Gentlemen, I've been reading these messages re Great War inevitability for the last couple of days, and I thought I might offer my own two bits. The frequency of Great Wars does bother me and in order to encourage players to negotiate rather than fight out their troubles, I've come up with some house rules that have been used in a couple of games so far. The most significant has been to narrow the penalties for touching off the Great War to its participants. Now, when the War begins, only the powers involved are penalized the required VP's. This makes not getting involved in the War far more alluring for players and has demonstrably kept players from declaring war due to fear of starting down that slippery slope and getting hit with the penalties, thus ensuring a loss. It isn't foolproof, but it has helped so far. I've also made war itself more costly by forcing at-sea units to dock at the nearest friendly harbor at the end of a war rather than automatically go home. And breaking official treaties now costs powers 2 VP. A few more tweaks have been done as well, but those are the big ones. I won't claim total success here; these changes are in their second game of introduction but at least the first ended with the ETI at 100 later than normal. More games have to be played before I can truly assess their success. Alex Sanders --- Jim Bailey wrote: > > --- wargame999@yahoo.com wrote: > > My experience has been that the Great War is not > inevitable. It > > depends on the play style of the participants. > > I agree about the style of the participants, but > unless I'm reading > the chart wrong, *every* game has ended with the GW. > That is a strong > indicator of inevitability built into the mechanics > of the game. Now I > will admit that the Great Powers historically didn't > worry about > "winning" the game; they just did what they could do > and the tension > index (I suppose) rose. But my point is (I think) > that the GW was an > historical "accident" flowing from mistakes and > miscalculations > involving alliances and misjudgments involving the > fortitude of > opposing powers. The game clearly takes the position > that a GW was > inevitable (if it is not an assumption of the game, > then why would the > ETI have a GW tripwire?). > Perhaps a better game mechanic would be "if the > ETI increase by X > amount in one turn [or two turns, take your pick], > then the GW occurs." > That would at least allow for ETI events that > happened 4 turns ago to > fade in significance over time. > > > I'd guess a majority > > of my games ended without a GW, and I even > remember one that ended > > with European tensions around 30. > > Wow, that's quite a low-intensity game. > > > Nor have I had the experience of an early > intentional GW - the VP > > penalty is too high. > > Then I'd have to say that your experience is > radically different > from the email game experience documented here. > > > > I don't think it's the designer's intent was to > simulate the origins > > of the Great War. As we all know, colonial > competition was merely > > one factor in many that contributed to the war. > The game by its > > nature exaggerates the role of colonialism in > international > > relations, and therefore is a simulation of > colonial competition but > > not international relations as a whole. > > Then why have the GW as a game event? At most the > game-ending ETI > trigger should exist without a VP penalty and > without a GW as an event. > In terms of the game, the colonial activity is, by > and large, what > triggers the GW. > > > > The Great War is merely a mechanism to create a > degree of > > uncertaintly regarding the end of the game, and to > restrain > > ahistorical play in the form of overly-aggressive > actions that COULD > > have led to a Great War or exhausted Europe in a > series of wars, and > > that could disturb the play-balance of the game. > > Perhaps. The game certainly does not work at all > well as a military > simulation (in fact, it does that so poorly that > this fact alone should > prevent anyone from actually fighting a war that > can't be finished > *very* quickly). > > Also, games are a > > form of alternate history, and good ones encourage > realism without > > mandating a replay of history. > > No argument there, and not really my point. > > While WWI as we know it was unlikely > > to have started as early as 1892, any war > involving four major > > European powers would have been sufficient to > divert Europe's > > attention from colonial expansion and would have > represented a > > significant point in European history - as good a > point as any to end > > the game. > > That sounds a bit too arbitrary for me. Why not a > war involving any > 4 great powers? Why only European? Reason (it > seems): the game assumes > that a war wtih 4 Euro-powers would lead to a > large-scale land war, > rather than a "cleaner" naval war. But certainly a > war between Russia, > France, Italy and Britain wouldn't have amounted to > much (this has been > discussed a couple of years ago) because the > critical factor in what > made the Great War "great" was the existence of > common borders among > the combatants -- without that factor, there would > not have been a > civilization-wrenching general conflict. > > > > If we consider the existing rules unacceptable, > there is nothing > > preventing us from tweaking them. An easy fix > would be to increase > > the GW penalty, since it sounds like there has > been insufficient > > disincentive for ahistorically aggressive play. > If we're ambitious > > we could and develop variants to reflect > technology, nationalism, the > > rigidity of alliances, the arms race, etc., but we > might end up with > > a whole new game if we try to cover everything. > Not that there would > > be anything wrong with that... :) > > That is intriguing -- add some elements that do > not change the flow > of play mechanics, but which introduce some variety > over time. The game > would play the same, but like the Random Elements > already a part of the > game, the additional factors would prevent > inevitability and > predictability (after a fashion). Makes me want to > consider GMing an > experimental game. Hmmm... anyone theoretically > interested (no > commitment until I work up the new factors of > course)? > > Jim > > __________________________________________________ > Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? > Donate cash, emergency relief information > http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/ > __________________________________________________ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/