Brian Sherry
Vienna
Virginia
-
Had my first ftf game of CGW tonight and I have to say there is at least one "massive" problem with the game. I really wanted to enjoy this game but the issue really spoiled the whole session.
The Massive Revolt rules state that if the Roman player has 13 or more tribes then the Gallic (yes, I refuse to say Germanic) player gets to place the massive revolt card in hand. This clearly creates an incentive for the Roman player to try to stay ahead in the game but below the number 13 for as long as the card is unplayed. As the deck is re-shuffled each turn, there is no guarantee that the card will see play by the Gallic player otherwise. It has been suggested by the game's author and others that the Gallic player can make this happen by forcing neutral tribes to the Roman side, preferably by attacking with German units and then simply retreating to flip the neutral tribes to Roman control for no loss. We'll call this the "Gallic suicide strategy" for fun. What has not been addressed is the fact that a canny Roman player can then suicide his controlled tribes into larger Gallic player tribes to lose tribal control, since destroyed tribes come back as neutral! We'll call this the "Counter-Suicide Suicide Strategy", for even more fun.
What this all means is that, about halfway through a game played with the stock rules where no Massive Revolt card has come the Gallic player's way, a ridiculous meta-game ensues between players who make rational profit maximizing decisions. Both players can use the rules in extremely gimmicky ways to try to reach or prevent the magical 13 from occurring. In fact, I chose to retreat two full strength units from a fortified town rather than kill a suicidal single-block Roman- controlled tribe that had attacked me. It's ridiculous that such was an optimal move!
I agree with the something like the rules proposal of Ben Hackman that the Massive Revolt should occur based on a die roll with an increasing chance of occurring as the game progresses:
http://boardgamegeek.com/article/5348959#5348959
"on 3rd yr, Gaul rolls d1, 1-2 = massive, discards a card when played. 3rd yr d1-3, 4th yr d1-3, 5th d1-4. 6th d 1-5, 7th d1-4, 8th d1-3. If Gaul doesn't get card or die roll over course of game, then face it, stars just aligned against you."
My proposal would be slightly different: Using the die roll chart above, roll at the beginning of each turn starting on Turn 3, before dealing out cards. The Gallic player will receive the Massive Revolt Card if he succeeds in the die roll, and will draw four other cards as normal for a total hand of 5. After the Massive Revolt Card is used once by the Gallic player, it is removed from the game.
This eliminates any of the silly meta-gaming and also represents the historically accurate gradual increase in resentment toward the Roman presence in Gaul as the Gallic Wars dragged on, and the likely rise of Vercingetorix at the appropriate time.
-
-
Black Knight wrote: ...
"on 3rd yr, Gaul rolls d1, 1-2 = massive, discards a card when played. 3rd yr d1-3, 4th yr d1-3, 5th d1-4. 6th d 1-5, 7th d1-4, 8th d1-3. If Gaul doesn't get card or die roll over course of game, then face it, stars just aligned against you."
My proposal would be slightly different:
Sounds interesting.
In what way would Your Proposal be "slightly different"?
Reinhard
-
Brian Sherry
Vienna
Virginia
-
I thought the "discards a card when played" was vague and confusing. So I tried to clarify it by stating that the Massive Revolt card would be added to the hand at the beginning of the turn.
-
Chad Marlett
United States
Plymouth
Michigan
-
My take on it is that the Gauls will eventually draw the card sooner or later, so having the Roman player try to hold just enough tribes to prevent the voluntary draw of the card can lead to a very ugly situation late in the game.
In my mind, playing to conquer the most tribes possible and getting the massive revolt over with sooner is the best Roman strategy. The later the card comes out, the less time the Romans have to recover the revolting tribes.
Now, it might work and you might keep the card from being played. But you are just as likely to have it backfire because you stopped conquering tribes and the Gaul drew the card anyway.
Roman - play it straight and let the card fall where it falls.
-
Daniel Berger
United States
Littleton
Colorado
-
I'm not saying it's a bad idea but I'm afraid I agree with Chad here. Trying to game the system like that is probably going to backfire.
Any statisticians here? What are the odds that the Germanic player won't ever draw the Massive revolt? There are 31 cards, 5 cards are drawn by the Germanic player each turn, and there are 8 turns.
-
Kenneth Stein
United States
Toledo
Ohio
-
Don't know the odds, but I had this happen in 1 of 5 games I've played. Yes, I purposely stayed under the 13 tribe threshold. Time to go to the die rolls variant to save the game.
-
Brian Sherry
Vienna
Virginia
-
djberg96 wrote: I'm not saying it's a bad idea but I'm afraid I agree with Chad here. Trying to game the system like that is probably going to backfire.
Any statisticians here? What are the odds that the Germanic player won't ever draw the Massive revolt? There are 31 cards, 5 cards are drawn by the Germanic player each turn, and there are 8 turns.
You mean you didn't crunch the numbers when you designed it? 
I'm not a statistician but with some help from math nerd friends here are the odds the card will be drawn:
1 - ((26 / 31) ^ 8)=0.75515387615918531526765156516349
So, about a 75% chance the Gallic player will draw the card.
Maybe I overreacted, then?
-
-
Gryfon wrote: My take on it is that the Gauls will eventually draw the card sooner or later ...
In my mind, playing to conquer the most tribes possible and getting the massive revolt over with sooner is the best Roman strategy. The later the card comes out, the less time the Romans have to recover the revolting tribes.
Now, it might work and you might keep the card from being played. But you are just as likely to have it backfire because you stopped conquering tribes and the Gaul drew the card anyway.
Roman - play it straight and let the card fall where it falls.
I fully agree.
My impression is, that once the Massive revolt has been played, the Roman can built up his Gallic Allies' steps much safer (via replacement) and let fight Gauls against Gauls, whereas, as long as it has not been played we tend to let theGauls be weak (1 Strength) to discourage revolts). So this is some compensation.
New Idea:
I think, the "Massive" Revolt should be a last desperate attempt to turn the tide. Perhaps it would be good to give some disadvantages if You play it, so that the Gaul - even drawing the Card - has to contemplate, if he should really activate the massive revolt.
Some Ideas:
- When "Massive revolt" has been played (The Gauls are fighting for their Freedom) Ariovist no longer is allowed to cross the Rhine into Gaul.
- When "Massive revolt" has been played (Caesar no longer trusts his Gallic Allies), the Germanic Cavalry may be bought into Roman service for - i.e. 2 Supply Points or 1 VP or something...
- When "Massive Revolt" has beend played, any further Revolt cards played by the Gaul are removed from Play after use... Or worse - can no longer be played. (The Gauls "feel", that if the massive Revolt does not work, no other will do..)
To encourage "Massive Revolt" not be played as such - allow it being used as "Major Revolt".
Any Ideas?
Greetings, Reinhard
-
-
Black Knight wrote: You mean you didn't crunch the numbers when you designed it? I'm not a statistician but with some help from math nerd friends here are the odds the card will be drawn: 1 - ((26 / 31) ^ 8)=0.75515387615918531526765156516349 So, about a 75% chance the Gallic player will draw the card. Maybe I overreacted, then?
I think there is a math mistake here. I am no "math nerd", but the "8" in the Fomrula probably derives from the 8 Game turns. But...
The Card may NOT BE PLAYED AS MASSIVE REVOLT in Turn 1, am I right?
So there are really only 7 TURNS where the card can be drawn AND played.
The 8 should read "7", which would bring it down to about 71%, still quite probable.
-
Daniel Berger
United States
Littleton
Colorado
-
Yes, you're correct, there are really only 7 possible turns. Still, if you're banking on winning the game with a 71% chance of your opponent not drawing Massive Revolt, I think you're going to lose about 3 out of every 4 games.
-
-
I remember playing the old R.Berg`s Caesar (Gallic War) game and we had the same "issue" then. ("Why did I never draw the massive Revolt", "You would not have won, if You had not he revolt that early..."
 )
Was there a regulating mechanism in that old Game? I cannot remember.
In my opinion the "Massive revolt" rule should stay as it is - i.e. in some games there will be no massive revolt.
Our approach is, to enable the Gallic Player to have at least a chance to win without the Massive revolt (Use ProGallic Optional rules etc.*). Then the issue of drawing the massive revolt or not becomes less important.
Greetings, Reinhard
(*) I use my Variant Counter Sheet
-
Neil Henning
United States
Nutley
New Jersey
-
I think if a game is premised on the fact that the massive revolt needs to appear in order for the "Germanic" tribes to have a chance to win then the game loses it's fun for me.
-
Daniel Berger
United States
Littleton
Colorado
-
Vikingwarrior wrote: I think if a game is premised on the fact that the massive revolt needs to appear in order for the "Germanic" tribes to have a chance to win then the game loses it's fun for me.
Except that there are two ways for this happen. Either you draw it straight out or the Romans control 13+ tribes, and you get it anyway.
I wouldn't say that the game is premised on a Massive Revolt happening because it probably *will* happen. The Roman player is seriously gambling if he/she is merely *hoping* a Massive Revolt doesn't happen.
-
|
|
