Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
15 Posts

Virgin Queen» Forums » Variants

Subject: Laurels for the Victor's brow. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Mike Smith
United Kingdom
Wigton
Cumbria
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If it is felt there are too many permanent VPs available from non-warlike pursuits as against the hard labour of key gains through war this may be a small corrective.

Track each power's total victories in field battles and naval battles (but not sieges) during each turn. The power that gains the most gets a +1VP award, and then reset victories to 0 for all powers.

Seems small enough not to throw things out of kilter. After all you get 1 VP for a successful assassination. It also seems highly historical. Military glory was probably the most highly prized virtue of the period, but siege victories were not so esteemed.

Edit: all tied powers gain the award.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Olav Riediger
Germany
flag msg tools
badge
Alex crossing the Jaxartes... tricky endeavour.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Is this corrective indeed needed? I never played VQ, but enjoyed HIS several times, so I am fairly familiar with the rules. To my mind it would make sense, that a player can win the game, even if he/she is not extraordinarily successfully waging wars...

Any opinions on this?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MLeis
Estonia
Tallinn
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
olav wrote:
Is this corrective indeed needed? I never played VQ, but enjoyed HIS several times, so I am fairly familiar with the rules. To my mind it would make sense, that a player can win the game, even if he/she is not extraordinarily successfully waging wars...
VQ offers much more ways of getting VPs through peaceful means than HIS did. So I can definitely see where OP is coming from.

The problem with this idea is that it throws additional VPs into the system making the game end prematurely. For balance, players should need 26 (perhaps even 27) VPs to win.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Smith
United Kingdom
Wigton
Cumbria
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Maybe tied powers should not get the award, only a power with more victories than anybody else - that would limit the number of new VPs entering the system. Its fair to assume that some of the "new" VPs would be offset by a greater tendency to use military actions and thus a possible small fall in VPs gained through peaceful pursuits.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Peacock
Canada
Montréal
quebec
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wouldn't it be gamey, to have mock wars, where two powers "at war" leave a single mercenary as an easy target, to make sure the leading power doesn't gain that VP?

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Smith
United Kingdom
Wigton
Cumbria
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree that there is in theory the possibility that two players might connive to try to take it in turns to gain the award by such means. You could set a minimum total loss to both sides combined before a victory counted towards the count.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Jelley
United Kingdom
Hungerford
Berkshire
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Why not just +1 VP for each battle where you destroy 5+ enemy units? These would be major military victories and would disincline gamesmanship as 5 units are a lot to lose.

Philip
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Max DuBoff
United States
New Brunswick
New Jersey
flag msg tools
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: / Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
badge
Habeo in animo vivere in perpetuum aut mori dum conor.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mantuanwar wrote:
If it is felt there are too many permanent VPs available from non-warlike pursuits as against the hard labour of key gains through war this may be a small corrective.

Track each power's total victories in field battles and naval battles (but not sieges) during each turn. The power that gains the most gets a +1VP award, and then reset victories to 0 for all powers.

Seems small enough not to throw things out of kilter. After all you get 1 VP for a successful assassination. It also seems highly historical. Military glory was probably the most highly prized virtue of the period, but siege victories were not so esteemed.

Edit: all tied powers gain the award.



I totally see where you're coming from. I personally like HIS a tad more because it's more military-oriented (or religion-oriented for the Pope and Protestant).

But I think this variant is a dreadful idea. When I first started playing VQ, I got really frustrated at the availability of non-military permanent VPs (especially without the concepts of War Winner VPs and suing for peace). And then I came to a realization: VQ is entirely different from HIS, and that's what makes it beautiful. Yes, VQ has smaller battles and fewer armed conflicts, but it has all kinds of other layers of depth to make up for that. Your proposed variant, while understandable, attempts to make VQ like HIS, which is counterintuitive. If HIS and VQ were the same, there would be no fun in playing both. In my opinion, the two games should be approached very differently.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Moores
United Kingdom
LA
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mb
I am not sold on the solution but I agree with the problem.
There simply isn't enough incentive to act in a historical manner and occasionally launch a military campaign.

My initial thoughts are that if you spent all your points on military actions (brown coloured actions) then you got a bonus 2 points that you could spend on movement or assaulting.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Max DuBoff
United States
New Brunswick
New Jersey
flag msg tools
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: / Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
badge
Habeo in animo vivere in perpetuum aut mori dum conor.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mowers wrote:
There simply isn't enough incentive to act in a historical manner and occasionally launch a military campaign.


Really? How will the Ottomans, Spain, England, France, and the HRE increase their hand sizes and get a winning number of VPs without military actions?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kristian Thy
Denmark
Taastrup
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.
Avatar
mb
mowers wrote:
My initial thoughts are that if you spent all your points on military actions (brown coloured actions) then you got a bonus 2 points that you could spend on movement or assaulting.


That would make the 1 CP cards pretty powerful.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Smith
United Kingdom
Wigton
Cumbria
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Max, totally respect your experience with HIS and VQ. I have only played three times (HIS x2, VQ x1).
Increasing the pay-off of military moderately would not remove all those other layers you rightly describe. In that sense VQ would still be very distinct from HIS. There is an outside chance that I can setup an FTF of VQ this Christmas to see. Heres hoping.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Max DuBoff
United States
New Brunswick
New Jersey
flag msg tools
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: / Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
badge
Habeo in animo vivere in perpetuum aut mori dum conor.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mantuanwar wrote:
Max, totally respect your experience with HIS and VQ. I have only played three times (HIS x2, VQ x1).
Increasing the pay-off of military moderately would not remove all those other layers you rightly describe. In that sense VQ would still be very distinct from HIS. There is an outside chance that I can setup an FTF of VQ this Christmas to see. Heres hoping.


Goof luck setting up the game! I didn't mean to discourage you from playing the way you find most fun; if this works for you, enjoy it!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Moores
United Kingdom
LA
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mb
MD1616 wrote:
mowers wrote:
There simply isn't enough incentive to act in a historical manner and occasionally launch a military campaign.


Really? How will the Ottomans, Spain, England, France, and the HRE increase their hand sizes and get a winning number of VPs without military actions?


Well I've only played 3 times so I can't be sure but it doesn't feel right when I see the two different gaming groups spending 0-4 points a turn in total France and the the Netherlands. Most turns its 0 points.

What we are experiencing is that it is far easier to gain VP and win without military action in France and the Netherlands.

My proposed solution will invariably have some downside and I would love to hear other solutions or analysis.

Perhaps we are playing it wrong?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Karl W
Sweden
Uppsala
Europe (Region 1)
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Not saying your observation is wrong. Big attacks are either about or a step on the path towards keys. Keys allways(?) mean more VPs for you and less for opponent. Keys are also a step closer to autovictory. Moving on, theres bonuses like holding Paris / Master of Europe etc. And last and not (at all) least ; keys (often) = cards/CPs. Furthermore, decimating opponent forces them to put more of their CPs on army instead of less grand activities.

Sure, launching a campaign can cost MANY CPs, so not at all sure it pays off better than patronizing/murdering/marry etc. You could argue you can control the odds better. I guess one needs to get down to vps(CP) = vps(p, VPsAtStake) where (p = probablity-of-activity) examples. Atleast to get a vague grasp on how they compare.

Just thoughts, only played VQ once.
 
 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.