selecting counries

[unmerged(3571)]

selecting countries

Sorry if this has been metioned before (didn't see it in a quick browse), but...:

How do people usually go about selecting countries in multi-player? Especially since all know that very few nations are created equal.

It occurred to me that one, probably good (if I may be so humble ) system would be to bid VPs on the country you want to play. This would require someone relatively impartial to collect the bids, but you could then apply the bid as a victory point penalty at the end of the game.

For instance, if there are four players and the game has 4 playable nations you could four vp point levels, one for each playable nation. As a refinement of this, you could possibly preset the possible bids (not sure if that would work, I'm still thinking this through).

A similar method was used in the old board game "Empires in Arms", on which the board game Europa Universalis was based.

edit - fixed subject line

 

[unmerged(7184)]

Well in multiplayer players tend to pick nations near eachother (or else you're playing single player)

So therefore you see many European centred games with England, France, Spain and Austria.

Of course none of they nations are completely balanced, however, just like in history, whenever one nation becomes too much more powerful, a coalition forms against them.

As JohnMK and his Ottoman Empire are learning from me Damocles and maybe Maur

 

[Mowers]

The bidding technique for the game is good idea, although I doubt that there are that many people who would know what to bid.

I may be able to assist with my current project to collect AI score data which may give us a rough guide to effective scoring. I have a thread on this board about it that I have updated today. If anyone wants to help me please ICQ me. Ben

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Originally posted by Quietus
Well in multiplayer players tend to pick nations near eachother (or else you're playing single player)

So therefore you see many European centred games with England, France, Spain and Austria.

Of course none of they nations are completely balanced, however, just like in history, whenever one nation becomes too much more powerful, a coalition forms against them.

As JohnMK and his Ottoman Empire are learning from me Damocles and maybe Maur

The host would probably pick what nations are playable (or there might be some other way to do it), but that doesn't make the decision of which player controls which nation - there is a rather large difference between Spain and many of the other nations for instnace, there is no attempt in the game to balance them other than against their historical performance (nor should there be)

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Originally posted by bmoores
The bidding technique for the game is good idea, although I doubt that there are that many people who would know what to bid.

I may be able to assist with my current project to collect AI score data which may give us a rough guide to effective scoring. I have a thread on this board about it that I have updated today. If anyone wants to help me please ICQ me. Ben

Yes, I saw your thread about that. I can't remember if that was before or after I started thinking about this, but it is quite possible you inspired me

One of the beauties of a bidding system is that it is somewhat self-balancing - it becomes almost a mini-game of jockeying for position and bluffing. If someone over-bids for a country like Spain or France, they have to reap the consequences, whereas someone who bids little for a weak nation can sneak in the back door.

Yes though, your guide will be helpful, though AI position and human position can be quite different - some countries can be expoited better by the human player than the AI.

 

[Achiles]

I really don't see the necessity for a biding system. There are more than enough nations to go around assuming you only have 4-6 players. And the host controls things and the players are civil about it. This seems to be true of the vast majority of games. So I really don't understand the need. Cya, bye!

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Originally posted by Achiles
I really don't see the necessity for a biding system. There are more than enough nations to go around assuming you only have 4-6 players. And the host controls things and the players are civil about it. This seems to be true of the vast majority of games. So I really don't understand the need. Cya, bye!

Well, if you are serious about the game and want to play a long-haul game (the only way it is worthwhile, in my opinion), you might care about who you play if you are going to devote many hundreds of hours of your life.

All countries (as I've said before) are definately not created equal, so if you are competitive at all, there needs to be some way to handicap.

Those are the two main reasons. I don't think having the host assign nations is very reasonable.

What if you have three players who all want to play Spain? What do you do? You can't really take turns since it takes so long to finish a GC (or age of Exploration, my preferred scenario for balance.

 

[unmerged(7184)]

Originally posted by satan


Well, if you are serious about the game and want to play a long-haul game (the only way it is worthwhile, in my opinion), you might care about who you play if you are going to devote many hundreds of hours of your life.

All countries (as I've said before) are definately not created equal, so if you are competitive at all, there needs to be some way to handicap.

Those are the two main reasons. I don't think having the host assign nations is very reasonable.

What if you have three players who all want to play Spain? What do you do? You can't really take turns since it takes so long to finish a GC (or age of Exploration, my preferred scenario for balance.

I've personally never witnessed any player "fighting" to be a certain country. In fact I would refuse to play with such uncivilized players

But anyways, as I stated, balancing comes naturally if you have competent players (the type which are in for the "long" haul)

This is due to the fact of greed, jelousy (and real polotik ) The only rule I see necessary when choosing Multiplayer nations, is to have everyone in the same sort of Territory (No China if everyone is in Europe) This forces players to co-operate and ally. And lets face it, everyone wants to win. You win by gaining VCs. Hence no competent players ally with the "top" player, but with the other players who share jealousy for the "top" player. This causes the "top" player to cease to hold that title.

Let's face it, there's nothing better for a EU player than to watch the once "bragging" former VP leader crying, because war exhaustion has caused 100 of his 150 provinces to defect and bankruptcy to permanently destroy his hard earned economy

Hence I have found that starting the game as the most "priviledged" nation can actually be a curse.

 

[Damocles]

The top eight majors are all created roughly equal in their own way. And since most games center around these "top 8", it is not an issue. You can not name any player-run nation that simply cannot be beat by an opposing player if he is good enough and in the right position.

It is the players who are not created equal. In 1419 and in 1492 to a far lesser extent, the countries are so equal as to any differences to be so small as to not matter.

 

[Mowers]

Originally posted by tearjn
The top eight majors are all created roughly equal in their own way. And since most games center around these "top 8", it is not an issue. You can not name any player-run nation that simply cannot be beat by an opposing player if he is good enough and in the right position.

It is the players who are not created equal. In 1419 and in 1492 to a far lesser extent, the countries are so equal as to any differences to be so small as to not matter.

I agree with your first statement that the nature of EU is such that player capability can often overturn heavily imbalanced situations but I’m not so sure about your second statement that the top 8 countries in 1492 ( and 1419) are so equal as to any difference to be so small as not to matter.

Now perhaps I’m just being fussy. Perhaps you are making a generic point. However, I don’t think that you can say that they are so small as not to matter. In fact I would say that they matter a great deal. If you place the top eight European countries of 1492 in decending order Spain, France, Ottoman Empire, Austria, England, Muscowy, Sweden, Poland. I would say that there is a considerable difference between Spain and Poland. Indeed to me Spain and France are much more powerful than the rest of the pack for most of the game if played correctly. There is no doubt that England and the Ottoman empire get some real advantages during in the game, as does Russia to a slightly lesser extent. But I’m not sure that they are large enough to matter.

Now were my, and any other argument, goes out the window is debating the importance of events post 1492 that directly effect the listed countries. How importance that one places on these events is difficult to ascertain. It’s a very, very hard topic to discuss without supporting data and with the way we play EU2 as a community the figures are not going to be forthcoming. The only tests I can run would be hands off games to give us some data and then they are still not accurate due to AI mishaps.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Originally posted by bmoores


I agree with your first statement that the nature of EU is such that player capability can often overturn heavily imbalanced situations but I?m not so sure about your second statement that the top 8 countries in 1492 ( and 1419) are so equal as to any difference to be so small as not to matter.

Now perhaps I?m just being fussy. Perhaps you are making a generic point. However, I don?t think that you can say that they are so small as not to matter. In fact I would say that they matter a great deal. If you place the top eight European countries of 1492 in decending order Spain, France, Ottoman Empire, Austria, England, Muscowy, Sweden, Poland. I would say that there is a considerable difference between Spain and Poland. Indeed to me Spain and France are much more powerful than the rest of the pack for most of the game if played correctly. There is no doubt that England and the Ottoman empire get some real advantages during in the game, as does Russia to a slightly lesser extent. But I?m not sure that they are large enough to matter.

Now were my, and any other argument, goes out the window is debating the importance of events post 1492 that directly effect the listed countries. How importance that one places on these events is difficult to ascertain. It?s a very, very hard topic to discuss without supporting data and with the way we play EU2 as a community the figures are not going to be forthcoming. The only tests I can run would be hands off games to give us some data and then they are still not accurate due to AI mishaps.

I completely agree bmoores.

Saying that there is little or no difference is puting your head in the sand.

While yes, coalitions can knock down a leading player, what if that leading player has allies too? Are people saying that no matter what strategies and positions someone plays, the last one to roll their dice wins (because a coaltion has taken everyone else down)? No, I didn't think that is what they meant.

Seriously, some countries have major advantages, and given players of similar calibre in most games those advantages will show at least part of the time.

A country that CAN'T colonize, or has to work very hard to colonize is at a major disadvantage. A country that has a naturally strong georgraphic position clearly has an advantage. A country that depends on events for many of its gains has some disadvantages since good players can learn to minimize the effect of some of those events.

Obviously any of the major powers can win any game, if they are played well and the players are decent diplomats. That doesn't mean that the game doesn't favor some of those powers more than others.

As I mentioned in my first post on this, have any of you ever played Empires in Arms? Originally by ADG (I think Australian Design Group?) then sold to Avalon Hill. It was an excellent game and the precursor to Europa Universalis, and all about the Napoleonic Wars. The majors were: France, England, Russia, Austria, Prussia and the Ottomans (roughly in order of desirability). There was obviously no comparison between France and the Ottomans, so they had a bidding system to balance out (to some extent) the relative value. Obviously there was going to be a coaltion against France at some point in the game, but France was still a very strong country and had her fate largely in her own hands. This was quite different from England whose fate depending on others since the small but high quality English army would likely be exterminated if it set foot on the continent without some allies.

Anyway, I've rambled on a bit, but I think if people honestly think the nations are totally balanced they haven't played many wargames.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Originally posted by Quietus


I've personally never witnessed any player "fighting" to be a certain country. In fact I would refuse to play with such uncivilized players

You've never wanted to play the same country as someone else?

 

[unmerged(7184)]

Originally posted by satan


You've never wanted to play the same country as someone else?

Countries are typically chosen on a first come, first serve basis.... but once you get dedicated players you typically play with the same players again and again, and the next game is planned out before it begins.
Although there have been times when I may have wished to be a country already chosen, as any civil player with good sportsmanship - I go into a game with atleast 3 nations on my mind.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Originally posted by Quietus


Countries are typically chosen on a first come, first serve basis.... but once you get dedicated players you typically play with the same players again and again, and the next game is planned out before it begins.
Although there have been times when I may have wished to be a country already chosen, as any civil player with good sportsmanship - I go into a game with atleast 3 nations on my mind.

Exactly. Now if you were to use a bidding system, you could bid for your top three countries. I haven't figured out the best mechanics of the bidding system, but lets take an example with mandatory increments and single bids.

Say there were six playable countries, and players are allowed to bid in 100 vp incremements up to 1000 vps. One player could bid 1000 vps for Spain, 900 for France, 700 for Austria, 600 for Ottomans, 200 for England and 100 for Russia. Another player might bid 900 for Spain, 800 for France and 400 for Austria. The next player might not want Spain, but not be willing to bid 1000 for France, so starts with 800 and wins it for that.

In that scenario the highest bid that can be satisfied would win, so player 3 would be France, player 1 would be Spain, and player two would be Austria, but with a very low VP handicap.

Anyway, I haven't thought it through fully (obviously as my example peters out to nothing but rambling), but the point is that players would generally get to play the nations they wanted to play the most, with decisions made it a fair and very civilized way.

I've used similar systems before among friends - if you are going to play a full fledged game of EU it will require a huge investment of time. Spending all that time playing a nation you have little interest in would rather suck, even if you played along to be a good sport (which is what I would tend to do)

 

[unmerged(7184)]

Originally posted by satan


Exactly. Now if you were to use a bidding system, you could bid for your top three countries. I haven't figured out the best mechanics of the bidding system, but lets take an example with mandatory increments and single bids.

Say there were six playable countries, and players are allowed to bid in 100 vp incremements up to 1000 vps. One player could bid 1000 vps for Spain, 900 for France, 700 for Austria, 600 for Ottomans, 200 for England and 100 for Russia. Another player might bid 900 for Spain, 800 for France and 400 for Austria. The next player might not want Spain, but not be willing to bid 1000 for France, so starts with 800 and wins it for that.

In that scenario the highest bid that can be satisfied would win, so player 3 would be France, player 1 would be Spain, and player two would be Austria, but with a very low VP handicap.

Anyway, I haven't thought it through fully (obviously as my example peters out to nothing but rambling), but the point is that players would generally get to play the nations they wanted to play the most, with decisions made it a fair and very civilized way.

I've used similar systems before among friends - if you are going to play a full fledged game of EU it will require a huge investment of time. Spending all that time playing a nation you have little interest in would rather suck, even if you played along to be a good sport (which is what I would tend to do)

Definitely worth experimenting with