Originally posted by sisyphus:
The major power status belongs to those countries with such tremendous military and political power that they could never be annexed, even if they happened to have their entire army wiped out in a stroke of bad luck.
Now neither of the major powers had their armies wiped out in a stroke of bad luck. It was long, grindingly drawn out war in both cases.
IMO, non-annexability should never have been a part of major power status in the first place. Portugal certainly stood under the threat of being joined to the Spanish crown throughout this period. Louis XIV could easily have suceeded in merging the thrones of France and Spain under his sons - it was the threat of this happening that caused the war of Spanish succession. Most monarchies could lay claim to the throne of at least one or two others at almost any time.
Major power status is - as far as I can tell - a protection against elimination. But it is more than just a feature to prevent players being kicked out, it reflects the political power of certain countries.
Portugal? Denmark? Sweden? (These last two will be major powers in the Scandinavian versions). I disagree - it is a protection against elimination, pure and simple. Otherwise, nations should be able to gain and loose major power status in the course of the game.
Robbing countries, such as France, of her major power status _does_ make the game easier. At least _I_ think that the possibility of getting rid of France in one blow is more appealing than getting her territory 3 provinces at a time, not being able to capture Paris at all. I may be mistaken, but I doubt that you would have been able to come as far in the game so early if you hadn't been able to annex the entire France, but rather 3 of her provinces.
2 provinces at a time. In order to get 3, you usually need to subdue all of the enemy country; it is much easier to send 3 armies in, capture 2 provinces and the capital and take those provinces. Never takes more than a year to do so and is usually a trivial undertaking. The campaigns of conquest I waged all called for initial careful planning, preparation and timing.
Funny you should mention it, because I actually played another game before I attempted this one, with exactly the same setup and default major powers.
This did give a very different game (I was also fortunate enough to get 3 explorers and 1 conquistadors in the first 80 years, which also helped). By 1560 (when I dropped the game), I had 'only' annexed all of Northern and Eastern France. I had annexed the Aztecs and Incas and controlled all of the Americas except the East of South America (Portuguese and Spanish) and the Carribean.
So no, I was far from as progressed in my conquest against the French-Spanish-Portuguese as I am in this game. On the other hand, I controlled almost all of Central Germany and a big bite of North Africa, since I had spent more time fighting against the minor powers (and annexing any allies of France-Spain that dared to join them) and also scored a lot more points (about 2000+ IIRC) than I have in this game.
Was it more difficult?
Yes - if you look at the undoubted fact that I controlled less land area in a game with major powers than a game with minor powers.
No - if you look at the gameplay, which had degenerated into a matter of declare war on France, take two provinces, recover stability, declare war on Portugal, take two provinces, recover stability, declare war on Spain, take two provinces, recover stability in a five year cycle, with only the occasional conquest of some minor nation breaking the monotony.
It perhaps says something about all this major power status thing that it is always against the minor nations that I get the most interesting and desperately-fought wars.
And at least the wars of survival against France, Portugal and Spain proved interesting and fun (complicated by the 'long-wars syndrome) - which the 'grab 2 provinces' wars that are so simple to carry out in the game never manage to become.
[This message has been edited by strategy (edited 05-01-2001).]
