria).  I can see how 
having a fairly strong Russia who isn't willing to help would be a drag, but in
defence of Russia I see relatively little reason to jump into the war since
Austria didn't make any offers, for Poland or otherwise.  If I were Russia,
I would think, "what do I stand to gain from the downfall of France?  Security?
No, now I will have a strong Austria and Prussia on my borders, and they
won't have anything to do without France ... and their supply situation will
be much better than France's.  Territory?  In Germany?  That Austria/Prussia
can't take away at will?  Yeah, right.  What are they offering me?  Nothing?
I think maybe I'll sit this one out."  Jean didn't like this and so sold out
Prussia to France and we have a very bizzare situation.

	Another question ... just what the hell is England supposed to do?
If we manipulate for +2, virtually required since we don't have the army
that France does and people rarely oblige us with naval combat.  That leaves
us building 7I a quarter.  If GB gets Denmark and Portugal as conquered minors,
they are virtually obliged to convert them to Free States to solidify a fairly
unstable naval situation.  With the proper minors maybe we could get as high
as 9I a quarter.  Now, GB's income, after manipulation, is only about 100;
about 30 is spent on land force builds, at least 30 on ships, and then 
another 20 or so on maintainance (assuming you'll end up with at least one
fleet at sea ... not an unreasonable assumption).  For those of you who are
counting, that leaves you with about 30 to subsidize your continental allies,
who are *not* going to be satisfied with only 5-10 each.  Where am I 
supposed to come up with the $3 they reccomend to save per manpower Prussia
saves?  In a quarter that could be, maybe 6 points, or almost $20 right there.
Anyway, I bring this up also becuase Austria was demanding larger British
subsidies when the cash simply didn't exist.  People expect Britain to be
able to pay for everyone, which they can't.

	The temptation to ally with France, especially for Prussia and
Austria, in considerable.  It's hard to imagine that your chances in the game
are better if you surrender to France than if you ally, but such *is* the
case.  After all, when viewed in conventional terms, if you are Austria and
you have all of Italy (including the Kingdom of Italy), with no real
threat of loosing it, and by far the strongest nation backing you and keeping
you relatively safe, how can you possibly be doing worse than if you 
surrendered?  But if France is streaking to a win even faster, you most
certainly are!

>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.

	Yes and no.  With the smaller countries, like Turkey, Austria, or
even Russia, it usually pays to take it easy.  If you are Russia and you
*must* go to war with Prussia, take it easy, try not to hurt them too badly,
and take non-damaging peace conditions.

	With France, though, you "play for keeps".  If they present their
back, slam that knife home.  It only makes sense.  Even if they are attacking
somebody else now, Napoleon will come visiting eventually.  And as long as
you are in the game, France will hang over you like a black cloud.  The
other, more concrete reason, is that they would do the same to you.  They 
need so many VP's (especially if their bid was reasonable :-) that they can't
afford to spare you for too long if you are on the "rotation".

	Britain is more complicated.  Generally, you want to be hard-nosed
with GB, but you need them to take out France.  If GB is crippled, it's another
(powerful) anti-French nation who isn't likely to help you out; most nations 
are or should be anti-French most of the time (one would hope so, given 
France's overwhelming strength).

	I'm thinking the 1792 variant might be a lot more interesting, since
France and Britain are much weaker and the nations are, in general, closer in
strength.

>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.

	Gack!  I think that might be even worse.  Everyone should play to win,
not to come in second.  One could, as Austria, virtually guaruntee a second
place finish by allying with and sticking to France.  Unfortunately, this 
would also give France 1st place.  The only thing that might save anyone 
else is if they could pound the hell out of Austria while they where at an
enforced peace with France.  This would probably be quite satisfactory to both
nations, if they worked together; they could just add Russia to the rotation
instead of Austria, with France pounding Spain and Austria Turkey in the 
off-years.  The more I think of it, the more I'm pretty sure that the two
powers could guarantee a 1st (France) and a second or third (Austria).
Unfortunately for Austria, France can almost always crush them at will if
they have no allies (which they won't under this scheme), so there is 
absolutely no chance they will win.  Not even a slight chance.

	Can somebody please restore my faith in the game and provide a 
counter-strategy?  Or lots of reasons why this won't work?  Otherwise, it'll
be off to 1792 next time we play; give that one a try.

						Chris



-- 
"Storms have come ... rains wash the Earth away,
     Dark skies fall now ... into another day." - Enya, Storms in Africa
"If every man says all he can, if every man is true
     Do I believe the sky above, is Caribbean Blue ..." - Enya, Carribean Blue
Newsgroups: rec.games.board