Zack Stoecker-Sylvia
United States
Honolulu
Hawaii
-
We'd run into the rather unsatisfying ending whereby the Protestants convert into a nation via Schmalkaldic League at the end of turn 4, instantly jumping to victory with little for the non-Pope players to do about it. While we understand that this can be prevented by active anti-Protestant card play, we then found that it was nearly impossible for the Protestant to win after their conversion into a political power.
To try to account for these issues, we tried a new (small) variant on the Protestant victory conditions and Schmalkaldic League that seemed to work reasonably well.
1) Instead of 2VP per electorate under both their political control and religious influence, the Protestant player gains 1VP per electorate under their political control and 1VP per electorate under their religious influence. (Each electorate can provide both benefits and the points for religious control can be gained before the formation of the Schmalkaldic League.)
2) Victory is checked before the automatic play of Mandatory Events at the end of turn.
This prevents the +12 VP end-turn boost from turning bad Papal luck into a lost game for everyone else while softening the blow caused by giving that Hapsburg player a chance to take electorates back. This should hopefully create a much smoother progression for the Protestant player and allow them to survive the post-League period of the game better.
We've only played one game with this variant so far, and the Protestant player got creamed by an extremely strong Pope and turn 2 Schmalkaldic League, so we haven't experienced the full effect, but the splitting of the VP did help keep them in the game.
What do people think?
-
Nathan
Australia
Invergowrie
NSW
-
The 'Protestant victory-bomb' only seems to affect new players (it affected my group on our first play, but never again after that). So, the first thing I'd ask is, how many games have you played?
If you're relatively new to HIS, then my thinking is that you should give it a few more games and you won't experience the 'victory-bomb' anymore (and thus won't need a variant).
If you're not so new, then how many games have you played that have gone post-Schmalkaldic League? Schmalkaldic League is partly-designed to provide pressure and ensure the other players work together (to some extent) to keep the Prots quiet in the first few turns. Based on even player experiences/competence, the Prots should win, on average, 1 in 6 games (or 2 in 12, or 3 in 18, etc). They aren't great wining odds to suggest that 'the protestants can't win post-Schmalkaldic League' based on just a handful of plays.
For your group, the variant you suggest may solve some 'first few games' issues, but I strongly suggest you stick with the original rules and learn from experience.
-
Jon Getty
United States
Goleta
California
-
We had a Prot "victory bomb" in my first game. The lesson I learned was that if you're dealt SL in turns 2-4, it's your personal job to make sure to play it when it will actually take effect. And naturally, to profit from doing so.
If you're the Pope or Haps, you will obviously play it at a bad time for the Prot. But if you're the French or Ottoman, you should take a card from the Pope to play it well, rather than a card from the Prot to play it when it will fizzle. If you're the English, same thing, but it'll pay for most of your divorce instead.
Also, unless His Holiness won't deal at all, don't tell the Prot you have it. Knowledge of who has the card is all the Prot really needs; he doesn't need to pay you at that point, he can just translate until you're forced to play it, then convert a bunch of spaces after it fizzles.
If it's turn 4, the SL is unplayed, and the Prots look strong, loan the Pope a card to be repaid next turn. If you have Paul III, play him early for a small repayment on Turn 5. If you're the pope, ask for these sort of loans, and you'll probably get them on good terms.
Regarding the proposed variant, I don't see the harm of the 1vp each for religious & political control, but not letting the Prot win with a turn 4 SL is kinda harsh. If the Prot ends turn 4 with 26 points, it'd be very tough to keep those points on Turn 5. The Haps will drop troops all over Germany, the French & Otts will probably give the Haps a truce to do it, the pope will have Paul III to counter-reform...
-
Steven
United States
Washington
Dist of Columbia
No women, no kids.
-
I strongly agree with Nathan on this issue, if the protestants win via play of Schmalkaldic League instantly, it is due to the rest of Europe ignoring the religious struggle. Most important lesson of all: even if the Protestant space count is well below 12, he is slowing "winding" up the New Testament or Bible translations. All players should be aware that the Protestant may be holding off unleashing the translations until SL League is burned early.
If you notice the Pope is struggling to contain the Protestants loan him some cards, or play anti-Prot events, such as Erasmus (T3 or later), Indulgence vendor etc. If you are the Pope and having trouble, publically remind players how close the Protestant is getting to winning the game instantly.
It also is important to remember that the Pope is not a power that will win quickly, their VP level will drop fast once the Prot's start expanding religiously. If the Papacy cannot burn debaters they have to hold on until T5 or T6 until their counter reformation cards start hitting. So the early "lead" of the Papacy is typcially a mirage.
-
Zack Stoecker-Sylvia
United States
Honolulu
Hawaii
-
I may have mistated the case, the Protestants winning too much isn't the problem, it's that they only tend to win in one somewhat non-interactive way and if they don't they're pretty much out of it.
Amnese wrote: The 'Protestant victory-bomb' only seems to affect new players (it affected my group on our first play, but never again after that). So, the first thing I'd ask is, how many games have you played?
We've played at least a dozen games, if not closing in on two dozen. It's not that the Protestants victory-bomb frequently, it's that it's the only way they can win games and stopping them from doing it generally means they've lost, so the other players don't tend to do much anti-Protestant beyond helping the Pope get his extra card or letting him SD troops. Before turn five there really isn't a whole lot else that the other powers can do (other than play the SL, which seems to be equivalent to taking them out of the running).
Quote: If you're not so new, then how many games have you played that have gone post-Schmalkaldic League?
Our games often go post-League, but by that point the Protestant is usually screwed. Either he never really got things going and the Hapsburgs just let him be, or if he's any threat for winning he's probably going to lose 4 points very quickly.
Quote: Based on even player experiences/competence, the Prots should win, on average, 1 in 6 games (or 2 in 12, or 3 in 18, etc). They aren't great wining odds to suggest that 'the protestants can't win post-Schmalkaldic League' based on just a handful of plays.
They have never won post-League in our games, and while statistics are valuable it's pretty easy to extrapolate out from their situation to further winning chances. With the 2VP/electorate cost and permanent war with the Hapsburgs, we don't really need to play through hundreds of games to know that their chances are pretty slim.
Perhaps I could turn the question around in a way that might be more helpful: what is good about the current rules that we should seek to preserve?
-
Kristian Thy
Germany
Bonn
Nordrhein-Westfalen
Together, we are the United Nations
Gunulfr ok Øgotr ok Aslakr ok Rolfr resþu sten þænsi æftir Ful, felaga sin, ær warþ ... døþr, þa kunungar barþusk.
-
zackss wrote: what is good about the current rules that we should seek to preserve?
That they've been tested by a good number of people who, by and large, find them to be balanced?
The Protestant can win after SL has been played, but it takes a bit of luck and good diplomacy. Same as for the other powers. But if they haven't won by Turn 6 I agree their chances are much lower due to the Pope getting the big guns out. Conversely, the Pope is unlikely to win before that, barring lots of burnings.
Currently, one of my PBEM games - with a quite experienced group - is looking very much like a Turn 4 Protestant win after a Turn 3 SL.
-
Zack Stoecker-Sylvia
United States
Honolulu
Hawaii
-
turbothy wrote: zackss wrote: what is good about the current rules that we should seek to preserve? That they've been tested by a good number of people who, by and large, find them to be balanced?
If that's your response to changes to the game, why are you posting in the Variants section?
To be less caustic, we've played this game for quite some time (over a year), and whether it's a tragic lack of player skill, the local metagame, or simply differences in gameplay desires, we do not like the all-or-nothing nature of the Protestant victories we see and would like to find a way to smooth that out.
-
Kristian Thy
Germany
Bonn
Nordrhein-Westfalen
Together, we are the United Nations
Gunulfr ok Øgotr ok Aslakr ok Rolfr resþu sten þænsi æftir Ful, felaga sin, ær warþ ... døþr, þa kunungar barþusk.
-
zackss wrote: turbothy wrote: zackss wrote: what is good about the current rules that we should seek to preserve? That they've been tested by a good number of people who, by and large, find them to be balanced? If that's your response to changes to the game, why are you posting in the Variants section?
I could also ask why you aren't posting in the Strategy section instead of trying to fix a problem that isn't there.
-
Nathan
Australia
Invergowrie
NSW
-
zackss wrote: I may have mistated the case, the Protestants winning too much isn't the problem, it's that they only tend to win in one somewhat non-interactive way and if they don't they're pretty much out of it.
...
We've played at least a dozen games, if not closing in on two dozen. It's not that the Protestants victory-bomb frequently, it's that it's the only way they can win games and stopping them from doing it generally means they've lost, so the other players don't tend to do much anti-Protestant beyond helping the Pope get his extra card or letting him SD troops. Before turn five there really isn't a whole lot else that the other powers can do (other than play the SL, which seems to be equivalent to taking them out of the running).
...
Our games often go post-League, but by that point the Protestant is usually screwed. Either he never really got things going and the Hapsburgs just let him be, or if he's any threat for winning he's probably going to lose 4 points very quickly.
...
Perhaps I could turn the question around in a way that might be more helpful: what is good about the current rules that we should seek to preserve?
I have to agree with Kristian's sentiment. The game has now been played hundreds of times, and has been found to be generally well-balanced (I'm sure there were some game stats on BGG but I can't find them).
I don't know anything about your group, so it's difficult to find what the issue is, but I'm wondering if the dynamics of your group are affecting the outcome in a certain way. By this I mean that some people within your group may not be 'cooperating' as much as they need to in a game like this. A larger part of Here I Stand is not so much 'winning', but 'stopping other players from winning'. If some players are going all out to win, and are ignoring others, than it may skew the balance-factor (particularly when it comes to the Protestant-Papacy-Hapsburg conflict). It's one of the main reasons why these powers are best played by the most-experienced players.
I'm basing the above comments on the fact that this lack of cooperation among players will contribute to the increased 'Protestant victory-bomb' result, AND also to the increased 'Protestants can't win post-SL' result (generally as players don't stop the Hapsburg romp against the Prots [in particular lack of France/England/Ottoman pressure]). I'm not trying to be overly-critical of your group here, and I don't mean to offend, but they may need to reconsider their approaches to HIS.
Then again, as I've said, I don't know your group and am only hypothesising based on what you've said, so I could be way off.
-
Nathan
Australia
Invergowrie
NSW
-
zackss wrote:
To be less caustic, we've played this game for quite some time (over a year), and whether it's a tragic lack of player skill, the local metagame, or simply differences in gameplay desires, we do not like the all-or-nothing nature of the Protestant victories we see and would like to find a way to smooth that out.
Just to elaborate further (or perhaps clarify) on what I've said above.
1. Your group still seeing the Protestant victory-bomb after so many games is due, I suspect largely, to a lack of cooperation.
2. I suspect this same lack of cooperation is in play post-SL, where players need to 'cooperate' to stop the Hapsburgs simply running rampage over the weak Protestants.
I don't think this is a lack of player skill, just an 'unawareness' that the players do need to work together (at times quite closely) to stop other powers winning.
-
William Walker
United States
New York
-
I'm fairly new to Here I Stand, here are my thoughts on this.
My first game (with 4 new players) almost ended just like this. The only reason it did not was, the Prots themselves drew SL on turn 4. They had to play it as their last card, and the Haps had enough cards left to assault some electorates and bring Luther down a peg.
(The Hapsburgs were played by our most experienced player and since the rest of us didn't put much coordinated pressure on him, he won handily.)
I think with more experienced players, these issues will even out. The posters above who wrote that there needs to be cooperation among the players, pre-SL and post-SL, is absolutely right. Occasionally however the cards/dice will just say Protestant end turn 4 victory and that is that. That possibility is a great source of tension in the game!
-
Zack Stoecker-Sylvia
United States
Honolulu
Hawaii
-
Amnese wrote: 2. I suspect this same lack of cooperation is in play post-SL, where players need to 'cooperate' to stop the Hapsburgs simply running rampage over the weak Protestants.
Why would they want to do that? You're assuming the Hapsburgs are winning as they take the Protestants out of the game, but +1 to +3 VP isn't necessarily doing that, while -2 to -6 VP is a lot of religious conversion undone.
-
Zack Stoecker-Sylvia
United States
Honolulu
Hawaii
-
turbothy wrote: zackss wrote: turbothy wrote: zackss wrote: what is good about the current rules that we should seek to preserve? That they've been tested by a good number of people who, by and large, find them to be balanced? If that's your response to changes to the game, why are you posting in the Variants section? I could also ask why you aren't posting in the Strategy section instead of trying to fix a problem that isn't there.
This isn't a strategy problem. It's a gameplay problem. We don't like how that portion of the game plays. There could be absolutely ideal 1 in 6 win rates and we still wouldn't like the way this portion of the game performs. Burst victories and expected obsolescence just aren't mechanics we enjoy.
This isn't the "help me win" section, it's the Variants. "It's not broken" is a pointless response.
-
Nathan
Australia
Invergowrie
NSW
-
zackss wrote: Amnese wrote: 2. I suspect this same lack of cooperation is in play post-SL, where players need to 'cooperate' to stop the Hapsburgs simply running rampage over the weak Protestants. Why would the want to do that? You're assuming the Hapsburgs are winning as they take the Protestants out of the game, but +1 to +3 VP isn't necessarily doing that, while -2 to -6 VP is a lot of religious conversion undone.
It's a combination of factors. If the Protestants are having difficulty winning post-SL, it is most likely (but not always of course) due to the Hapsburgs attacking them and taking their electorates. Hapsburgs can do this if the other powers aren't keeping pressure up on their borders. Results from hundreds of games suggest that the existing rules create a balanced game (at least amongst experienced players).
For your group, your variant may work fine (and counter the lack of cooperation surrounding the Protestant player). I don't mean to say 'do' or 'don't' use it for your group. But, as noted above, generally speaking, amongst experienced players the game is very well balanced.
-
Nathan
Australia
Invergowrie
NSW
-
zackss wrote: turbothy wrote: zackss wrote: turbothy wrote: zackss wrote: what is good about the current rules that we should seek to preserve? That they've been tested by a good number of people who, by and large, find them to be balanced? If that's your response to changes to the game, why are you posting in the Variants section? I could also ask why you aren't posting in the Strategy section instead of trying to fix a problem that isn't there. This isn't a strategy problem. It's a gameplay problem. We don't like how that portion of the game plays. There could be absolutely ideal 1 in 6 win rates and we still wouldn't like the way this portion of the game performs. Burst victories and expected obsolescence just aren't mechanics we enjoy. This isn't the "help me win" section, it's the Variants. "It's not broken" is a pointless response.
Then yeah, I'd say go for it with your group (ie: use the variant you suggest). Group dynamics differ, and the variant you've suggested may be needed for your group. I'd be concerned about the long term implications of this though, as they may find this skews the game as far as Protestants/Papacy/Hapsburgs are concerned.
-
Michael Kiefte
Canada
Dartmouth
Nova Scotia
-
zackss wrote:
This isn't a strategy problem. It's a gameplay problem. We don't like how that portion of the game plays. There could be absolutely ideal 1 in 6 win rates and we still wouldn't like the way this portion of the game performs. Burst victories and expected obsolescence just aren't mechanics we enjoy.
This isn't the "help me win" section, it's the Variants. "It's not broken" is a pointless response.
I don't think this is the game you think it is. The most important element of the game is diplomacy and not the armies or cards and I say that even though a) I love the game and b) I suck at diplomacy (but at least I recognise my shortcomings). If diplomacy is not a major component of your game play, the outcome will be unstable. At every diplomacy phase, you should see players furiously negotiating in order to jockey for position in the upcoming turn. Then during the turn, the table-talk takes over the role of diplomacy. This is where experienced players eat new players alive.
-
Shaun Derrick
United Kingdom
Coventry
Warwickshire
-
Our group have played 37 face-to-face games and there have only been 3 Protestant wins in turns 5,6 and 7. Turn 7 was an Auto victory.
I also won as the Protestants with an auto victory in my first PBEM game in turn 7 so those stats seem to blow a lot of theories apart.
Not one turn 4 win, but has been close. We are experienced players and are throroughly aware of it - essentially if the Prots are on 13VP's towards the end of turn 4 with no SL played, they are going to win and other players have to do something about it.
-
-
sderrick wrote: Our group have played 37 face-to-face games and there have only been 3 Protestant wins in turns 5,6 and 7. Turn 7 was an Auto victory.
I also won as the Protestants with an auto victory in my first PBEM game in turn 7 so those stats seem to blow a lot of theories apart.
Not one turn 4 win, but has been close. We are experienced players and are throroughly aware of it - essentially if the Prots are on 13VP's towards the end of turn 4 with no SL played, they are going to win and other players have to do something about it.
What do you want to say exactly ?
-
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
-
powerwis wrote: sderrick wrote: Our group have played 37 face-to-face games and there have only been 3 Protestant wins in turns 5,6 and 7. Turn 7 was an Auto victory.
I also won as the Protestants with an auto victory in my first PBEM game in turn 7 so those stats seem to blow a lot of theories apart.
Not one turn 4 win, but has been close. We are experienced players and are throroughly aware of it - essentially if the Prots are on 13VP's towards the end of turn 4 with no SL played, they are going to win and other players have to do something about it.
What do you want to say exactly ?
Isn't it obvious- he is saying that in his experience the Protestants never win on turn 4 and can win as late as turn 7- which would make the OP's suggestion pretty pointless?
But this is the variants forum so go ahead...
-
Zack Stoecker-Sylvia
United States
Honolulu
Hawaii
-
Philip Thomas wrote: Isn't it obvious- he is saying that in his experience the Protestants never win on turn 4 and can win as late as turn 7- which would make the OP's suggestion pretty pointless?
Whereas I've never seen a win after turn 4, so it must be absolutely essential! Or maybe we all understand the difference between anecdotal evidence from limited samples and broadly representative data.
It certainly demonstrates that they CAN win post-League, but I expect groups where they ONLY win post-League will be something of an outlier. I would certainly be interested to see statistics on win turn spread across a number of groups, but single group experiences (his or mine) are often so dominated by the local metagame that they can't really be extrapolated to the community at large. Common wisdom from reading strategy guides seems to be that Protestants are in a rough spot if the game goes too long.
Regardless of any of that, we wanted a smoother game for our Protestants, and given that others have had similar problems I wanted to share the variant. I'd still appreciate any suggestions on tuning the variant (beyond "just play differently"), but we've been happy with the experience so far and can just tune it on our own.
-
|
|
