New wednesday game: Ordinary Fire

[Aladar]

No i want events and monarchs to stay, but i feel that those UBER leaders that some nations have during the game, simple deside too much. Some nations don't get these uber generals or admirals.

So what does e.i. Portugal do in 1650-1819 if it wants to dow England or Holland. Well most likely it'll lose since there leaders are mostly 2's or 3's, while Eng/Hol have 5's and 6's. So even if they have more ships/better NT, they are still going to lose.

After Farnese Spain would actually have a change vs. France, Denmark would be able to take on Sweden if either still would exist late in the game, Venice would have a chance instead of being sure to lose once there lonely leader is gone. So many new things will happen, instead of the old borders which we often seem to end with.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

It doesn't work if you don't change other things too.

Eh, why would it not "work" without changing other things too? But even if there were (note: subjunctive mode ) such things, well then go ahead and change them. Cannot be that complex things.

Regarding my participation I must disappoint you Cobjor, no BB for me . I am on vacation now and then I will be at home for only one week before going to Warsaw the last two weeks of August for the European Championship in Bridge. However, I will probably be able to sub on Wednesday the 9th if you need me.

Good luck with the game!

 

[unmerged(6147)]

So what does e.i. Portugal do in 1650-1819 if it wants to dow England or Holland. Well most likely it'll lose since there leaders are mostly 2's or 3's, while Eng/Hol have 5's and 6's. So even if they have more ships/better NT, they are still going to lose.

Wise words!

 

[FJ!]

It doesn't work if you don't change other things too.

Care to specify?



It appears that Daniel is NOT an olde fart. Follow his example!

 

[unmerged(34338)]

No i want events and monarchs to stay, but i feel that those UBER leaders that some nations have during the game, simple deside too much. Some nations don't get these uber generals or admirals.

So what does e.i. Portugal do in 1650-1819 if it wants to dow England or Holland. Well most likely it'll lose since there leaders are mostly 2's or 3's, while Eng/Hol have 5's and 6's. So even if they have more ships/better NT, they are still going to lose.

Well, without historical leaders I doubt anyone will want to play Portugal in the first place...
And if I were Portugal and wanted to beat NL I'd wait a bit. After 1700 the good Dutch leaders are all gone IIRC.

 

[BurningEGO]

Yep, without the massive explorers portugal gets, how can they become a major economical power early on?

 

[admiral drake]

Yep, without the massive explorers portugal gets, how can they become a major economical power early on?

by boosting the mp a little and expanding in europe somehow(always a way just got to find 1)

 

[unmerged(36826)]

by boosting the mp a little and expanding in europe somehow(always a way just got to find 1)

Without access to the gold mines/Asian CoTs they will get crushed by anyone who wants to as they cannot afford the huge fleet and good naval tech they usually have.

 

[unmerged(32886)]

Who is talking about taking all historical leaders away? It's about taking über leaders out. Remember???

 

[admiral drake]

Without access to the gold mines/Asian CoTs they will get crushed by anyone who wants to as they cannot afford the huge fleet and good naval tech they usually have.

they will stil be able to gather a reasonable fleet and stand a bigger change then fighting admirals like nelson/deryuter/drake ect

and you dont need explorers to reach asia

 

[FJ!]

Portugal could have its own special rules, since they are in such a vulnerable position. For instance, an explorer 5-10 year before any other nation.

OR, much preferable, we could put a veteran(old fart) in portugal, ensuring good diplomatic relations with its rivals.

 

[unmerged(36986)]

..OR, much preferable, we could put a veteran(old fart) in portugal, ensuring good diplomatic relations with its rivals.

Doesnt good diplomatic relations with its rivals just simply mean less wars?

 

[unmerged(36986)]

It doesn't work if you don't change other things too.

Indeed.

 

[unmerged(36986)]

Who is talking about taking all historical leaders away? It's about taking über leaders out. Remember???

It is not.

... and perhaps a little touch of mine - to delete all historical leaders (not monarchs) and only go with random ones. Would add a little spice to the game i think

---
The solution to the "uberleader-problem" might not be to remove all leaders. What about just adding a few more random ones?

 

[admiral drake]

It is not.

---
The solution to the "uberleader-problem" might not be to remove all leaders. What about just adding a few more random ones?

randoms+hstoricle leaders tend to flood the game
a normal setup with just random leaders would be fun

no idea who gets mexico ect hell might even be possible for denmark or sweden to reach asia first sounds intresting to me

 

[unmerged(18425)]

I won't waste too many words on this, but I support FJ. Leave those generals and admirals aside and start winning by using skill rather then with some über-leader.

And you prevent someone winning with a random uber-leader exactly how?
Besides, it is my firm belief that introducing more luck to the game, you take away skill from it.

A good option might be to only allow 4-4-4-2 max random leaders to anyone, but then the one with a 4-4-4-2 leader will still have the advantage against someone without that luck.

The advantage of historical leaders is that everyone knows when the uber ones will be around and can prepare for it well in time. If you pick a country, you know what to expect event wise, leader wise and generally game wise. You know the same about your neighbours, you know what to expect from Spain, France, the Ottoman Empire and so on.

Randomize this and it is gone.

 

[admiral drake]

And you prevent someone winning with a random uber-leader exactly how?
Besides, it is my firm belief that introducing more luck to the game, you take away skill from it.

A good option might be to only allow 4-4-4-2 max random leaders to anyone, but then the one with a 4-4-4-2 leader will still have the advantage against someone without that luck.

The advantage of historical leaders is that everyone knows when the uber ones will be around and can prepare for it well in time. If you pick a country know, you know what to expect event wise, leader wise and game wise. And you know the same about your neighbours. Randomize this and it is gone.

ya but won't be near impossible to beat those compared to 6-7stat leaders
also chek first post

disadvantage of historicle leaders is everybody knows when they come so tend to avoid war till they got them to

 

[EarendilHE]

no idea who gets mexico ect hell might even be possible for denmark or sweden to reach asia first sounds intresting to me

Drake got the point.
Maybe give Portugal a additional culture to compensate the loss of early strength. Look at Venice. Why it is always played? It is usually not possible for it to colonize early on.

Certainly its very difficult to choose a nation and predict its chances (or risks...)!
I feel some people are really afraid of it.

 

[admiral drake]

I feel some people are really afraid of it.

pretty obvious some old folks here are afraid of change, of not knowing when the good generals show up, of not knowing who will end up where ect

 

[unmerged(18425)]

ya but won't be near impossible to beat those compared to 6-7stat leaders
also chek first post

disadvantage of historicle leaders is everybody knows when they come so tend to avoid war till they got them to

I have played a full campaign with random leaders only. That part sucked donkeys. For example, in that game France got a string of luck with random leaders and Austria got nothing to match it for a long time. Even worse, Austria didn't know *how* good the French leaders were when she was invaded and it took multiple armies being crushed before she found out that she couldn't win the war (Though that latter part might be solved by generating the random leaders well before the next session start, so everyone can check them out.)

Anyway, if you use the stats as proposed in the first post and generate leaders well ahead before session start so everyone can check their stats, it is probably possible to have a good game with it. It certainly has it's advantages for countries like Denmark and Venice.
Still I don't believe in it. I believe in a campaign where balance is found in all players knowing what the strenghts and weaknesses of all countries are. Historical events and leaders are a crucial part of that knowledge. And yes, that probably means more repetitive campaigns. But interesting enough, in the campaign with random leaders only, you still saw the old alliances of France + OE versus Spain and Austria

----------------

I rather remove random events from the game. That truly would leave ones country to skill, instead to lucky deflation events

-----------

I don't know which 'old folks' you want to accuse of being afraid of change, but since I have actually played with random leaders only, I guess you don't mean me

How many of you have played with random leaders only and truly can say something about this issue from experience, by the way?