Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
24 Posts

John Company» Forums » Rules

Subject: Company failure rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Are these statements correct?

- Before deregulation, the company cannot fail if there are at least two cubes of the same colour in the CoD going in to the trade phase.

- After deregulation, the company cannot fail if there is at least one cube in the CoD going in to the trade phase.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich James
United States
Plano
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So, unless all players want the company to fail there is really very little risk that will happen? (Unless no one has the £6 or £3 required to buy the necessary shares, which is also quite unlikely)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grayson
United States
Richmond
Virginia
flag msg tools
"Goes to show, you don't ever know, Watch each card you play and play it slow..."
badge
Charles Stoddart (artwork from Pax Pamir 2e)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mattias wrote:
So, unless all players want the company to fail there is really very little risk that will happen? (Unless no one has the £6 or £3 required to buy the necessary shares, which is also quite unlikely)


this is likely to change with experience.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Cannon
United States
Annapolis
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
143245 wrote:
Mattias wrote:
So, unless all players want the company to fail there is really very little risk that will happen? (Unless no one has the £6 or £3 required to buy the necessary shares, which is also quite unlikely)


this is likely to change with experience.


Just learning this game, but have not played it yet.

I imagine your statement about experience may have some relationship to the level of risk players are willing to take to win???
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
143245 wrote:
Mattias wrote:
So, unless all players want the company to fail there is really very little risk that will happen? (Unless no one has the £6 or £3 required to buy the necessary shares, which is also quite unlikely)


this is likely to change with experience.

Can you elaborate on this? Why would more experience with the game put you in a position with less influence in this regard?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Can anyone supply an example of how the company can fail before/after deregulation?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Gastonguay
United States
Pottstown
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Act Three! Everybody Dies!
Avatar
mb
Say you're playing a 3 player game. At the end of a turn, one family forced a bailout by not paying dividends because he only had one Executive family member, while the others had more, so a member from each family retires and family spends a ton of money to retire to the best Prizes getting the most VP. Everyone is quite broke at the beginning of a turn, and there is only one cube of each color in the Court of Directors.

The turn begins, votes are had, exchange cubes are given, etc. etc. The Company goes, you roll 5 dice to deliver to Hyderabad and still manage to fail...uh oh. That's okay, you still have the Bengal company that provides 16 pounds. Of course, you made 2 captains, bought 2 guns and 3 captains. Your expenses this turn are 18 pounds to pay for the 3 captains on each presidency, the two guns on each presidency (and the four from that weird turn where you went gun crazy to get the Bombay Governor) and those two captains.

Looks like another bailout. But now you only have 2 people in the Court of Directors. And they're from different families. Boom, company dead.

So what usually causes a family to go under:
1) Spending a ton of cash on Prizes so you can't buy stocks for your family action (remember, you only get one)
2) Not paying dividends (sometimes the company needs that money early on, especially if a bunch of boats blow up)
3) Harsh sail rolls can tank your income.

And hell, if you're leading in VPs and no one is promoting you: tank that company and make them pay through the nose.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
CthulhuKid wrote:
Say you're playing a 3 player game. At the end of a turn, one family forced a bailout by not paying dividends because he only had one Executive family member, while the others had more, so a member from each family retires and family spends a ton of money to retire to the best Prizes getting the most VP. Everyone is quite broke at the beginning of a turn, and there is only one cube of each color in the Court of Directors.


I can't see how one family can "force" a bailout. In order for a bailout to occur the stock price has to be at "3". If it is at "3" you have to pay a dividend (rule G3). Only if you are unable (due to too little revenue), a bailout occurs.

CthulhuKid wrote:
The turn begins, votes are had, exchange cubes are given, etc. etc. The Company goes, you roll 5 dice to deliver to Hyderabad and still manage to fail...uh oh. That's okay, you still have the Bengal company that provides 16 pounds. Of course, you made 2 captains, bought 2 guns and 3 captains. Your expenses this turn are 18 pounds to pay for the 3 captains on each presidency, the two guns on each presidency (and the four from that weird turn where you went gun crazy to get the Bombay Governor) and those two captains.

Looks like another bailout. But now you only have 2 people in the Court of Directors. And they're from different families. Boom, company dead.

So what usually causes a family to go under:
1) Spending a ton of cash on Prizes so you can't buy stocks for your family action (remember, you only get one)
2) Not paying dividends (sometimes the company needs that money early on, especially if a bunch of boats blow up)
3) Harsh sail rolls can tank your income.

And hell, if you're leading in VPs and no one is promoting you: tank that company and make them pay through the nose.


I totally get 2) and 3), but why would any player not in the lead not save £6 (or £3) to buy two (or one) share to keep the game going? I suppose they might just not be paying attention, but then what's the point of playing a sophisticated game?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Gastonguay
United States
Pottstown
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Act Three! Everybody Dies!
Avatar
mb
Mattias wrote:


I can't see how one family can "force" a bailout. In order for a bailout to occur the stock price has to be at "3". If it is at "3" you have to pay a dividend (rule G3). Only if you are unable (due to too little revenue), a bailout occurs.



If your one Executive family member is the Director of trade: Put all the boats and goods onto the Presidency that makes the least amount of cash. If you're in charge of the Presidency that makes the most cash: Don't sail.

And a reason why you wouldn't buy the share in the company: 1 - you might be banking on someone else to buy that share. 2 - You might be saving that money to buy a boat as a captain which will get you SO much more money, and what are the odds the company is going to go bankrupt, right? 3 - You only get one family action, and if you have no writers, sometimes you want to fill up that pool, otherwise you've got no one in the company anyway.

I think you're asking many hypothetical questions without having played, and I'm not exactly sure what you're going for here. This is a very intricate game, and I've played multiplayer 3 (or so) times and I know I haven't figured everything out. I don't think doing mind experiments is going to wrap your head around everything. I think you've got to stick your hands in the mud and play a bunch of games badly before you can get it. I haven't tanked a company without someone wanting to (though the 20 or so pounds I got from dividends was nice), but we've gotten close "by mistake." We've failed "sure thing" votes. We've "forgotten" to buy shares in the company because we finally had enough money to buy that Scottish Island. I lost the last game because I didn't buy someones Promise Cube when it was offered.

It's a giant Gordian Knot of a game. Get in there and get dirty. Play a multi-handed game solo and see if that helps you grok it.
2 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grayson
United States
Richmond
Virginia
flag msg tools
"Goes to show, you don't ever know, Watch each card you play and play it slow..."
badge
Charles Stoddart (artwork from Pax Pamir 2e)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mattias wrote:
CthulhuKid wrote:
And hell, if you're leading in VPs and no one is promoting you: tank that company and make them pay through the nose.


but why would any player not in the lead not save £6 (or £3) to buy two (or one) share to keep the game going?


"End Game Management 101." If you're in the lead, you want the game to end (remember, there is no shared-loss here, someone will win). There is no reason to prolong it and give other players a chance to surpass you.

As for the experience remark, we find that once players get comfortable with the ebb and flow of the game, you generally needle folks for cash and buy whatever prize you can when you can because you're not entirely sure when the company is going to go south and whether or not you'll get a chance to buy a prize later. Since if your cube retires, you can remove cash from the game, people find they are left without cash to buy shares or do much to save the company. Really the company tanking is just an end game timer, not a "whose fault is this" question.

Adam points out some short-term ways (don't sail, go campaigning) that put stress on the company. There are also some medium-duration ones that (once you learn the flow and timing of the game, can be planned for) allow you to sort of setup and get out before things go bad. Adding lots of officers and/or captains is an example. The default intent is to sort of muddle along, you don't want to do strikingly well at the company (historically it didn't), as then you're dependent upon retirement to give you points. No, sub-optimal play (in terms of a company that limps along) is beneficial here for a series of reasons, one major one being that players may creep up to the precipice of the void while everyone looks over the edge and goads one another to expend resources to pull back, while secretly trying to time when they will grab the lone parachute and jump to victory...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
143245 wrote:
Mattias wrote:
CthulhuKid wrote:
And hell, if you're leading in VPs and no one is promoting you: tank that company and make them pay through the nose.


but why would any player not in the lead not save £6 (or £3) to buy two (or one) share to keep the game going?


"End Game Management 101." If you're in the lead, you want the game to end (remember, there is no shared-loss here, someone will win). There is no reason to prolong it and give other players a chance to surpass you.


We are in agreement there. My point was that those not in the lead can (and will want to) prolong the game.

143245 wrote:
As for the experience remark, we find that once players get comfortable with the ebb and flow of the game, you generally needle folks for cash and buy whatever prize you can when you can because you're not entirely sure when the company is going to go south and whether or not you'll get a chance to buy a prize later. Since if your cube retires, you can remove cash from the game, people find they are left without cash to buy shares or do much to save the company. Really the company tanking is just an end game timer, not a "whose fault is this" question.


But if you can't score enough to put yourself in the lead you are better off saving the £3-6 needed to keep the company afloat.

You may also want to save up a little to be able to start your firm. There is a lot of earning potential after deregulation (which may last longer than half the game).

143245 wrote:
Adam points out some short-term ways (don't sail, go campaigning) that put stress on the company. There are also some medium-duration ones that (once you learn the flow and timing of the game, can be planned for) allow you to sort of setup and get out before things go bad. Adding lots of officers and/or captains is an example. The default intent is to sort of muddle along, you don't want to do strikingly well at the company (historically it didn't), as then you're dependent upon retirement to give you points. No, sub-optimal play (in terms of a company that limps along) is beneficial here for a series of reasons, one major one being that players may creep up to the precipice of the void while everyone looks over the edge and goads one another to expend resources to pull back, while secretly trying to time when they will grab the lone parachute and jump to victory...


It would be interesting to see an example of how this can be set up. In our last game two factions actually tried to tank the company, but couldn't. They effectively stopped almost all shipping and bought lots of guns. The company made very little revenue, but was repeatedly bailed out.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grayson
United States
Richmond
Virginia
flag msg tools
"Goes to show, you don't ever know, Watch each card you play and play it slow..."
badge
Charles Stoddart (artwork from Pax Pamir 2e)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mattias wrote:

[q="143245"]Adam points out some short-term ways (don't sail, go campaigning) that put stress on the company. There are also some medium-duration ones that (once you learn the flow and timing of the game, can be planned for) allow you to sort of setup and get out before things go bad. Adding lots of officers and/or captains is an example. The default intent is to sort of muddle along, you don't want to do strikingly well at the company (historically it didn't), as then you're dependent upon retirement to give you points. No, sub-optimal play (in terms of a company that limps along) is beneficial here for a series of reasons, one major one being that players may creep up to the precipice of the void while everyone looks over the edge and goads one another to expend resources to pull back, while secretly trying to time when they will grab the lone parachute and jump to victory...


and

Mattias wrote:

We are in agreement there. My point was that those not in the lead can (and will want to) prolong the game.


So the people who bailed out the company blew money (to keep playing) with nothing to show for it (in terms of points). That leaves the other (lead) players to buy manors or, on a retirement (forced/penalized or otherwise), a prize. Looks like they are just digging the hole deeper and hadn't realized it by that point. China alters that calculus some, but still requires someone to be in that position & someone be Chairman that both want to ship. For reference, of those we play locally with, the experienced folks rarely have more than $6-9 on them; enough for a small prize and some bribery cash for that turn. I've seen exactly 2 players in 15 games afford a Scottish Island and it was because they were in a presidency that was lucrative from the bribery standpoint, and didn't retire for almost 4 rounds.


Mattias wrote:

It would be interesting to see an example of how this can be set up. In our last game two factions actually tried to tank the company, but couldn't. They effectively stopped almost all shipping and bought lots of guns. The company made very little revenue, but was repeatedly bailed out.


So play it a couple of times then look at the pacing of when you get promoted, and how long it takes for officers to go somewhere and start to drain the coffers. Then map backward to see when you need to bargain super hard for a position in order to get in, get cash, and cause a crunch to happen. The other point is, the more we play, the more often we find that *nothing* gets accomplished that is discretionary without someone getting paid cash. Promise cubes are neat and forward thinking, but cash is king. Need me to sail? That will be 3 coins please. Oh, you dont want me to invade Bengal and decimate it's defense value? I'll skip that for 2 coins... Use bad behavior to your benefit. Thats the other reason we see our games as cash-holdings-lite. We're spending family cash to make things happen to live for another day on budget prizes.

Second, he who holds the Chairmanship is in a super lucrative spot to threaten failure in short order (allocate all revenue to the military affairs office, and suddenly almost nothing will go to shipping actions next round, compounded with military expenses). There is a large part of this game that is open to being almost stupidly mean to the rest of the players unless they can make it worth your while and seeing if you can get away with it. I mean, hey, maybe I want $12 collectively from the rest of the players to not do that? (we're back to digging that hole...)

Much like in Bohnanza, your abilities and what actions are more lucrative is based on player count. You can force things like this at 4 easier than 6. At 6, you're paying more for bribery (on average) than at 5 or 4, but the chance of being locked out of the company is greater.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
143245 wrote:

143245 wrote:
Adam points out some short-term ways (don't sail, go campaigning) that put stress on the company. There are also some medium-duration ones that (once you learn the flow and timing of the game, can be planned for) allow you to sort of setup and get out before things go bad. Adding lots of officers and/or captains is an example. The default intent is to sort of muddle along, you don't want to do strikingly well at the company (historically it didn't), as then you're dependent upon retirement to give you points. No, sub-optimal play (in terms of a company that limps along) is beneficial here for a series of reasons, one major one being that players may creep up to the precipice of the void while everyone looks over the edge and goads one another to expend resources to pull back, while secretly trying to time when they will grab the lone parachute and jump to victory...


and

Mattias wrote:

We are in agreement there. My point was that those not in the lead can (and will want to) prolong the game.


So the people who bailed out the company blew money (to keep playing) with nothing to show for it (in terms of points). That leaves the other (lead) players to buy manors or, on a retirement (forced/penalized or otherwise), a prize. Looks like they are just digging the hole deeper and hadn't realized it by that point. China alters that calculus some, but still requires someone to be in that position & someone be Chairman that both want to ship. For reference, of those we play locally with, the experienced folks rarely have more than $6-9 on them; enough for a small prize and some bribery cash for that turn. I've seen exactly 2 players in 15 games afford a Scottish Island and it was because they were in a presidency that was lucrative from the bribery standpoint, and didn't retire for almost 4 rounds.


But what is the alternative? Lose the game immediately? Why would you not prolong the game in this situation for a chance of catching up at a later point?

143245 wrote:
Mattias wrote:

It would be interesting to see an example of how this can be set up. In our last game two factions actually tried to tank the company, but couldn't. They effectively stopped almost all shipping and bought lots of guns. The company made very little revenue, but was repeatedly bailed out.


So play it a couple of times then look at the pacing of when you get promoted, and how long it takes for officers to go somewhere and start to drain the coffers. Then map backward to see when you need to bargain super hard for a position in order to get in, get cash, and cause a crunch to happen. The other point is, the more we play, the more often we find that *nothing* gets accomplished that is discretionary without someone getting paid cash. Promise cubes are neat and forward thinking, but cash is king. Need me to sail? That will be 3 coins please. Oh, you dont want me to invade Bengal and decimate it's defense value? I'll skip that for 2 coins... Use bad behavior to your benefit. Thats the other reason we see our games as cash-holdings-lite. We're spending family cash to make things happen to live for another day on budget prizes.

Second, he who holds the Chairmanship is in a super lucrative spot to threaten failure in short order (allocate all revenue to the military affairs office, and suddenly almost nothing will go to shipping actions next round, compounded with military expenses). There is a large part of this game that is open to being almost stupidly mean to the rest of the players unless they can make it worth your while and seeing if you can get away with it. I mean, hey, maybe I want $12 collectively from the rest of the players to not do that? (we're back to digging that hole...)

Much like in Bohnanza, your abilities and what actions are more lucrative is based on player count. You can force things like this at 4 easier than 6. At 6, you're paying more for bribery (on average) than at 5 or 4, but the chance of being locked out of the company is greater.


Of course your position should be used to gain maximum bribes. I have a hard time seeing why you would pay one player £12 when you only need to spend £3-6 to the company to avoid failure however. Bribing other players doesn’t remove cash from the game. In fact you don’t need to have £3-6 yourself, you just need to ensure that the players not in the lead have £3-6 between them; that way they can always have the game continue if one player is in a position to win through a failure. Also, paying the leading player anything at all or promoting him before others will just put you further behind.

As far as I can see, all this adds up to a game that will almost certainly go the full 10 turns with experienced players keeping each other close in terms of points right to the end.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grayson
United States
Richmond
Virginia
flag msg tools
"Goes to show, you don't ever know, Watch each card you play and play it slow..."
badge
Charles Stoddart (artwork from Pax Pamir 2e)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mattias wrote:
As far as I can see, all this adds up to a game that will almost certainly go the full 10 turns with experienced players keeping each other close in terms of points right to the end.


I've tried to explain why it doesn't work that way in practice. To me being, behind and blowing $6 a turn just to keep the game going while allowing the leading player to score more points is ludicrous unless I have a solid way of not only making that cash back, but more so in the hopes I can retire a player. That's exceedingly uncommon in games with experienced players (who are more likely to collectively keep the company on the brink of failure and are generally cash poor individually). Otherwise you're just widening the gap. If I've got $6 and you have $6, I'm buying a manor while I watch you flush your cash to the bailout, especially if I don't think I can do better points wise that turn with a retirement prize.

China is the one thing that keeps the game going 10 turns. The cash is much safer, and more lucrative. It's the one thing that sort of combats bad presidents who risk their region for extortion.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
143245 wrote:
Mattias wrote:
As far as I can see, all this adds up to a game that will almost certainly go the full 10 turns with experienced players keeping each other close in terms of points right to the end.


I've tried to explain why it doesn't work that way in practice. To me being, behind and blowing $6 a turn just to keep the game going while allowing the leading player to score more points is ludicrous unless I have a solid way of not only making that cash back, but more so in the hopes I can retire a player. That's exceedingly uncommon in games with experienced players (who are more likely to collectively keep the company on the brink of failure and are generally cash poor individually). Otherwise you're just widening the gap. If I've got $6 and you have $6, I'm buying a manor while I watch you flush your cash to the bailout, especially if I don't think I can do better points wise that turn with a retirement prize.

China is the one thing that keeps the game going 10 turns. The cash is much safer, and more lucrative. It's the one thing that sort of combats bad presidents who risk their region for extortion.


So what you are saying is that if I'm ahead of you in points you will not attempt to extend the game, but instead let me tank it for the win?

I suppose that is one way of playing. In our games we always play for the win. If there is even a remote chance of catching up with the leader in a future turn we will certainly take it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grayson
United States
Richmond
Virginia
flag msg tools
"Goes to show, you don't ever know, Watch each card you play and play it slow..."
badge
Charles Stoddart (artwork from Pax Pamir 2e)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mattias wrote:

So what you are saying is that if I'm ahead of you in points you will not attempt to extend the game, but instead let me tank it for the win?

I suppose that is one way of playing. In our games we always play for the win. If there is even a remote chance of catching up with the leader in a future turn we will certainly take it.


No, I'm saying that in our experience it's been more effective to let the company die and use the limited time remaining to score more points because the time duration required to make a large come from behind win is slow (especially at the cost of $6 off the top and a family action each turn). That is based on the following factors we have observed in our experienced games:

1) Scores are tighter overall, so a delta of 2 points is a bigger number. It may not be the difference from first to last, but it's tighter. Everyone is laser focused on getting points because falling behind is brutal.
2) There is less cash washing around the game because players spend it on prizes or other family actions, often.
3) the -3vp for executive offices in a company failure is a weapon, just like the variable game duration, use it.

So thinking about number 1, if I'm leading you, you can either buy a manor and force me to as well, or you can buy 2 shares and I can buy a manor and now I lead you by 2 more points. During the next turn you get to be Chairman because you bought shares, and now if you don't keep dropping $6 into shares each family action, the game ends (so, no manors, no writers, nothing else, you just keep buying shares while the rest of us work towards points thanks to your sacrifice). Meanwhile, I'm using that cash to advance my score either via manors or getting back into the company to retire some more and score points (which takes time, but hey, if you're going to give me time, fine). That brings me to point number 2, $6 is big in our games. So by spending your family action on shares, you don't advance your position elsewhere and now you're poorer with nothing to show for it because when your chairman retires, he won't be able to afford a prize. That's a massive hole to dig yourself out of if the leader has at least one of those advantages (either a family action to take elsewhere, or cash on hand). You're hope at that point is (#3) to become Chairman, induce failure because nobody bought enough shares to have multiples, and then have the points leader have more offices (that will then be -3vp each) during the company failure than you do as Chairman and thus you gain positional points on them during final scoring. That works if you have no cubes for Director of Trade to promote in retribution.

My point here is that stalling repeatedly doesn't work as well in practice as it does on paper, you're still letting the leader score points, so unless you can make a massive comeback (which will be difficult given that the company should be just limping along), your time is better spent finding another way to score points (as illustrated above). There are occasions to stall (if you have a bunch of writers and a lot of cash, thus you want to induce another bailout cause everyone will get promoted and then the $2 hit isn't bad since you have so much money), but it's a limited situation that still spawns out of "hey, what's the best way for me to actually make points."
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think you make a lot of good points that I can agree to. The only thing I see differently is why I would let someone tank the company when they're already ahead. What will that accomplish? Losing by a smaller margin than I otherwise risk doing?

In a multiplayer game where one player is ahead and the game is about to end, the only reasonable position is to try and catch up. Otherwise you might just agree to forfeit the game and play again.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grayson
United States
Richmond
Virginia
flag msg tools
"Goes to show, you don't ever know, Watch each card you play and play it slow..."
badge
Charles Stoddart (artwork from Pax Pamir 2e)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mattias wrote:
I think you make a lot of good points that I can agree to. The only thing I see differently is why I would let someone tank the company when they're already ahead. What will that accomplish?


It will allow you to focus on raw point generation; stalling comes at a cost, and my experience tells me that said cost is higher than you indicate. So much so, that you're allowing the gap that you will have to close in order to win instead to grow. Comparatively, instead of trying to save the company (because we're assuming you can't bribe your way out of them tanking the company), you focus on other means to accrue points (as noted in today's numbered reply), you stand a better chance of closing that point gap. I find *generally* someone can either control the game tempo/arc or they can accumulate lots of points. Doing both simultaneously is possible, but difficult, and even more so if they aren't the point leader already.

I suspect there is something here that I'm not communicating well. Sorry.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
No need to apologise, I enjoy the discussion! I think I understand what you are saying, I just can't see how it can be a useful strategy in this game. If one player is ahead and wants to tank the company to cash in his victory, why would the other five let him? They don't need to put up £6 each, they just need to make sure the game will keep going (on average they will have to pay up to £6/5 each). If that £6/5 is more useful in catching up with the leader I suppose he shouldn't be too eager to tank the company in the first place.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grayson
United States
Richmond
Virginia
flag msg tools
"Goes to show, you don't ever know, Watch each card you play and play it slow..."
badge
Charles Stoddart (artwork from Pax Pamir 2e)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mattias wrote:
why would the other five let him? They don't need to put up £6 each, they just need to make sure the game will keep going (on average they will have to pay up to £6/5 each). If that £6/5 is more useful in catching up with the leader I suppose he shouldn't be too eager to tank the company in the first place.


It's actually only the 2nd place player who is forced to do it. Nobody else has an incentive to as they may be too far back to make the leap forward.

Your last bit is the critical piece; remember, chances are they have some cash as well, it's more of a board and promotion question. If the leader has few writers, then tanking makes more sense as the positions will have to be filled (assuming presidencies are not closed), and those people will lose points next round. A lot of whether to do it and when/how is dependent upon an accurate read of the board and potential shift in points (again, an experience requirement). Short of constructing a bunch of scenarios as a sort of joseki article, for which I sadly do not have anything close to the time for currently, the best thing I can say to play around with the game a bit. One thing to keep in mind; having an alternative game end condition is a weapon. Much like in The King is Dead (or the original, Konig von Siam), having a different way to end the game and short circuit the expected duration can be used to catch players flat footed. Best of luck.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
143245 wrote:
Mattias wrote:
why would the other five let him? They don't need to put up £6 each, they just need to make sure the game will keep going (on average they will have to pay up to £6/5 each). If that £6/5 is more useful in catching up with the leader I suppose he shouldn't be too eager to tank the company in the first place.


It's actually only the 2nd place player who is forced to do it. Nobody else has an incentive to as they may be too far back to make the leap forward.

Your last bit is the critical piece; remember, chances are they have some cash as well, it's more of a board and promotion question. If the leader has few writers, then tanking makes more sense as the positions will have to be filled (assuming presidencies are not closed), and those people will lose points next round. A lot of whether to do it and when/how is dependent upon an accurate read of the board and potential shift in points (again, an experience requirement). Short of constructing a bunch of scenarios as a sort of joseki article, for which I sadly do not have anything close to the time for currently, the best thing I can say to play around with the game a bit. One thing to keep in mind; having an alternative game end condition is a weapon. Much like in The King is Dead (or the original, Konig von Siam), having a different way to end the game and short circuit the expected duration can be used to catch players flat footed. Best of luck.


Of course you have to read the game situation correctly. I'm assuming all players are able to do that. In a situation where the company is about to fall it is extremely unlikely that all six players will think they can benefit from that at the same time.

My original question remains open; why would anyone not in a position to win, not try to prolong the game?

I suppose one answer could be that you are playing not to be in last place, rather than to win. We never play that way; we play to win and we're in the game for the full race.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If you compare this game to the brilliant Republic of Rome (which apparently inspired it), there is one big difference; if Rome falls all players lose. This can be used by the trailing players to take down a leader. Instead of the leader wanting Rome (the company) to fall, it is the other way around - the leader has to make sure Rome survives in order to claim the win.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grayson
United States
Richmond
Virginia
flag msg tools
"Goes to show, you don't ever know, Watch each card you play and play it slow..."
badge
Charles Stoddart (artwork from Pax Pamir 2e)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mattias wrote:
My original question remains open; why would anyone not in a position to win, not try to prolong the game?


To summarize my earlier salvos; if focusing on using limited resources for point generation and letting the company go yields a 20% chance of winning (because the leader will undoubtedly focus on point generation as well), and stalling for as long as possible or more yields a 5% chance of winning (because the gap between you and the leader will grow given scarcity of resources and the ability to generate points utilizing those resources), then why would you pick the 5% option.

The gap delta is a factor that I'm not sure is coming across. If on the first turn post-bailout the company is in dire straits and you and the leader are 4vp apart, that's coming you could come back and drag them down with. If the second turn after that the delta is now 6 or 7, and the third turn it's up to 10vp, sure you've had time, but you've used resources to buy that time and now the lead you have to cut back is much greater without you having the resources to do much about it. In my experience, with a company in rough shape, a 4vp difference is possible, but moderately difficult/situational to come back from. A 10vp difference in the same company situation is even tougher (hence, a lower chance of winning).

Mattias wrote:
If you compare this game to the brilliant Republic of Rome (which apparently inspired it), there is one big difference; if Rome falls all players lose. This can be used by the trailing players to take down a leader. Instead of the leader wanting Rome (the company) to fall, it is the other way around - the leader has to make sure Rome survives in order to claim the win.


In RoR, the game gives those not in the lead a poison pill; "kill the game state and we will deprive you of victory." JoCo doesn't, it says "if the leader tries to kill the company, you need to make it hurt them more." Time isn't the focal point there IMHO, it's resources and cube position. Remember #3 above, if you're in a gold spot, it's -3vp. If the leader has a bunch of people in the writer box, then put them in non-Chairman positions and let the company go (cutting them down in the process). If you have a ton of cubes and nobody else does (which nepotism will punish), you can gain control of the company. Then resource generation becomes more possible (and a gamble) and you can stall for retirement purposes, but that takes very specific factors having already been established before the company was starved and that's unlikely. I think it's easier to cut down the leader than it is to save both the company and myself in the long term. That's why I say it's 20% vs 5%.
1 
 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.