Hey, I was wondering how everyone classifies a victor in MP?
I was wondering because I was playing the Napoleon Scenerio the other night. Now, here, France almost always "wins" in terms of VPs. But France can do that by being conservative and just taking over german minors. That isn't really what Napoleon would have considered a victory though. So what is the criteria for judging a napoleonic scenerio either a victory or a defeat on either side. (In the game I was playing, damocles was definitely the victor, although I do want a rematch
) Certainly in a Napoleonic Scenerio, England or Russia will fare better than Austria, but that is not an indication of being better, just of being more distant/better protected.
What about for the wider game at large. Spain has an obvious advantage in VPs, while Prussia will have to fight hard to even compete. Or should we just give up the idea of victory and say that the victorious player is the one all other players fear to attack? Anyone have any ideas?
I was wondering because I was playing the Napoleon Scenerio the other night. Now, here, France almost always "wins" in terms of VPs. But France can do that by being conservative and just taking over german minors. That isn't really what Napoleon would have considered a victory though. So what is the criteria for judging a napoleonic scenerio either a victory or a defeat on either side. (In the game I was playing, damocles was definitely the victor, although I do want a rematch
) Certainly in a Napoleonic Scenerio, England or Russia will fare better than Austria, but that is not an indication of being better, just of being more distant/better protected.What about for the wider game at large. Spain has an obvious advantage in VPs, while Prussia will have to fight hard to even compete. Or should we just give up the idea of victory and say that the victorious player is the one all other players fear to attack? Anyone have any ideas?
