Open Forum - The Napoleonic Wars vers 2.0

[Snowygerry]

What could you possibly offer me that would convince me to join you?

Logic.

If France, Russia, Spain, Austria and Prussia keep competing against each other no one will reach 100% and Britain will win in the end.

For a long time I believed Britain being at war with me was a result of IC events or an erratic personality, as Craven claims.

It is not obviously - it is a cold, logical and calculated strategy to win the game.

[Tsar]

Logic.

If France, Russia, Spain, Austria and Prussia keep competing against each other no one will reach 100% and Britain will win in the end.

For a long time I believed Britain being at war with me was a result of IC events or an erratic personality, as Craven claims.

It is not obviously - it is a cold, logical and calculated strategy to win the game.

Not good enough.

[craven]

If Russia wins the game I good with that also.

I have a list of if not me then who

Russia
Turkey
France
Spain
Prussia
Austria.

and it not erratic behavior is the kamikaze game theory. never screw over the guy who will hold it against you for the rest of the game even it is not to their benefit.

Since you cant force me to make peace with you I can for the rest of the game reduce your vps ensuring the guys above you win the game.


You attacked Russia while we were thinning down the French forces forcing Russia to abandon the war hence leaving England out of position to cover the loss of the Russian fleet hence I lost a lot of ships and troops for a couple of turns that I should of not have.

Yes we would of loss some troops to France but Spain would of been knocked out of the war a year ago. ok maybe not a year ago but would of lost Africa.

[The Exorcist]

There you go again, attributing some sort of perfidy to what was actually just good strategy. Everyone is doing their best to win for themselves, not follow any script.

And I did loose Africa to Britain's Catspaw, Turkey, and I will not consider peace until I get it back.

[The Purist]

Man, this is fun to watch.

Who's got a popcorn emogie??

[craven]

There you go again, attributing some sort of perfidy to what was actually just good strategy. Everyone is doing their best to win for themselves, not follow any script.

And I did loose Africa to Britain's Catspaw, Turkey, and I will not consider peace until I get it back.

it only good strategy if you gain from that strategy. Which is not something I am going to allow Austria to do.


You would have Africa if you had not declared war on England and maintained you alliance with England.

btw Ex there are only so many ways to win the game. As I have said before look at who you are going to get vps and who needs to get vps from you. Those who do not need vps from you are allies those who do are frenemies.

For example England really does not have to get vps from anyone except france and who ever allies with them. So England just rolls with the punches and opposes France and her allies.

To stop England from gaining vps just do not fight England at sea do what landpowers do build a huge army.

On the other hand France needs vps from everyone. And to stop france you need a strong coalition. Which for the rest of the game will not happen.



Hey where did the popcorn emogie go I thought there was one in our options

[AdrianE]

Man, this is fun to watch.

Yes it is.

Does the computer version of the game have the same victory determination as the board game?

In the board game, a player did not win until he declared that he had won after acquiring sufficient VPs. This allows a coalition to wait until all members of that coalition had acquired sufficient VPs to win. Then they all declare victory together. This adds a dimension to planning.

[craven]

now that an interesting option. I have not seen that in the computer game or rules for the computer game

[Ulrih]

Yes it is.

Does the computer version of the game have the same victory determination as the board game?

In the board game, a player did not win until he declared that he had won after acquiring sufficient VPs. This allows a coalition to wait until all members of that coalition had acquired sufficient VPs to win. Then they all declare victory together. This adds a dimension to planning.

If you`re so familiar with game maybe you want to join us? Turkey is uncontrolled major power for now. Maybe it`s not in the best shape right now but still could be interesting faction to play for.

[Ulrih]

BTW - France will deal with Britain in current circumstances. Continental blockade will be soon established and English goods abolished in all Europe. It`s time to teach a lesson to Perfidious Albion...

[Snowygerry]

(...) and it not erratic behavior is the kamikaze game theory. never screw over the guy who will hold it against you for the rest of the game even it is not to their benefit.

But it IS to your benefit. That's the point.

[The Purist]

Yes it is.

Does the computer version of the game have the same victory determination as the board game?

In the board game, a player did not win until he declared that he had won after acquiring sufficient VPs. This allows a coalition to wait until all members of that coalition had acquired sufficient VPs to win. Then they all declare victory together. This adds a dimension to planning.

I have completed a number of solitaire games and it ends when the first power achieves its vp total. Of course that's the game engine, victory could be declared by the coalition/alliance/concordat that gets there first if players so chose.

[Snowygerry]

I have completed a number of solitaire games and it ends when the first power achieves its vp total. Of course that's the game engine, victory could be declared by the coalition/alliance/concordat that gets there first if players so chose.

But there's no option to continue after 1815 ?

1815 is a rather arbitrary end date in itself btw - Waterloo was more or less an historical fluke, the issue had been settled in 1814 already.

Or not until several decades later - depending on how you look at it.

So I take most games ended by VP total and not by the Britain-wins-by-default rule ?

Seems strange - why on earth does Britain let anyone reach 100 ?

[Ulrih]

But there's no option to continue after 1815 ?

1815 is a rather arbitrary end date in itself btw - Waterloo was more or less an historical fluke, the issue had been settled in 1814 already.

Or not until several decades later - depending on how you look at it.

So I take most games ended by VP total and not by the Britain-wins-by-default rule ?

Seems strange - why on earth does Britain let anyone reach 100 ?

Britain can`t affect everyone. As you saw in latest update all countries were pretty close in terms of percentage of needed VPs so eventually there should be such situation that Britain will normally have to try to get first needed VPs and not build strategy on not allowing others win.

[Snowygerry]

Britain can`t affect everyone. As you saw in latest update all countries were pretty close in terms of percentage of needed VPs so eventually there should be such situation that Britain will normally have to try to get first needed VPs and not build strategy on not allowing others win.

True - you need to go with at least two factions side by side towards 100 to make Britain choose.

Either that or dismember her to the point the amount VPs she's able to collect each turn is inconsequential.

At any rate a victorious strategy in this game will have to include a "How to deal with Britain" component.

Allied, with Britain in first or second place seems to be the worst place to be though.