Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
21 Posts

Here I Stand» Forums » Strategy

Subject: 'Gamey' tactics involving Venice. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Nathan
Australia
Armidale
NSW
flag msg tools
Menin Gate at Midnight, Will Longstaff, 1927.
badge
"At the landing, and here ever since" - Anzac Book, p. 35.
mbmbmbmbmb
I have a question to experienced players based on a certain aspect of gameplay in HIS.

As many of you may be aware, some experienced Hapsburg/Papal players will have the Hapsburg DOW Venice in order to have the Papal player intervene, and control Venice as a Minor Ally. This is considered by some to be a 'gamey' tactic that is disliked by some players.

I can clearly see why people are keen to do it. It is a powerful tactic, as it gives the Papacy control of the Venetian fleet, plus a route to Spring Deploy Catholic Papal troops to areas around Protestant home spaces (ie: in 'Germany') to give a strong boost to the counter-reformation.

* I'm wondering what the general feeling is about this tactic?
* How many people see this tactic occurring in their games?
* Does it appear in just about every 'experienced' game because it is so powerful, and (in most cases) mutually beneficial for the Papacy and Hapsburgs?
* Or do players generally agree not to use the tactic because of its 'gaminess'?
* Or are players not seeing it because the Papacy and Hapsburgs aren't too cooperative in their games?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kristian Thy
Germany
Bonn
flag msg tools
Together, we are the United Nations
badge
Gunulfr ok Øgotr ok Aslakr ok Rolfr resþu sten þænsi æftir Ful, felaga sin, ær warþ ... døþr, þa kunungar barþusk.
mb
Amnese wrote:
I can clearly see why people are keen to do it. It is a powerful tactic, as it gives the Papacy control of the Venetian fleet, plus a route to Spring Deploy Catholic Papal troops to areas around Protestant home spaces (ie: in 'Germany') to give a strong boost to the counter-reformation.


The Pope can normally do that without control of Venice by SD'ing over the Adriatic.

I've only seen the Venice DOW trick a few times. As Habsburg I would demand a card draw from the Pope for it, and even then think twice. From the Pope's perspective, the ideal timing is the round you're giving England a divorce since you can't then ally with the Emperor anyway.

I don't see it being mutually beneficial at all. What does the Habsburg gain from it?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nathan
Australia
Armidale
NSW
flag msg tools
Menin Gate at Midnight, Will Longstaff, 1927.
badge
"At the landing, and here ever since" - Anzac Book, p. 35.
mbmbmbmbmb
turbothy wrote:

The Pope can normally do that without control of Venice by SD'ing over the Adriatic.


But this is often blocked by the Ottoman's hosting a fleet somewhere along the Adriatic (thus preventing the SD over sea).

turbothy wrote:

I've only seen the Venice DOW trick a few times. As Habsburg I would demand a card draw from the Pope for it, and even then think twice. From the Pope's perspective, the ideal timing is the round you're giving England a divorce since you can't then ally with the Emperor anyway.

I don't see it being mutually beneficial at all. What does the Habsburg gain from it?


Firstly, it helps the Papacy prevent the spread of Protestant spaces throughout Germany, which helps the Hapsburgs hold onto their electorates.

Secondly, typically the Pope will give (ie: loan) those valuable Venetian fleets to the Hapsburgs.

The balance is probably subtly in favour of the Papacy, but there is usually mutual benefit.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven
United States
Spokane
Washington
flag msg tools
"The mystery of life isn't a problem to solve, but a reality to experience"
mbmbmbmbmb
If the Hapsburgs DoW Venice, the Papacy still has to "pay" a card correct?

The main advantage for the Papacy to gain Venice, is assuming that the Papacy has taken Genoa or Florence, the Papacy can now draw four cards to fight the reformation.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gus I
Australia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
With Florence it is an extra card and two VPs
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kristian Thy
Germany
Bonn
flag msg tools
Together, we are the United Nations
badge
Gunulfr ok Øgotr ok Aslakr ok Rolfr resþu sten þænsi æftir Ful, felaga sin, ær warþ ... døþr, þa kunungar barþusk.
mb
Venice also counts for the scudetto (a.k.a. Master of Italy).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Johns
United States
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
turbothy wrote:
Amnese wrote:
I can clearly see why people are keen to do it. It is a powerful tactic, as it gives the Papacy control of the Venetian fleet, plus a route to Spring Deploy Catholic Papal troops to areas around Protestant home spaces (ie: in 'Germany') to give a strong boost to the counter-reformation.


The Pope can normally do that without control of Venice by SD'ing over the Adriatic.

I've only seen the Venice DOW trick a few times. As Habsburg I would demand a card draw from the Pope for it, and even then think twice. From the Pope's perspective, the ideal timing is the round you're giving England a divorce since you can't then ally with the Emperor anyway.

I don't see it being mutually beneficial at all. What does the Habsburg gain from it?


That's a very shortsited Hapsburgs player who asks this question. The Haps has one "permanent" ally, the Papacy. This player is at war with Haps permanent enemy. Getting them Venice sounds like a win-win to me. As does building a merc or two each turn in Germany to help slow down the reformation.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Dunbring
Sweden
Linköping
Östergötland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Amnese wrote:
I have a question to experienced players based on a certain aspect of gameplay in HIS.

As many of you may be aware, some experienced Hapsburg/Papal players will have the Hapsburg DOW Venice in order to have the Papal player intervene, and control Venice as a Minor Ally. This is considered by some to be a 'gamey' tactic that is disliked by some players.

I can clearly see why people are keen to do it. It is a powerful tactic, as it gives the Papacy control of the Venetian fleet, plus a route to Spring Deploy Catholic Papal troops to areas around Protestant home spaces (ie: in 'Germany') to give a strong boost to the counter-reformation.

* I'm wondering what the general feeling is about this tactic?
* How many people see this tactic occurring in their games?
* Does it appear in just about every 'experienced' game because it is so powerful, and (in most cases) mutually beneficial for the Papacy and Hapsburgs?
* Or do players generally agree not to use the tactic because of its 'gaminess'?
* Or are players not seeing it because the Papacy and Hapsburgs aren't too cooperative in their games?


How can anyone consider this to be a "gamey" tactic? This is not "gamey" in any way - have they missed that one of the points in the game is about negotiation? Why is this "phoney war" an issue at all? If two players make an agreement to do this I don´t see it like anyone elses business. I assume everyone plays to win so unless you can prove that one player here throws the game you case is completely dismissed.

Venice is allied to Pope for a reason (the game have been balanced that way) and if Pope can convice Habs to give them that key with a fake war, all cred to them. If I were the Habs here, I would want at least one random card draw here. Venice fleet is not something that can be counted on completely.

Again, this is ONLY up to the Habs/Pope if they want to make this deal - noone else. The tactic if not too powerful I think but if I were wrong it would be easy fixed wouldn´t it? If Only Pope wins on the deal and not Habs, then Habs wouldn´t do it in the first place. And don´t forget, this is a multiplayer game - if someone is going to well then attack him! If you are England and disagree - threaten Habs with war or do something about it! Not accusing you but I have met a score of eurogamers who likes to whine about "unfair rules" or "unfair players" without good reason.

Don´t want to offend anyone but to be honest, this question feels as useful as if I would to ask - "If I lose horribly a war, can I really sue? Sure I lose if I don´t but my opponent gets points from it and my other opponents are morons who get angry on me because I give the victor VPs and accuses me of throwing the game (and of course have done nothing to help me). Maybe I should lose the game and make sure noone gets angry on me, just to avoid kingmaker accusations"

And no, the above question is not a serious one. You play for yourself and your victory - if people call it kingmaking, then it´s their trouble.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nathan
Australia
Armidale
NSW
flag msg tools
Menin Gate at Midnight, Will Longstaff, 1927.
badge
"At the landing, and here ever since" - Anzac Book, p. 35.
mbmbmbmbmb
Firestata wrote:

Don´t want to offend anyone but to be honest, this question feels as useful as if I would to ask - "If I lose horribly a war, can I really sue?


Precisely what question did you find not useful? One of the questions I asked in the original post? Or one of the several questions you ask in your post?

Quote:

* I'm wondering what the general feeling is about this tactic?
* How many people see this tactic occurring in their games?
* Does it appear in just about every 'experienced' game because it is so powerful, and (in most cases) mutually beneficial for the Papacy and Hapsburgs?
* Or do players generally agree not to use the tactic because of its 'gaminess'?
* Or are players not seeing it because the Papacy and Hapsburgs aren't too cooperative in their games?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kristian Thy
Germany
Bonn
flag msg tools
Together, we are the United Nations
badge
Gunulfr ok Øgotr ok Aslakr ok Rolfr resþu sten þænsi æftir Ful, felaga sin, ær warþ ... døþr, þa kunungar barþusk.
mb
iamspamus wrote:
turbothy wrote:
I don't see it being mutually beneficial at all. What does the Habsburg gain from it?


That's a very shortsited Hapsburgs player who asks this question. The Haps has one "permanent" ally, the Papacy. This player is at war with Haps permanent enemy. Getting them Venice sounds like a win-win to me. As does building a merc or two each turn in Germany to help slow down the reformation.


The only player who can build mercs in Germany is Luther post-SL. But anyhoo, I've never as Habsburgs felt the need to give one of my opponents a key, three fleets, four regulars and a shot at Master of Italy VPs practically for free. If that's myopic, so be it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nathan
Australia
Armidale
NSW
flag msg tools
Menin Gate at Midnight, Will Longstaff, 1927.
badge
"At the landing, and here ever since" - Anzac Book, p. 35.
mbmbmbmbmb
turbothy wrote:
iamspamus wrote:
turbothy wrote:
I don't see it being mutually beneficial at all. What does the Habsburg gain from it?


That's a very shortsited Hapsburgs player who asks this question. The Haps has one "permanent" ally, the Papacy. This player is at war with Haps permanent enemy. Getting them Venice sounds like a win-win to me. As does building a merc or two each turn in Germany to help slow down the reformation.


The only player who can build mercs in Germany is Luther post-SL. But anyhoo, I've never as Habsburgs felt the need to give one of my opponents a key, three fleets, four regulars and a shot at Master of Italy VPs practically for free. If that's myopic, so be it.


In such situations the Papacy typically loans the fleet to the Haps (helping them considerably). Venice only comes with 2 regulars (unless playing Venetian alliance, which is rare), and the Pope (without a leader) can't do much with them anyway. And if the Papacy looks to control the rest of Italy, then a decent Hapsburg player would steer away from the idea.

Otherwise, as noted, it helps both the Hapsburgs and the Papacy.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Hewson
United Kingdom
Surbiton
Surrey
flag msg tools
I bought this...
badge
...as I had no idea what to spend my GG on!
mbmbmbmbmb
It's 4 regulars becuase of the chaps in Candia and Corfu that can be whisked back to Rome in the first Winter.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nathan
Australia
Armidale
NSW
flag msg tools
Menin Gate at Midnight, Will Longstaff, 1927.
badge
"At the landing, and here ever since" - Anzac Book, p. 35.
mbmbmbmbmb
Uhtoff wrote:
It's 4 regulars becuase of the chaps in Candia and Corfu that can be whisked back to Rome in the first Winter.


Ah yes, apologies, my mistake.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon G
United States
Goleta
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I haven't played enough games to have a firm opinion, but one of the reasons for the Haps not to take the deal is that they have a good chance of drawing Diplomatic Marriage before the pope does. Early on, you can get the pope's help by helping him with troops in Germany (preferably his, but a Trace Italienne in Nuremburg is great for you). If you do draw Dip Marriage, it's going to be pain for the Pope to get Venice back, and there's nothing the Pope can do to you, because you're not at war.

If on Turn 3, if the Turks are building up their fleet, and the Prots are doing well, then maybe you let him have Venice in exchange for a good event or a card draw, and a fleet loan next turn... Or you make peace with your other enemies, build troops in Austria, wait for his Holiness runs out of cards (he'll only have 2+ home cards left), and march a huge army down into Italy.

I think the Venice DoW works well enough. It's the Scotland gambit that annoys me. I think the Scots should be forced to winter at home.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Dunbring
Sweden
Linköping
Östergötland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Amnese wrote:
Firestata wrote:

Don´t want to offend anyone but to be honest, this question feels as useful as if I would to ask - "If I lose horribly a war, can I really sue?


Precisely what question did you find not useful? One of the questions I asked in the original post? Or one of the several questions you ask in your post?

Quote:

* I'm wondering what the general feeling is about this tactic?
* How many people see this tactic occurring in their games?
* Does it appear in just about every 'experienced' game because it is so powerful, and (in most cases) mutually beneficial for the Papacy and Hapsburgs?
* Or do players generally agree not to use the tactic because of its 'gaminess'?
* Or are players not seeing it because the Papacy and Hapsburgs aren't too cooperative in their games?


Máybe I was a bit unclear - I meant the overall question hinted from the post "Is a phoney war involving Venice a "gamey" tactic?" It´s in my eyes a useless question since it in itself hints that something is "wrong" and needs to be "fixed". My experience of the game tells me otherwise and I feel that the question is an excuse for something else.

My answer is: No, its not a gamey tactic. Everything is perfectly well. Phoney war is a well made part of the game. This is a non-issue. Why would anyone see a problem with this (more details in above post). My comparison was that a forced sue who gives VPs could be considered gamey as well if you really look after things to complain against. "Gamey" is a subjective opinion and lacks value - only the rules have value. Of course, if you can get your gaming group in agreement of a house rules, then do so. That house rule is no real rule however and lacks influence outside said group.

In the end, everyone have to accept that diplomatic deals between players are a legal and according to me a good way of playing the game. For me, the overall impression from your post and from other post on the HiS forum indicates that something needs to be "fixed" due to a very false sense of unfairness from some individuals who dislike dealmakings in the first place. I recommend those individuals that they play another game. Noone forces anyone to make a deal but you can´t stop other people cooperating due to a "feeling of exclusion" (which is self-created from the attitude of the disapproval of deals).

Maybe I´m seeing something that isn´t there and in that case I apologize, but I´m wondering if people enter this game (and many other games) with the wrong approach. I have played a score of games with people I consider "eurogamers" (Like to play almost a solitaire game where everyone plays their own game without talk and interference). The problem then arises when I (or someone else less "german-minded") make a deal with someone and this group then percieve that as "unfair" because in their arrogance they assume they have the right to enforce everyone to play the game as they do and tries to morally debate with you the horrors of dealmaking and that their way of playing and acting is the only acceptable way of playing and acting regardless of actual rules forbidding me to do so (often with some kind of obscure reference to "group ethic" which somehow gives them a right morally to say "I won´t play with you again" without beeing seen as the enforcing, totalitarian individuals they are). This is not an exclusive behaviour for HiS but some people seems to genually think that me saying to a player "I think you should do this move" is equal to cheating and abusing the game, (which it for sure is not - show me the rule denying me that option) no matter if the game is Here I Stand or Puerto Rico.

Again, maybe I see something that isn´t there. Maybe this is actually a valid complaint of a unbalaced situation but my 50+ games of HiS disagrees on the overpowerness of the situation and sees it as a natural part of the game. Maybe I´m only seeing a false, evil morale here which was not the intent from the OP. If so, ignore my posts.

Edited for bad spelling - english is not my first language
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nathan
Australia
Armidale
NSW
flag msg tools
Menin Gate at Midnight, Will Longstaff, 1927.
badge
"At the landing, and here ever since" - Anzac Book, p. 35.
mbmbmbmbmb
“firestarta” wrote:

Máybe I was a bit unclear - I meant the overall question hinted from the post "Is a phoney war involving Venice a "gamey" tactic?" It´s in my eyes a useless question since it in itself hints that something is "wrong" and needs to be "fixed". My experience of the game tells me otherwise and I feel that the question is an excuse for something else.

I posted those questions as I was curious as to what other people thought about the tactic. I, personally, don't mind it being used, but I was interested in the views of other people. I respect that people play games in different ways, and there have been people who have commented that they feel the tactic is 'gamey' and they are angered by its use (ie: it takes advantage of minor points in the rules to achieve what they perceive as an unfair and unintended advantage).

I've gained some insight both here and on CSW about people's thoughts on this, as intended, so, from my perspective, it is not a useless question.

It seems, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that from your point of view a useless question is a question where you believe everyone should adhere to your 'correct' view/answer. That is, your view seems to be 'why bother asking the question when the answer quite clearly is no?'. Well, I agree with your answer to the question (ie: 'no'), but I disagree with your dismissal of this as a useless question, and the dismissal of people who answer 'yes' to that question.

firestarta wrote:

My answer is: No, its not a gamey tactic. Everything is perfectly well. Phoney war is a well made part of the game. This is a non-issue. Why would anyone see a problem with this (more details in above post).

Well, if I can help answer your final question there, people approach games in different ways. Some are very competitive, some play 'just for fun', and some like to play in a thematic style immersing themselves in the 'world' and 'theme' that they're playing. I imagine those that have a problem with the Venice DOW tactic fall into that latter group, and they perceive the tactic as 'gamey', as noted above 'it takes advantage of minor points in the rules to achieve what they perceive as an unfair and unintended advantage'.

I'm not saying here that I agree with this group, but, again, I appreciate that people play games in different ways and I was trying to gain some insight into their thoughts via this thread.

“firestarta” wrote:

"Gamey" is a subjective opinion and lacks value - only the rules have value.

As the thousands of game-related threads on BGG testify, people interpret rules, and the meanings of rules, and the play of games in a wide variety of ways. In starting this thread, I was interested in what people think of the Venice DOW rules. For many people, those rules do have value as their use can critically affect their enjoyment of the game.

“firestarta” wrote:

For me, the overall impression from your post and from other post on the HiS forum indicates that something needs to be "fixed" due to a very false sense of unfairness from some individuals who dislike dealmakings in the first place. I recommend those individuals that they play another game.

I can't speak for the other post, but you should be wary forming 'overall impressions' and then stating that the 'implied' question was 'useless', when the post really just asked for people's opinions and play-experiences with a tactic.

“firestarta” wrote:

Maybe I´m seeing something that isn´t there and in that case I apologize, but I´m wondering if people enter this game (and many other games) with the wrong approach.
...
I have played a score of games with people I consider "eurogamers"... The problem then arises when I (or someone else less "german-minded") make a deal with someone and this group then percieve that as "unfair" because in their arrogance they assume they have the right to enforce everyone to play the game as they do

You don't find anything 'hypocritical' about those emboldened comments?
i) Insinuation that people are approaching the game wrong, and that there is a 'right' way to play the game.
ii) Calling people 'arrogant' who 'enforce everyone to play the game as they do'.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Dunbring
Sweden
Linköping
Östergötland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Amnese wrote:
“firestarta” wrote:

Máybe I was a bit unclear - I meant the overall question hinted from the post "Is a phoney war involving Venice a "gamey" tactic?" It´s in my eyes a useless question since it in itself hints that something is "wrong" and needs to be "fixed". My experience of the game tells me otherwise and I feel that the question is an excuse for something else.

I posted those questions as I was curious as to what other people thought about the tactic. I, personally, don't mind it being used, but I was interested in the views of other people. I respect that people play games in different ways, and there have been people who have commented that they feel the tactic is 'gamey' and they are angered by its use (ie: it takes advantage of minor points in the rules to achieve what they perceive as an unfair and unintended advantage).

I've gained some insight both here and on CSW about people's thoughts on this, as intended, so, from my perspective, it is not a useless question.

It seems, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that from your point of view a useless question is a question where you believe everyone should adhere to your 'correct' view/answer. That is, your view seems to be 'why bother asking the question when the answer quite clearly is no?'. Well, I agree with your answer to the question (ie: 'no'), but I disagree with your dismissal of this as a useless question, and the dismissal of people who answer 'yes' to that question.

firestarta wrote:

My answer is: No, its not a gamey tactic. Everything is perfectly well. Phoney war is a well made part of the game. This is a non-issue. Why would anyone see a problem with this (more details in above post).

Well, if I can help answer your final question there, people approach games in different ways. Some are very competitive, some play 'just for fun', and some like to play in a thematic style immersing themselves in the 'world' and 'theme' that they're playing. I imagine those that have a problem with the Venice DOW tactic fall into that latter group, and they perceive the tactic as 'gamey', as noted above 'it takes advantage of minor points in the rules to achieve what they perceive as an unfair and unintended advantage'.

I'm not saying here that I agree with this group, but, again, I appreciate that people play games in different ways and I was trying to gain some insight into their thoughts via this thread.

“firestarta” wrote:

"Gamey" is a subjective opinion and lacks value - only the rules have value.

As the thousands of game-related threads on BGG testify, people interpret rules, and the meanings of rules, and the play of games in a wide variety of ways. In starting this thread, I was interested in what people think of the Venice DOW rules. For many people, those rules do have value as their use can critically affect their enjoyment of the game.

“firestarta” wrote:

For me, the overall impression from your post and from other post on the HiS forum indicates that something needs to be "fixed" due to a very false sense of unfairness from some individuals who dislike dealmakings in the first place. I recommend those individuals that they play another game.

I can't speak for the other post, but you should be wary forming 'overall impressions' and then stating that the 'implied' question was 'useless', when the post really just asked for people's opinions and play-experiences with a tactic.

“firestarta” wrote:

Maybe I´m seeing something that isn´t there and in that case I apologize, but I´m wondering if people enter this game (and many other games) with the wrong approach.
...
I have played a score of games with people I consider "eurogamers"... The problem then arises when I (or someone else less "german-minded") make a deal with someone and this group then percieve that as "unfair" because in their arrogance they assume they have the right to enforce everyone to play the game as they do

You don't find anything 'hypocritical' about those emboldened comments?
i) Insinuation that people are approaching the game wrong, and that there is a 'right' way to play the game.
ii) Calling people 'arrogant' who 'enforce everyone to play the game as they do'.




I enforce nothing. I have never in my entire life threatened anyone with expulsion from any board, card or role-playing game if they disagree with my views. To put it simply, I believe myself have the right to state harsh opinions but not ban them if they disagree with me. The arrogance lies within the physical effect (I wont play you if...) and not within the words (Thinking/playing like that is stupid because...). Stating my honest opinion is not arrogance, regardless of the opinion in question, but forcing you to follow it is.

So, No - there is nothing hypocritical at all. I stated my opinion about this issue which you requested. I won´t forbid you (even if I could) to ignore all other inputs who disagrees with mine, but for me this is a settled issue and I think you should take my advice to the heart. If you feel that my thoughts and ideas are rubbish, you are free to do so.

Also, I don´t think I should be "wary forming overall impressions". Everyone does that. I´m just honest and tell you about them. Is that the issue? Is my opinion to provocative? I´m sorry, but that´s really not my problem. If I am wrong, then you can just ignore me (which I told you to) but since you responded I think I hit a bit of truth.

Do I understand you right? You claim that there are no stupid questions and that I show arrogance by dismissing them? Ok, I will try to give persons with questions I percieve as useless more cred, so next time someone asks me "will the sun rise tomorrow" or "will I become kidnapped by marsians" I will be more polite to avoid dismissing people with these quality questions. Check.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nathan
Australia
Armidale
NSW
flag msg tools
Menin Gate at Midnight, Will Longstaff, 1927.
badge
"At the landing, and here ever since" - Anzac Book, p. 35.
mbmbmbmbmb
Firestata wrote:

Do I understand you right? You claim that there are no stupid questions and that I show arrogance by dismissing them? Ok, I will try to give persons with questions I percieve as useless more cred, so next time someone asks me "will the sun rise tomorrow" or "will I become kidnapped by marsians" I will be more polite to avoid dismissing people with these quality questions. Check.


That'd be nice, hopefully that results in a more friendly, respectful and open-minded community.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew M Monin
United States
Branford
Connecticut
flag msg tools
admin
8/8 FREE, PROTECTED
badge
513ers Assemble!
mbmbmbmb
Moved to Strategy
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Bright
United Kingdom
Unspecified
London
flag msg tools
It's a little but like in ww2 when Japan bombed pearl harbour and Germany intervened, a gamey tactic for Britain to gain America as a natural ally
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Carl Paradis
Canada
Ste-Thérèse
Québec
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Amnese wrote:

* I'm wondering what the general feeling is about this tactic?
* How many people see this tactic occurring in their games?
* Does it appear in just about every 'experienced' game because it is so powerful, and (in most cases) mutually beneficial for the Papacy and Hapsburgs?
* Or do players generally agree not to use the tactic because of its 'gaminess'?
* Or are players not seeing it because the Papacy and Hapsburgs aren't too cooperative in their games?


I see it all the time, but twice in games where the Hapsburgs were playing weirdly (I was the Papacy) and refused any deals with the Pope (!). In both of those cases the Haps lost the games badly, and the pope, because of good card luck & diplomacy, was able to finish in second place both times.

So yes I think this is a "Gimmicky" move that is a "must play" for both the Papacy and Haps.

Do I find the move "Gimmicky"? Sure I do! but when you think of it it's no less "Gimmicky" than getting Venice because you drew the "Diplomatic Marriage" card: pure luck in this case!

Speaking of which, in two other games where I was playing the Papacy, it was the Ottomans who offered me to do the same "gimmicky" move/action! the condition was that I never give the Haps the Venitian fleets or my own fleets.

But I do think there should perhaps be some kind of game penalty when doing this "white war" gimmick. And that goes for the other minor countries, too, Like Scotland & Genoa.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.