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

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 885
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 14 Jul 2014, 8:52 am

Well, this was a roller coaster ride from hell. Let's see if I can remember/figure out what happened.

My plan in Africa: Given the likelihood that the smaller nations would try to band together to kick out myself and probably France, I thought I would poke around and see if I could split that up a little bit. My goal was to find a willing partner in one of the native African nations that I could prop up while they took over the region. I would then grow my colony to about 3 or 4 centers while hopefully getting a game-long ally and coalition partner. Sadly, there were no takers, though I probably should have reached out to more of them (namely Tunisia who I never spoke to once, and perhaps Nigeria who I didn't really talk to much until later).

Congo: Congo and I spoke a lot in the first year, and I really enjoyed how communicative he was. I told him my plan, and that I wanted him to be that player. Unfortunately, he was reluctant to commit. He told me that there was an anti-China coalition growing in Africa, and that he didn't want to upset anyone in the area by working with me. He did, however, agree to keep me informed of what was going on. His information proved less than useful, though, since it was stuff I already knew or could figure out pretty easily on my own. Talking to a few other nations, it seemed to me that no one really trusted him and that he was playing both sides. Had he committed to my plan, I wouldn't have stabbed him. He didn't, and I felt he was merely biding his time until he could take me on directly, so I decided to get rid of him. France was kind enough to help me with that.

Egypt: My relationship with Egypt proved critical to my growth in Africa. If he had decided to attack me early on, things would have been much more difficult. That's why I sought peace with him early on. He was fearful that I would attack him, though, so he too was unwilling to commit to my plan. I wanted Egypt to head west into Tunisia and Europe, but he wouldn't commit to that either, and he ended up stabbing France. This created major tension between myself, France and Egypt for the rest of the game as I tried desperately to keep the peace. For the record, I put in a lot of effort in keeping Egypt safe, including during the whole plan to nuke the UK. More on that later. I will say, though, that if the rest of Africa was more secure, I could have been talked into attacking Egypt alongside Dario. It seemed to me that Trevor was more at fault for the tension in the area than Dario, so I would have sided with Dario if war was unavoidable.

France: Having found no takers in my original plan, I ended up working with Dario almost by default. This obviously worked out quite well, and we were allies throughout the game. Once I got nuked, Dario was kind enough not to stab me, though that was as much out of loyalty as for selfish reasons, I think. Ironically, I still would have voted for him even if he had stabbed me.

UK: Rob D and I spoke quite a bit early on. I pitched the idea of winning with a BBB alliance alongside France. France was interested, and I think would have committed had things progressed that way. Of course, we all had other options as well, and trying to win as a BBB is not something you wanted to broadcast. UK started to grow, and after helping Canada and Mexico strike at the US, he decided to hit Canada. I actually disagreed with this attack. Sure, Canada could have threatened the Atlantic, and perhaps in time, he would have. However, I felt Canada was focused on taking down the US, so why turn his attention elsewhere? I also really wanted him to help me with Russia. Since we were supposedly in an alliance, I felt that him hitting Russia would further that cause, and he could always claim he was helping Sweden out (since he would be hitting on that side of Russia). He refused. He also sent me a message later indicating the BBB was his idea. This were clues to me that wasn't really interested in such a coalition, and therefore not really my ally. Given his clear association with Argentina and OL, there were just too many indicators, and that's when I decided to talk to Dario about nuking him.

The nuking of UK: As Dario already pointed out, Israel was the sacrificial lamb in the set-up to taking down UK. Israel had stopped talking to me, and was starting to drive into Asia, so I had zero problems with this. Also, it helped drive home the idea that were with UK in the anti-Middle East assault. Obviously this was false. In the season leading up to the strike, I actually tried to steer UK's nukes towards Turkey. He didn't bite, and insisted that he hit Egypt. If I pushed any harder, I feared he would have grown suspicious so I decided to drop it. Later, I got the brilliant idea to point him at Mexico. I indicated to him that Mexico was planning a strike against him in the hopes that he would hit Mexico instead, thus sparing Egypt. He said he would look into it, and he did, but of course no one would confirm it so he went ahead and hit Egypt. Sorry, Trevor, I really did try here. Ironically, an hour after I planted that seed with UK, Mexico emailed me and said "hey, let's nuke UK together". At first, I thought maybe he was just playing me, but after a few emails it became clear that he was serious. So, I found out where he was hitting, and passed that along to Dario so we could plan around it. I never even told Fred about Dario's involvement, just in case. During the planning stages, I didn't want anyone to know. Dario asked me about telling Mike (DPR), and I agreed as long as he was sure. In hindsight, I probably should have told Turkey and Egypt, but it seemed like Turkey and UK Rob were talking quite a bit, and I didn't want that slipping out.

Turkey: Which brings me to Turkey. We talked a lot throughout the game, and I think we were basically allies. He didn't want to attack Russia, though, and he protected Israel. Maybe I should have tried harder to work with that crew, but they seemed so isolated that it was hard to get a read on them. I wish I had more to say here, because I felt like Turkey and I talked a lot. In the end, though, it didn't seem to amount to much.

Kazakhstan: Dave's assessment of Kaz in his GM EOG is spot on. He was very enthusiastic, and I hope he plays in the next one. Kaz is a difficult position, and I think he did pretty well. His downfall came when he attacked Pakistan. I have to admit, it was me who convinced him to do that. I told him I would protect him. I did not expect the attack on him to come so quickly or so decisively. I didn't have the resources at that point to help him, so I felt pretty guilty the rest of the game. That's why you found his unit taking up residence in Chinese SC's later. Sorry. Alex. I wish things had worked out better for you.

India/Pakistan: Lumping these two together because it seemed they more or less acted together. From the beginning, India was trying to gather an alliance against me, apparently that's because it's just what you do in this game. I, for one, do not subscribe to convention, and couldn't tell you what convention is most of the time. Regardless, I wanted to take him out early too, so I guess we were bound to be enemies from the start. Then we became allies in the sense that he would feed me his credits. Then he forgot to build, and that all went to hell, and he eventually started to give away his centers and I stopped caring.

Vietnam: I wanted to work with Vietnam from the beginning, and for the most part we did. I managed to squash an early anti-China alliance, but then Vietnam got it going again, all the while claiming he was just playing Russia. I found this irritating so when OL stabbed him, I wasn't saddened. I did manage to get a credit out of him, though, which was fun. I think if Javelin had just allied with me and didn't play games with Russia, this would have worked out pretty well. Instead, he got himself eliminated.
Last edited by Sendric on 14 Jul 2014, 9:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 885
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 14 Jul 2014, 8:52 am

Japan: Talk about communicative. I don't think I spoke to anyone as much as I did Japan, at least up until the last few years. In the first year, Japan, myself and Russia all agreed that North Korea needed to go. His nuke capability and his personality really didn't make any of us comfortable. This was probably the only time in the game all three of us agreed on something and acted on it accordingly. After that, Japan and I started talking about attacking Russia. I proposed a straight-ahead plan that would have netted Japan a couple of centers quickly and given him access to the continent. Japan proposed some cockamamie plan where he would trick Russia into thinking he was allied with him by taking a couple of my centers and then stabbing him. I declined at first, but he kept pressing and eventually I agreed to have him talk to Russia about it. I assumed, incorrectly, that Russia wouldn't go for the plan Japan put forth. In any case, I was also talking to Russia, and the US, and they both thought Japan was playing all of us against each other. I agreed. So, I made plans with Russia to stab Japan, which was a successful stab until Russia then turned his sights on me. I didn't really get it, and I was forced to go back to Japan, which I really didn't want to do. I was trying not to devote a lot of resources to Japan because I had no interest in claiming territory in the Pacific. All I really wanted was KOR and SEO. Unfortunately, I could find no takers for Japanese centers, and I was left looking like an idiot, which Japan was more than happy to point out on several occasions. I was one of the people who told Dave his ego had gotten a little too inflated. I'll give him credit for working very hard to secure his position, but he also needed to understand he was an E power surrounded by two B's and an A. You managed to piss all three of us off, but fortunately for you, I was the only one willing to do anything about it. If I hadn't been planning the nuke strike on UK, I would have used my nukes on you instead, and simply wiped you out. You said more than once I shouldn't attack you because I couldn't get all your centers. What you didn't understand is that I didn't want them. I was trying to give them away, but no one would take them. Given more time, I would have nuked you eventually.

Russia: Dave said in his EOG that I benefited hugely from his play. I respectfully disagree. I may have benefited somewhat in the sense that his attacks on me were not well thought out nor particularly well coordinated. However, Russia was still a major thorn in my side. There had been talk of a European coalition early on to take Russia out. I tried to foster this, but it never materialized. Most of the people around me showed no interest in attacking him, and Turkey was allied with him. That gave him free reign to move against me, even after I granted him several centers and votes without contest. I hear it said all the time that Russia and China are natural enemies in this game, but that doesn't mean they have to be. If Leif and I had worked together, or at least been peaceful, we both would have been much better off in the end. Something for future players of these two powers to consider.

USA: I talked quite a bit with the US throughout the game. Here's another situation where I think we both would have benefited a lot by being allies. For whatever reason, though, it didn't seem to work out. We weren't really enemies, either though, so I guess that's something.

Orang Laut: I'll have more to say on Pirate powers in general further down, but let me say now I think Zac played a brilliant game, much to my detriment. He bailed me out somewhat with his attack on Vietnam (at least that was my opinion at the time...I can't say for sure what Vietnam's true intentions were). After that, I felt like we were allies heading towards the same cause, and while I recognized his allegiance to the UK, I never suspected that would continue after the nuking. Dario and I both failed to recognize that prior to the strike. Clearly, we would have done things a bit differently had we realized, but hey, we can't get them all right. After nuking me, Zac explained that part of the reason was that I was strong-arming he and Kal out of votes in DEL, BHU, and ISL. While its true I wanted those votes, I certainly didn't feel as though I was strong-arming them out of it nor was I preventing them from getting other votes. I was a B nation, and I needed a ton of votes. At that point, I was lagging behind the other B nations, largely because I had already made several concessions. In particular, I made no effort to take control of any of the votes in the Vietnam region. Zac blew a bunch of smoke up my ass about appreciating that, but this seems to have been a case of "give a guy an inch, he takes a mile". I guess I should have made more of an effort to limit his growth into Asia, but I thought I was making an ally for the rest of the game.

Argentina: Another game, another brilliant effort by Randy. Most of our communication came after UK got nuked. At that point, I tried to steer him towards Mexico. He declined, and talks of any cooperative effort moving forward stalled there. He told me later that part of why he nuked me was because there had been no talks from me (or France) to coordinate with him after UK was gone. He either didn't see this as a real effort or he was covering up the real reasons. In any case, he kept the dialogue open, and I pursued an attack on OL. He played along, and then reported to Zac about it. Dario did, too, apparently, but I'm guessing he had no real choice at that point. In the end, I guess he made the right choice. I think either way, he probably would have won, and he chose to stick with his game-long ally instead of picking up a new one. Hard to fault him for that.

Europe: I would be remiss if I didn't include Europe here. I did talk to Sweden quite a bit early on about taking down Russia. By the time he finally did attack Russia, I had already come to a peaceful arrangement with Leif (thanks in large part to India's efforts), and I wasn't prepared to jump on that bandwagon. I did, eventually, but only because I had been nuked and I desperately needed SC's. Otherwise, my plan had been to help Russia with the Swedish invasion. I also spoke a bit with Germany, and tried to talk to Italy. Italy was weird, so we never got anywhere. Germany was somewhat open, but we couldn't really coordinate anything so there wasn't much to talk about. Poland contacted me early on about attacking Russia, but he thought I was Ukraine (because I had been in a previous version), and after I pointed that out he stopped talking. I have no idea what the hell Serbia was doing.

I know there are others that I spoke to in the game, but these were the major ones. Apologies to anyone I missed. Congrats to the winners (you all played excellently), and a big thanks to Dave for running the show.

Final thoughts on my own performance: A few people gave their appreciation for how I played. I may be overly critical of myself, but I don't really see it. All game long, I felt I had only one true ally in France. I did not do a good enough job gathering up other allies. This was particularly notable with regards to the US and Russia, and ultimately Argentina. Perhaps more effort wouldn't have made a difference. I don't know. Ultimately, I was unable to persuade many people to do anything I wanted, and almost nobody was willing to talk to me about future plans. Maybe this was a product of having a colony in Africa making me appear more powerful. I don't know. Regardless, I found myself having an uphill battle everywhere I looked, with the exception of the nuking of the UK.

My thoughts on the map in general

Chinese colony in Africa: I like this idea. I heard from some people that it makes China too powerful. I disagree completely. I always felt China was weak compared to the other B nations, and I think this colony helps even things out a little bit. That said, it still has to be played right, or in my case, get lucky. Otherwise it will be eliminated very early on. Some thought will have to be put into whether or not the placement of the colony is good. It may be better off in Southern Africa as, I believe, Trevor suggested. In any case, I definitely think China should have a colony in the next game.

Pacific: I feel like Australia was rather isolated. Whether this lead to his silence or not, I'm not sure, but it definitely seemed as though there wasn't much for him to do early on. This would need to change for the next game in my opinion. There should be another power somewhere in the south Pacific. It may be as simple as making sure Indonesia can't be eliminated in the first year.

Pirates: Obviously, this is the hottest topic in this game. I like the idea of the pirates, but I would like to see a few changes. I don't know what the intention of their inclusion was, but I think they proved to be too powerful (for my taste). For starters, I would like to see the spawnling rule changed to allow spawning in sea zones only. Also, I think the Pacific pirates and the Indian pirates are too close. I would see the Pacific pirates pushed further east. If those were the only two changes made, I'd be happy. That said, I would also be open to further reducing their potential with special rules. It's something that will need to be discussed.

Nukes: Nukes are obviously a huge part of the game, and by the end, they become the primary method of destruction. To me, this escalates too quickly, though. I would like to discuss with those smarter than me some ideas about reducing the nuclear warfare a bit. I'm not looking to remove nukes altogether, but I would like to reduce how many of them end up flying around the board.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 340
Joined: 31 Jul 2001, 2:31 pm

Post 14 Jul 2014, 4:06 pm

I personally liked the colony in Africa. It really gives China a little more oomf.

Oh and you are so right Sendric we should have allied in the beginning. I think it would have been a different game. I dont know if I would have done better but I think you would have made more gains if we had worked together as a solid unit from the beginning.
Dignitary
 
Posts: 4058
Joined: 24 Sep 2001, 11:57 am

Post 14 Jul 2014, 4:50 pm

Chinese colony in Africa: I like this idea. I heard from some people that it makes China too powerful. I disagree completely. I always felt China was weak compared to the other B nations, and I think this colony helps even things out a little bit. That said, it still has to be played right, or in my case, get lucky. Otherwise it will be eliminated very early on. Some thought will have to be put into whether or not the placement of the colony is good. It may be better off in Southern Africa as, I believe, Trevor suggested. In any case, I definitely think China should have a colony in the next game.


Well I'm glad someone understands :)

China was always at a mathematical disadvantage. It has fewer productive units (armies/fleets) than any B power. A few people argued that it is fairly isolated and buffered from opponents and that gives it a strength but Russia and the mainland USA have similar characteristics, while both have unlimited range nukes to help protect themselves. China has to invest precious BBs into extending range, while neither the USA nor Russia must do so.

Pick an attribute of an A/B power, China is always lagging behind. Number of SCs. Insulation. Nuclear range. Proximity to votes. Global influence. Not to mention the fact that Russia is right there. This is not to say that Russia must fight China, or vice versa, but there will obviously be many issues to work out if the two are going to work together.

I think it's important that China has a colony. It's vulnerable but it gives China a hope of influence in the western hemisphere. It also gives China a bit more access to votes. Should it be in eastern, southern, western Africa...I'm not sure it matters. For the record, I removed Ethiopia when putting in the colony. So I don't really think there is a difference between removing Zimbabwe or removing Ethiopia and putting China in their place.

Note: my first draft actually had both Ethiopia and Zimbabwe in place and put the Chinese colony in Angola. I liked that option too but we didn't have enough players.

Nukes: Nukes are obviously a huge part of the game, and by the end, they become the primary method of destruction. To me, this escalates too quickly, though. I would like to discuss with those smarter than me some ideas about reducing the nuclear warfare a bit. I'm not looking to remove nukes altogether, but I would like to reduce how many of them end up flying around the board.


This idea has been floated in the past. I certainly appreciate the reasoning behind the argument but I'm not sure I like the repercussions of limiting nukes. Nukes provide a key component to the game: it removes any security for any power of any size. If you limit the number of nukes that can fly, it becomes incredibly difficult to remove A/B powers. The conventional military units are simply too slow and don't prevent growth in other areas of the board. Think about how many nukes the USA, UK and China absorbed. None of them were seriously threatened with elimination. They were certainly handicapped and faced a much harder task to win the game. Would any of you have committed the stabs on the UK and China that were done had you not been able to lob in 6-10 nukes at the same time? Maybe, but probably not?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 29
Joined: 15 Oct 2011, 5:20 am

Post 14 Jul 2014, 4:54 pm

Very interesting EOG Sendric. I'm not done with mine yet so I'll put a thought in here in the meantime in hopes that it answers a question. What I said about those three votes is true, but it's not the reason I stabbed. When I saw you and Fred sitting on a ton of nukes, it occurred to me that the target was likely going to be UK. I was trying my hardest to convince Rob D., Randy, Mike and Kal to stab you at the same time that you, Fred and Dario were planning your stab on Rob. By that point, Randy and I were talking for many turns about how the B powers were too friendly and would be able to run the board if they wanted to, and we were looking for a way to disrupt that. When I saw those nukes I thought were likely for UK, it was a good opening to make that happen. I wasn't convincing enough in warning the others that a stab on UK was imminent, so you got your first strike on UK and it was even worse than I had worried (I didn't expect Dario to be involved). After that, we really couldn't let you and France get off free or we'd miss our chance at taking control, so we stabbed you and attempted to subjugate Dario (who skillfully countered by cooperating enough that we had better nuke targets, but generally doing what he wanted). I'll have more details posted in my own EOG, but hopefully this suffices for now.

Also while I'm here, you did play a great game. I don't think it's realistic to expect that anyone could have foreseen the disruptive moves made during and after your stab on UK, and once they were made there was little that could be done to prevent further expansion and assaults on other competitors. In other words, I don't really see how you could have played the game any better. It's a large part of why I put in an effort to get a win with you after all of the fighting, and I'm happy to see that you had a coalition pass even if it wasn't with the largest margin.
Last edited by Admiral Corncob on 14 Jul 2014, 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 885
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 14 Jul 2014, 5:02 pm

SuperAnt wrote:This idea has been floated in the past. I certainly appreciate the reasoning behind the argument but I'm not sure I like the repercussions of limiting nukes. Nukes provide a key component to the game: it removes any security for any power of any size. If you limit the number of nukes that can fly, it becomes incredibly difficult to remove A/B powers. The conventional military units are simply too slow and don't prevent growth in other areas of the board. Think about how many nukes the USA, UK and China absorbed. None of them were seriously threatened with elimination. They were certainly handicapped and faced a much harder task to win the game. Would any of you have committed the stabs on the UK and China that were done had you not been able to lob in 6-10 nukes at the same time? Maybe, but probably not?


I don't have the map in front of me right now, but how many nukes did each of us lob at him individually? I'd be surprised if any of us hit him with more than 6. This was a coordinated effort, and isn't the kind of thing I'm looking to remove. I completely understand the need for them. I just think it gets a little out of hand after a few seasons. I don't really have a solution. It's just something I'd at least like to have a dialogue about. If I come up with some kind of proposal, I will let you know.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 885
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 14 Jul 2014, 5:06 pm

Admiral Corncob wrote:Also while I'm here, you did play a great game. I don't think it's realistic to expect that anyone could have foreseen the disruptive moves made during and after your stab on UK, and once they were made there was little that could be done to prevent further expansion and assaults on other competitors. In other words, I don't really see how you could have played the game any better. It's a large part of why I put in an effort to get a win with you after all of the fighting, and I'm happy to see that you had a coalition pass even if it wasn't with the largest margin.


Thank you. Certainly no one could have predicted the moves that occurred after the stab on UK. That's not really what I meant. It was more that I wasn't good enough diplomatically, particularly early on. I think my problem was that I had a lot of "ok" relationships, but only one good one. I really needed to focus more on a few nations to create stronger alliances. Maybe I couldn't have succeeded no matter how hard I tried, but I do think there was room for improvement.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 14 Jul 2014, 10:49 pm

I'm not sure how easy it would be to limit nukes. As Dave said, they're an essential tool for fighting against the major powers (although the reverse is also true, without them the major powers would have much reduced global reach and a harder time bullying the little guys). It may possibly be worth the next GM doing some kind of a more detailed write-up on nuke strategy though, so that new players can get a clearer appreciation of the best ways to use them and what you have to do get a proper nuke cycle going. It seemed clear to me that Leif in particular didn't fully grasp the importance of nukes. He waited far too long before he started banking any credits and even then didn't really look to try and set up a proper pipeline of credits that would let him keep on building fresh nukes on a regular basis. This is understandable as he was new to the format, but since he was playing Russia it made for somewhat unbalanced gameplay, and left him horribly vulnerable to a stab come the midgame.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 885
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 15 Jul 2014, 6:20 am

Like I said, I get the need for nukes. For the record, it looks like I hit UK with 5, Mexico with 3, and France with 2. So, yes, he was hit with 10 nukes, but it was the combined effort of three nations to get that many. Not sure if I'm helping or hurting my argument here, but this isn't the sort of thing I would want to squash anyway.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 18
Joined: 24 Aug 2013, 9:33 am

Post 15 Jul 2014, 6:31 am

Sendric wrote:Like I said, I get the need for nukes. For the record, it looks like I hit UK with 5, Mexico with 3, and France with 2. So, yes, he was hit with 10 nukes, but it was the combined effort of three nations to get that many. Not sure if I'm helping or hurting my argument here, but this isn't the sort of thing I would want to squash anyway.


I think the idea that Dave and Sass are trying to get across is that if we limited the quick escalation of nukes, the combined nuking on me (or other big powers in the future) wouldn't have been possible. Sure, everyone individually used 5 or less nukes, but if we somehow decreased the ability to build up a stockpile of nukes fairly quickly, this type of nuking would have been nearly impossible. Imagine if you had only 3 nukes, and Fred and Dario had only 1. That would have changed the calculus a LOT, and would have made a stab much less effective.

The way I see it, it's a catch-22. If you don't limit the ability to pump out nukes fast, you just get wanton destruction starting around years 7-8 (it's up to the individual to determine whether that's a good thing or not), but if you do limit the ability to pump out nukes, you greatly reduce the ability to effective corral and take down large powers.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 885
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 15 Jul 2014, 6:41 am

drano019 wrote:I think the idea that Dave and Sass are trying to get across is that if we limited the quick escalation of nukes, the combined nuking on me (or other big powers in the future) wouldn't have been possible. Sure, everyone individually used 5 or less nukes, but if we somehow decreased the ability to build up a stockpile of nukes fairly quickly, this type of nuking would have been nearly impossible. Imagine if you had only 3 nukes, and Fred and Dario had only 1. That would have changed the calculus a LOT, and would have made a stab much less effective.

The way I see it, it's a catch-22. If you don't limit the ability to pump out nukes fast, you just get wanton destruction starting around years 7-8 (it's up to the individual to determine whether that's a good thing or not), but if you do limit the ability to pump out nukes, you greatly reduce the ability to effective corral and take down large powers.


Yes. I understand. It's the wanton destruction that I'd like to see curtailed, but there doesn't seem to be a good way to handle that. The only thing I can really come up with is to somehow limit the ability to build a nuke in the same city multiple years in a row either by not allowing it at all or by escalating the cost in BB's to do so. Either way, I'm not sure it would really accomplish much. I need to think about it more. I stopped saving the maps after 2019, which I am now regretting.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 18
Joined: 24 Aug 2013, 9:33 am

Post 15 Jul 2014, 7:10 am

Yes. I understand. It's the wanton destruction that I'd like to see curtailed, but there doesn't seem to be a good way to handle that. The only thing I can really come up with is to somehow limit the ability to build a nuke in the same city multiple years in a row either by not allowing it at all or by escalating the cost in BB's to do so. Either way, I'm not sure it would really accomplish much. I need to think about it more. I stopped saving the maps after 2019, which I am now regretting.[/quote]

Can we really afford to curtail the wanton destruction though? Would that virtually make the larger powers immune at some point?

Consider this: For 2 game years, I ate almost every nuke France, China, and Mexico had. I got hit with 10 nukes in 2020, and with another 5 (at least, I might have counted wrong), in 2021. And still, at that point, I was standing. Curtailing nukes somehow would basically make a maneuver like that impossible. Large power, once they reached a certain size, would be almost assured of being able to continue on their forward trajectory, barring every other nuke power on the board turning their sights on them. And even then, it's just replacing one big power with another.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 885
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 15 Jul 2014, 7:48 am

drano019 wrote:Can we really afford to curtail the wanton destruction though? Would that virtually make the larger powers immune at some point?

Consider this: For 2 game years, I ate almost every nuke France, China, and Mexico had. I got hit with 10 nukes in 2020, and with another 5 (at least, I might have counted wrong), in 2021. And still, at that point, I was standing. Curtailing nukes somehow would basically make a maneuver like that impossible. Large power, once they reached a certain size, would be almost assured of being able to continue on their forward trajectory, barring every other nuke power on the board turning their sights on them. And even then, it's just replacing one big power with another.


Perhaps we can't. Like I said, I don't have a good solution, and that is largely due to the fact that we do need the nukes. That said, your ability to stay afloat was largely due to the miscalculation from Dario and I where we thought others would jump on board (by taking centers with units). Not only did that not happen, but Argentina and Orang Laut politically maneuvered to prevent further attacks against you.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 18
Joined: 24 Aug 2013, 9:33 am

Post 15 Jul 2014, 8:21 am

Perhaps we can't. Like I said, I don't have a good solution, and that is largely due to the fact that we do need the nukes. That said, your ability to stay afloat was largely due to the miscalculation from Dario and I where we thought others would jump on board (by taking centers with units). Not only did that not happen, but Argentina and Orang Laut politically maneuvered to prevent further attacks against you.


More will be coming once my EOG is complete (I probably am writing way too much), but I'm well aware of the political maneuvering Argentina and Orang Laut made on my behalf. However, isn't that the essence of Diplomacy? One might argue that because I was able to face such an onslaught and not only survive, but help get 3 of my allies the win, that there is no issue with nukes, and that everything worked out as intended. After all, Diplomacy can make up for military shortcoming, as we saw when Randy and Zac decided to stick with me. As for miscalculations, well, that's just part of the game too. Everyone makes miscalculations, we can't really argue that anything should or should not be changed because of miscalculations.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 15 Jul 2014, 8:32 am

Of course, it's all very well to say that big powers can eat a modest amount of nukes and still come back swinging, but the same doesn't really apply to smaller powers. Israel and Nigeria got totally demolished by a comparatively small number of nukes launched in one attack. Israel did ultimately survive till the end, but only because I was propping him up.

I believe there was one incarnation of NWO where big powers were forbidden from nuking very small ones. I didn't last very long in that game so I can't remember how it eventually turned out, but since it was abandoned I assume the consensus must have been that it didn't really work very well.