From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Subject: Re: EiA: Problems
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 13:45:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.225522.27988@cis.ohio-state.edu> farrell@second.cis.ohio-state.edu (christopher k farrell) writes:
>	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.

Your explanation makes the situation much more clear.  Russia's position was
quite reasonable.  When, a couple of games ago, I found myself in a similar
position (as Russia, being pressured by Austria and Prussia to aid them against
France), I limited my assistance to moving troops forward toward Berlin and
Vienna as a backstop in case the French were too successful.  I pointed out
to the Austrians and Prussians that I didn't want to overextend my supply
lines and that I was worried about a British invasion at St. Petersburg --
both quite legitimate concerns.

It seems to me that an Austro-Prusso-English alliance is a match for France,
and Austria was unwise to insist on Russian participation.

>	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.

If you can't convince others that even Britain's resources are non
inexhaustible, you do have a problem.  The gamers I play with have
more reasonable expectations about what Britain can afford and can
reasonably be expected to pay.

BTW, I don't think I would ordinarily make Portugal and Denmark into
free states, as the manpower is too valuable.  The exception occurs
if a Franco-Russo-Spanish alliance against Britain actually materializes
(it often does not).

>>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.

If you believe that everyone should play to win, then a game played
under "order of finish" provisions works even better -- since everyone
should play to come in first.  You have, however, put your finger on
one of the major characteristics of EiA (call it a "flaw" if you like):
It is not a zero-sum game.  I wonder how many people have stopped to
notice that, in EiA, EVERYBODY can win.  All that is required is that
every power reach its required victory point total by the end of the
game.  In a group in which cooparation is valued above all else (not
too common in the wargaming community, I'll admit), this would be
quite easy to arrange.

There was some discussion a while back about the desirability of
the optional rule which prevents Britain and France from making
peace except via unconditional surrender.  I pointed out that, while
it was indeed desirable to keep those two powers from colluding, to
the detriment of all the other powers, it was essentially unenforce-
able provided the requisite level of mutual trust between France
and Britain is present.  Consider, however, what happens if you
make EiA a zero-sum game vis-a-vis Britain and France (if Britain
wins, France cannot, and vice versa).  One way to do this would be
to say that France cannot win the game unless she controls Belgium
at the end, while Britain cannot win if anyone other than Britain
controls Belgium.  Not only does this approximate Britain's primary
diplomatic objective during the Napoleonic Wars; in game terms, it
makes it extremely difficult for Britain and France to arrive at
a lasting accommodation, regardless of whether the "no peace
except by unconditional surrender" rule is used.

Your basic two-man wargame usually works well in part because such
games are almost always of the zero-sum variety.  Diplomatic games
are much more difficult to design because diplomacy is often a non-
zer sum activity.

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