Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 06 Feb 2015, 11:57 am

Just because I like talking about strategies...
If any are reading this who are about to play a minor power and maybe do not fully understand your 'role".

The minor powers are usually eliminated early and often in this game. Some will manage to survive and even prosper, those few people will have a huge advantage come the end game. I see two major ways of getting there (each very difficult mind you).
1. Be a 'lackey" of a major power. Do his bidding and be his bestest buddy in the region. Kiss his ass and hope he allows you to be part of his coalition.
2. Form a strong alliance with a regional mid-sized power and again, kiss this persons ass in the same way.

*Either way, a lot of butt kissing is involved
*Either way you can easily pick the losing side and/or be stabbed by this best pal a few turns later.
*Either way, you may still suffer from being outnumbered by others in the region (it doesn't take long until you are eliminated, so this new partner needs to help a lot and early, not always possible)

A third option may sound possible but in reality aint gonna work
an alliance of tiny powers may try to form. While it may be possible, it does not work long term since they have too many edges also getting hammered, not to mention these numerous powers would start to quickly get in each others way. While this alliance could start, it will not last. So I guess it's a third and remote option? Start that alliance of unlikelies and be the guy who is not stabbed when things turn!?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 06 Feb 2015, 1:52 pm

There are other strategies, although they're obviously variations on a theme. In the last game I played Turkey and I formed a solid 3-way alliance with Israel and Egypt which allowed us to completely pacify the whole of the Middle East and saw us all established as strong nuclear powers by midgame. So far as I'm aware this is the first time Middle East peace has ever been achieved in NWO. None of us actually won the game of course, so it was successful but only to a point, but it took a serious nuke assault from multiple powers to really turn us over. Had I been a bit more ruthless I think I might have had a shout. It shows that a close alliance between a group of small powers can be successful and also remain stable so long as the dynamic between the players is a good one.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 06 Feb 2015, 1:56 pm

But hat's also not exactly the same, Turkey and Egypt are hardly small powers (middle sized) and Israel, while small starts with nuke-know-how. I was talking about the small power ploys, mid sized guys have it tough as well, but they do have more options open to them than do the tiny guys.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 06 Feb 2015, 2:07 pm

I guess this is true. I'd argue though that Israel is probably one of the most difficult starting positions on the whole map. They have nukes but their growth potential is completely anaemic so they rarely get a chance to use them. Turkey starts out bordering both USA and Russia and as a result rarely does well. In that game Egypt also started out bordering China and France. It's not massively dissimilar to the situation you were talking about, although I accept that there were a few more options to play with.

My point really is that it's possible to be successful from a weak starting position without resorting to puppet status. You just need the ability to form workable partnerships and to make sure you don't end up being seen as a convenient victim.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 885
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 06 Feb 2015, 5:59 pm

The basis of any alliance is the same regardless of the size of the nations involved. That is to say that if you want to make someone your ally you need to bring something to the table, and make that person believe you are more valuable alive than dead. This is obviously somewhat simplistic, but it holds true. For example, as I've noted I was China in the last game. Congo attempted to become my ally by offering intel regarding the other African nations. In return, he wanted several centers in the middle of Africa. Intel is always valuable, so I gave him a chance. Unfortunately, it quickly became apparent that he was either unable or unwilling to provide anything of real use. Egypt provided no real information except that he was allied with Turkey, but he did provide a peaceful border. France wanted to move against Kenya since he wasn't doing anything anyway, and I wasn't about to attack France or Egypt. That left me to decide whether allowing Congo to live and hopefully someday provide useful intelligence was more or less valuable than the centers he would get in return. Someone else might hold out hope, but I didn't, so I chose to attack him on the basis that the centers he wanted plus his own centers was more valuable than the hope of information.

My point is this. It is not necessary to kiss anyone's butt. What is necessary is bringing something valuable into the alliance that offsets whatever the other might lose. Smaller nations have to work a little harder perhaps, but they are not without value. In fact, simply being a small nation has value to the large nation. For starters, any coalition featuring the two is going to need fewer votes to win. Also, a small nation is also far less likely to stab you, at least on his or her own. Obviously, there's always a chance they switch to a different large power, but that's the risk you take with any alliance.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 09 Jul 2015, 1:33 pm

Did you watch the most recent game Tom? Crazy how Sri Lanka survived to the vote with zero cities, but three votes! How did that happen? And has it ever happened before? Should it happen? Should a power have at least one city to be able to vote their stars?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 09 Jul 2015, 11:45 pm

Yeah, that was highly dubious in my opinion. I can see how it was allowed to go ahead since the rules on this are a grey area and it was a clever strategy that shouldn't be punished if it isn't actually expressly forbidden, but it strikes me that it should be forbidden in future games.If you have no supply centres then you're dead and out of the game. Being propped up in a zombie state solely for voting purposes seems wrong to me. The voting centres should have reverted to neutrals.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 885
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 10 Jul 2015, 8:23 am

Sassenach wrote:Yeah, that was highly dubious in my opinion. I can see how it was allowed to go ahead since the rules on this are a grey area and it was a clever strategy that shouldn't be punished if it isn't actually expressly forbidden, but it strikes me that it should be forbidden in future games.If you have no supply centres then you're dead and out of the game. Being propped up in a zombie state solely for voting purposes seems wrong to me. The voting centres should have reverted to neutrals.


This is clearly a rule that needs to be clarified one way or the other. I see both sides of the argument. I think Zac said this has happened before, but I'm not sure.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 10 Jul 2015, 9:46 am

Sassenach wrote:it was a clever strategy


It was brilliant! Had Sri Lanka shared in the victory I would have called it pure genius.

Still, I think I agree: A power should need a unit on the board to control stars.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 11 Jul 2015, 12:40 pm

So here's a slightly counterintuitive question for you guys. Is the setup of NWO actually unfair for the A/B class powers ? This is two games running now where none of them have come anywhere near getting in on the winning coalition, and while I can't remember how the game before that finished I have a feeling that may have ended up the same. I find it difficult to conceive of any way for a major power to avoid getting spanked with loads of nukes and taken out before we get to voting season.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 885
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 14 Jul 2015, 1:51 pm

Sassenach wrote:So here's a slightly counterintuitive question for you guys. Is the setup of NWO actually unfair for the A/B class powers ? This is two games running now where none of them have come anywhere near getting in on the winning coalition, and while I can't remember how the game before that finished I have a feeling that may have ended up the same. I find it difficult to conceive of any way for a major power to avoid getting spanked with loads of nukes and taken out before we get to voting season.


If the large nations actually worked together, they would wipe the floor with the rest of the map. I think most people who have played a large nation (myself included) really view the others as their primary enemies and almost entirely ignore what the smaller nations are doing. So, I don't think the game is necessarily unfair for them, but I do think it is very difficult for them. In a lot of ways, I think the game is actually pretty well balanced. Sure, they are large and imposing, but much like any other variant of diplomacy it usually comes down to the alliances you form through diplomatic measures rather than pure militaristic power.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 19
Joined: 24 Aug 2013, 9:33 am

Post 16 Jul 2015, 12:27 pm

Sendric wrote:
Sassenach wrote:So here's a slightly counterintuitive question for you guys. Is the setup of NWO actually unfair for the A/B class powers ? This is two games running now where none of them have come anywhere near getting in on the winning coalition, and while I can't remember how the game before that finished I have a feeling that may have ended up the same. I find it difficult to conceive of any way for a major power to avoid getting spanked with loads of nukes and taken out before we get to voting season.


If the large nations actually worked together, they would wipe the floor with the rest of the map. I think most people who have played a large nation (myself included) really view the others as their primary enemies and almost entirely ignore what the smaller nations are doing. So, I don't think the game is necessarily unfair for them, but I do think it is very difficult for them. In a lot of ways, I think the game is actually pretty well balanced. Sure, they are large and imposing, but much like any other variant of diplomacy it usually comes down to the alliances you form through diplomatic measures rather than pure militaristic power.


I'm in agreement with Sendric that the game is pretty balanced as is in terms of the larger powers. IIRC, last game, China almost won on the first vote (after 8 game years), and when the game ended, France had a coalition or two pass, it just didn't pass by as much as the eventual winners. So I'd hardly say that none of them have come anywhere near getting in on the winning coalition.

I think what we've seen is a few big powers play so poorly that they really messed the game up for the other ones in the end. Two games ago, Russia ended up going somewhat AWOL (RL issues I think?) for much of the game, and US played a sub-par game. This game, UK got on everyone's nerves early, and Russia (from what I hear) barely talked to much of the map. When that happens, things get a little crazy.

Additionall, as Sendric said, the big powers seem to view each other primarily as enemies (except China/France in the past two games), which leads to the inevitable mid-game nuke fest that we saw both this game and last game. When that happens, the inevitably overlooked small powers (like the Africans this past game) get the opportunity to rise to the surface and take their place as bigger powers. It's the battle between trusting another player who can nuke you to hell and back, and just stabbing him first to make sure you're not the one stabbed, that makes playing the big powers so interesting. Otherwise it'd be just too damn easy for Russia, the US, and China (or any combo of 3) to run roughshod over the map!
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 20 Jul 2015, 5:40 am

I did not follow this game all that close. I started to but any time I mentioned anything I was chastised so I stopped following.
It was asked if a zero center power could take part in the win and had it happened before. If he is not eliminated then he absolutely can and should take part in the win, hell, if he can vote then someone can vote for him as well?

This had not happened in any game I ran or played in but we did have a single center power take part in a win. He played his role well and played things to his advantage and won an equal share of the bragging rights. It's all part of how the game was designed and how it is played by the different power classes, I see no problem in either case myself. (one posting saying this player played masterfully only bears that out)

As far as the larger class powers being at a disadvantage, The newer rules in these last two games and the change of powers is more likely the reason for this. The way I designed things, we always had some pretty good balance, tweaking with pirates and colonial holdings and other new rules may be a good idea but certainly would need to be tweaked to get to that right balance. My guess is it's not "quite" right just yet is all.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 22 Jul 2015, 1:58 pm

Setting aside the personal animus that always comes into this, I do happen to think that the new rules that have been tried in recent games need significant modification. We've gone over Dave's pirate rules from the previous game to death, and that seems to have been abandoned now anyway, but the new pirate/terrorist rules also have flaws which possibly weren't fully highlighted by the most recent game just because there were so few of them in the game and they all clustered in the same regions. The biggest beef I had was that those small powers who didn't get a special unit were given a bonus vote instead. As it transpired those votes didn't come into play because the game ended on the first voting round, but it's not hard to see how they could have made a massive difference, and it certainly skews things in the favour of the little guys come the endgame in a way that I don't think is very fair.

I also thought that the units themselves didn't really get used in a way that added much to the game because they were simply a very minor tactical add-on for existing powers and used as such. I posted this in Sendric's EOG, but I'll repeat it again. What I think we should be doing is representing terrorism in a different way, one which would potentially be a lot more fun for all of the players. I like the idea of terrorist factions emerging from players who have been defeated. The way I see it working is that if you get eliminated you can approach a player who is still playing and ask him to sponsor you as a terrorist. By keeping a BB in the bank and not spending it (effectively dedicating the productive power of one of your SCs) you get to act as sponsor to a terrorist in secret, allowing them to control a terrorist unit which would then function in the same way as they did under the current rules. We could potentially allow a terrorist to be sponsored by more than one player (subject to limits of course), giving him control over more than one unit. I think this would be lot of fun. It obviously offers the chance for eliminated players to stay in the game and keep having fun, which for a game like NWO with such a high cull rate would be a great way to retain new players, but it would also be fun for the rest of the players too. You could attack a rival in secret by sponsoring one of the players he just took out to come back as a terrorist. It wouldn't be all that easy to identify who was responsible for this since most players like to keep some BBs in reserve. The potential would also exist for Al-Qaeda style terrorist networks to spring up, with multiple eliminated players pooling their resources. There would also be the potential for blowback of course, with terrorist players turning against their sponsor...

I really like this idea. It's more realistic and I personally think it offers more to the game than the current setup.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 23 Jul 2015, 7:10 am

why oh why does Randy devolve everything into such a mess. Please pay no attention to him as hew has no clue what he is talking about. He can PLAY the game well enough but he simply has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to game design. He has proven this over and over as he can complain only, makes zero suggestions, he has never hosted a game as a GM to understand that aspect, and his "facts" are usually what he assumes or wants to be true. Let's give more weight to those who have actually designed games, to those who have run such games, to those who can discuss them without vitriol. Randy has proven himself to be a know-it-all who can only complain. Randy claims I know nothing and I am against new rules but here's the thing,
I developed the base game and several other games so I think that proves I do know a little something. I am not the be all end all in this, far from it but I do know a bit while he simply does not. Further, he claims I am against new rules yet where did I EVER say this? He can find where I was against this or that rule idea (I was dead set against the pirates and everything i said was bad about it came to be true) but new rules and new maps are great, who said this was perfect and should not be changed???

Dismiss his nonsense and stick to civil discussion.

Here's the thing about any and all new rules and new maps, pretty much anything new...
Ideas are awesome and many can work but seldom do they work as expected on the first try.(it's pretty rare when they do but sometimes that too happens) It takes time to work out bugs and more often than not, one slight change "here" leads to unforeseen changes "there". Polite and civil discussion really does help work through those issues that were spotted.