Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
18 Posts

The Napoleonic Wars (Second Edition)» Forums » General

Subject: frustrated with peace roll rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jason Johns
United States
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
OK, I'm frustrated with the peace roll. I've been in 3 games so far. In two of them game ended on turn 2 with a dr of 6. On another thread I found a comment by John (?) Kantor. I've decided to paste it here.


jkantor wrote:
Games should never end due to a Peace die roll. It's there as a pacing mechanism to encourage aggressive play (since one key makes a big difference at the the Interphase). Even Europe Exhausted should only lead to a shorter turn. If the Allies aren't using cards, then they deserve to lose - and you should never allow them to play again.


So, my question is, who's responsibility is it? In my groups no individual wants to fork over a card. Everyone else basically says why it's someone else's responsibility. (Just like "society" getting blamed rather than individuals in real life ... grrr.)

I think that we have all taken the risk that a 6 won't be rolled. (I know that other cards can affect that too, making it 1/3 chance.) And I know that it happening 2 times out of 3 is skewing odds. (There have been three rolls out of the four turns. One didn't happen because of europe exhausted or something.) But this has become frustrating.

I want to like the game. I think that the mechanisms work really well. I like the subject matter. But this sudden ending thing is killing me for the game.

Any thoughts? Suggestions? Thanks.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Young
Wales
Wellesley
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
And if you never have, you should. These things are fun and fun is good.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've been in games where players are reluctant. But, think of giving up cards as just spending resources to keep the game going or to end the war. Its a part of the game.

2 out of 3 is interesting. If 1 game had been different would you be this frustrated?

Andy
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Rubin
United States
Trenton
New Jersey
flag msg tools
badge
"It may be doubted whether so small a number of men ever employed so short a space of time with greater or more lasting effects upon the history of the world.” — Sir George Otto Trevelyan on the Battles of Trenton and Princeton
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
iamspamus wrote:
So, my question is, who's responsibility is it? In my groups no individual wants to fork over a card. Everyone else basically says why it's someone else's responsibility. (Just like "society" getting blamed rather than individuals in real life ... grrr.)


Thus illustrating Adam Smith's lighthouse. Yep, you guys are getting what you deserve, and we can be thankful that the only consequence is an abbreviated game and not a series of ship wrecks.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Johns
United States
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
medievalbanquet wrote:
I've been in games where players are reluctant. But, think of giving up cards as just spending resources to keep the game going or to end the war. Its a part of the game.

2 out of 3 is interesting. If 1 game had been different would you be this frustrated?

Andy


Nah, with the first game, I figured it was a fluke. With the second, it's becoming a trend.

No one's answered my question yet, so I'll change it. How do your groups decide who's giving up a card? Everyone in my group points left. whistle

Take the last game (puh-LEEZ, take the last game ). A brief synopsis. On turn two Russia was in the lead, having helped Austria stomp France. Those two were munching around in central German states. Britain had been ejected from Holland earlier in the turn. (He got the roll last turn.) France was playing defensive. Prussia (me) was neutral and had gotten Denmark & Turkey as minors.

Austria was first. Had 3 resources (!), in second place. Didn't give up a card. Russia was next. He didn't give up another card. Prussia next. With the least amount of cards, I said no. France next. He said that he was the underdog (in 3rd or 4th place), so no. Finally, Britain said no too with the most cards, but not a large army.

So, what to do? I figure that responsibility should have been in the following order: Britain/Austria, then me, then France. This could be that I'm Prussia, but I think this is pretty accurate.

So, in this group and another, players value cards A LOT. So, how do we make a paradigm shift? Otherwise, we'll just stop playing the game, I'm sure.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Johns
United States
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dirubin wrote:
iamspamus wrote:
So, my question is, who's responsibility is it? In my groups no individual wants to fork over a card. Everyone else basically says why it's someone else's responsibility. (Just like "society" getting blamed rather than individuals in real life ... grrr.)


Thus illustrating Adam Smith's lighthouse. Yep, you guys are getting what you deserve, and we can be thankful that the only consequence is an abbreviated game and not a series of ship wrecks.


Want ... to ... be ... sar ... cas ... tic...

That's great, but how do we solve the problem? What do we do to make players understand the value of giving up a card? How do your group(s) decide?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Young
Wales
Wellesley
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
And if you never have, you should. These things are fun and fun is good.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
B/c you were last they put pressure on you to be the one to blow the card. Russia wanted the game to end. The other guys gambled and so did you and LOST.

That is the game. I guess everyone should learn from this and use cards to keep the game going if they are trying to win. If not, pack up the game and head to eBay.

We've had games where people have been aggressive with cards and others where people have been risky. Your group just sounds stingy at the price of losing.

devil
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Duke
United States
Wynne
Arkansas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah, the simple fact is, if you want to keep playing, you can keep playing. The guy who is ahead will probably challenge that, or at least claim a "Okay, I won the first game, this is now considered the second game."

The others have put it well- you just don't care for the answer. The game gives you choices and your guys aren't willing to face that choice and, through luck, are paying the price. There's a lesson there, if you will listen to it. It's about "big picture" things that players would benefit from absorbing.

Changing the game because no one wants to see the picture the game is trying to convey? Time to listen to my mother (and say nothing).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Stein
United States
Westerville
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
At the start of the phase, an announcement that "if somebody else gives up a card I will too" frequently does the trick. Not always but more often than not IMO.

Of course if I was playing with a group of people that I knew weren't going to throw in a card, I'd change my tactics a bit.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Rubin
United States
Trenton
New Jersey
flag msg tools
badge
"It may be doubted whether so small a number of men ever employed so short a space of time with greater or more lasting effects upon the history of the world.” — Sir George Otto Trevelyan on the Battles of Trenton and Princeton
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
iamspamus wrote:
Take the last game (puh-LEEZ, take the last game ). A brief synopsis. On turn two Russia was in the lead, having helped Austria stomp France. Those two were munching around in central German states. Britain had been ejected from Holland earlier in the turn. (He got the roll last turn.) France was playing defensive. Prussia (me) was neutral and had gotten Denmark & Turkey as minors.


I'd expect the sacrifices to be made by the powers that would lose if the game ends now, but have the better chances of winning if it continues. So from what I know of the board, it seems to me that Austria and Prussia are the ones I'd expect to give up cards, while Russia (winning) and France (losing badly) are the least likely.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Johns
United States
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
medievalbanquet wrote:
B/c you were last they put pressure on you to be the one to blow the card. Russia wanted the game to end. The other guys gambled and so did you and LOST.

That is the game. I guess everyone should learn from this and use cards to keep the game going if they are trying to win. If not, pack up the game and head to eBay.

We've had games where people have been aggressive with cards and others where people have been risky. Your group just sounds stingy at the price of losing.

devil


I was actually third. Austria went first, then Russia, then me as Prussia. It’s not just one group but two. And stingy pretty much sums it up (even for me).

In the second group, we are nearing the end of turn two. Turn one had that Europe Exhausted card again. I’m in the lead in this other game (with group 2), but we’ll see if they are willing to give up cards to stop me.


kduke wrote:
The others have put it well- you just don't care for the answer. The game gives you choices and your guys aren't willing to face that choice and, through luck, are paying the price. There's a lesson there, if you will listen to it. It's about "big picture" things that players would benefit from absorbing.

Changing the game because no one wants to see the picture the game is trying to convey? Time to listen to my mother (and say nothing).


Two points:
1. My question was not answered above - Reworked, it was: How do I help people to see that giving up a card is worth it?

And you picked the wrong guy here. I take all kinds of advice, part of the reason I asked.

2. Notice that I took the thread out of the variants section and moved it here? I don’t want a variant, I want to understand the card giving up value and be able to pass that on. It does no good, if I’m the only one to give up a card each turn. (Which I haven’t to be honest.)


Bordgamer wrote:
At the start of the phase, an announcement that "if somebody else gives up a card I will too" frequently does the trick. Not always but more often than not IMO.

Of course if I was playing with a group of people that I knew weren't going to throw in a card, I'd change my tactics a bit.


OK, that’s good. Or I’ll give one up this turn and X can give one up the next or something. You’re only going to break your work in a group once...

How would you change your tactics? What would you do differently?


dirubin wrote:
iamspamus wrote:
Take the last game (puh-LEEZ, take the last game ). A brief synopsis. On turn two Russia was in the lead, having helped Austria stomp France. Those two were munching around in central German states. Britain had been ejected from Holland earlier in the turn. (He got the roll last turn.) France was playing defensive. Prussia (me) was neutral and had gotten Denmark & Turkey as minors.


I'd expect the sacrifices to be made by the powers that would lose if the game ends now, but have the better chances of winning if it continues. So from what I know of the board, it seems to me that Austria and Prussia are the ones I'd expect to give up cards, while Russia (winning) and France (losing badly) are the least likely.


OK, so now we’re getting somewhere. This is some type of measurement. I still have to fight with the dual barrels of “it’s someone else’s responsibility” and “we’ll gamble that the 6 won’t be rolled” but we’re getting closer.

As I said, I thought Britain and Austria. Britain gets a lot of cards and Prussia gets 3. That’s tough. Britain got a resource for having cards left over and was not in the middle of the fighting (as Prussia would have been on the next turn). Also, I was in third or fourth, but, overall, I see your point. It should somehow be based on who has the most to lose. Although, a loss is a loss whether the second loser or the fourth.

On that note, as Russia would you have given up a card to make it 5 or 6 as the second player announcing? Basically, take if from a 1/6 to a 1/3 chance?


OK, I understand that the group needs to give up a card or sometimes two. My question (again) is how is this done? Who decides who is the best candidate? How do you guys reach consensus on doing this? And how to make my group(s) understand this?

On the other hand, I do know that not all games are for everyone. Maybe that’s the case here. I’ll continue to play for a few more games, but something has to change. What would you do if you were the only one who consistently gave up a card? How would you handle that?


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald Everett
United States
Moore
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You should try playing this as either a 2-player or a 3-player game. Still lots of fun, and the problem of "who will sacrifice a card" is much less of a worry.

-Donald
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Timothy Sullivan
United States
Glen Carbon
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
iamspamus wrote:

OK, I understand that the group needs to give up a card or sometimes two. My question (again) is how is this done? Who decides who is the best candidate? How do you guys reach consensus on doing this? And how to make my group(s) understand this?


You can ask it as many times as you want, and the answer will be the same.... cool

We can't give you a formula. It's up to you (or any other player in your position) to figure out how to motivate a subset of the players in your game to sacrifice a card to keep the game going. What works in one group won't work in another group. Heck, what works for me on Sunday afternoon with two of my friends may not work on Saturday evening when the subset of freinds has changed.

You seem to be asking for a rule or system that can bend your group to your will. Do you envision successfully saying to them next time, "Charlie, the guys at BGG say that you have to throw in a card since you're Austria"?

The poster referencing the lighthouse makes the point: there is no solution to the free-rider problem other than enforcement by an assigned authority (such as the IRS) or cultural norms. There is no authority in the game (unless you want a house rule) and cultural norms differ from group to group.

If you're asking how the cultural norm plays out in my group, usually (similar to a previous poster) someone will say "I'm in for a card if at least one other person will go in. Otherwise, I'm out." This works about 60% of the time. Often the people in the strongest position will go in without the weaker people, on the assumption that the weaker person needs their cards to avoid being overrun.

(I should note that the first few times we played, we had the opposite problem. We all threw in a card, making it impossible for the game to end on a peace roll.)

Finally, sometimes people in my group "want" the game to end. If they have a headache and are down four keys, they'd often rather pack up and/or start a different game than be kicked around for the next five hours on the 3% chance that they'll be able to orchestrate a comeback. (I realize that in some groups this might create a fight, but, while we would never do this in a tournament, on game night we're friends first and game players second.)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Duke
United States
Georgetown
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't know who John Kanter(sp?) is or why he is an authority on how the game ends.

It's a good mechanism, anal retentive game groups aside. As stated, in a less than 5 player game, where the allied player can be more coordinated, it's less of an issue.

I've got about 20 games under my belt so I'm no authority, but the tension and excitement of the game ending is another of the many elements that make nappy wars one of my top 5 games. it probably takes a good group that plays well together. I think inherently, the French player has an advantage with the more players involved, particulary for people who don't know each other. It was a coalition after all, and a pretty close call by historical accounts.

I'd say give it about 10 more plays and see what you think.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Johns
United States
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
t_s_sullivan wrote:
You can ask it as many times as you want, and the answer will be the same.... cool


How can the answer be the same, if the question is "how does your group solve this conundrum? whistle

Quote:
We can't give you a formula. It's up to you (or any other player in your position) to figure out how to motivate a subset of the players in your game to sacrifice a card to keep the game going. What works in one group won't work in another group. Heck, what works for me on Sunday afternoon with two of my friends may not work on Saturday evening when the subset of freinds has changed.


I didn't ask for a formula. I don't want a set in stone answer. Just some examples. Basically, I poorly asked three questions:

Q1. Why should one give up cards?
A1. To keep the game going

Q2. How do I basically convince my group of this?
A2. No real answer given

Q3. How does your group deal with this?
A3. Several answers - offer up some deal, it's not a problem, play with different group, just suffer. All fine answers. Just wanted some sampling data.


Quote:
If you're asking how the cultural norm plays out in my group,


BINGO! Snarky above and you're not sure of the question ... Hmmmm. blush

Quote:
usually (similar to a previous poster) someone will say "I'm in for a card if at least one other person will go in. Otherwise, I'm out." This works about 60% of the time. Often the people in the strongest position will go in without the weaker people, on the assumption that the weaker person needs their cards to avoid being overrun.


So, there IS a formula, usually those with more to lose "should" offer more often...


Quote:
Finally, sometimes people in my group "want" the game to end. If they have a headache and are down four keys, they'd often rather pack up and/or start a different game than be kicked around for the next five hours on the 3% chance that they'll be able to orchestrate a comeback. (I realize that in some groups this might create a fight, but, while we would never do this in a tournament, on game night we're friends first and game players second.)


I have never understood this philosophy. I'm in a game for the fun and the experience. I do enjoy winning, but I'm not devastated when I don't win. Besides, the best stories come from pulling out a win in the end or doing better than you thought you could. Also, like to stick it to the guy who got me. devil

Anyway, Timothy, thanks for the answers. I actually appreciate them. I like most of the things of the game and really want to like it as a whole. I think our next game will be a bit different.

Cheers.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Johns
United States
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sduke wrote:
I don't know who John Kanter(sp?) is or why he is an authority on how the game ends.

It's a good mechanism, anal retentive game groups aside. As stated, in a less than 5 player game, where the allied player can be more coordinated, it's less of an issue.

I've got about 20 games under my belt so I'm no authority, but the tension and excitement of the game ending is another of the many elements that make nappy wars one of my top 5 games. it probably takes a good group that plays well together. I think inherently, the French player has an advantage with the more players involved, particulary for people who don't know each other. It was a coalition after all, and a pretty close call by historical accounts.

I'd say give it about 10 more plays and see what you think.


Thanks, Steve. I think I've finally realized the reasons to block the roll. Now I'll have to convince the others of the need. In one game I'm in the lead. May burn a card to advance it. (I think I may be last in the interphase.) Though I also will be fighting 4 fairly strong adversaries in the next turn.

In the new game, I'm Britain. May have to do that just to show 'em how it's done. This game is all newbs. (Myself included)

If the games were to continue on like this with no one giving up cards, I don't know that I'd make it 10 more games. But we'll see if my play and offering up a card with another player will work.

Thanks for all of the comments. Most of them helped.

Oh and the guy quoted above was just taken from a variant thread. I didn't really want a variant, just some illumination. Thus, I moved my portion here.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Young
Wales
Wellesley
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
And if you never have, you should. These things are fun and fun is good.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jason,

Its hard to answer the question- How do I convince my group of this?

I said that they need to want the game to keep going. Its very simple.... if they don't want to play and they want to risk it this is how things can go- short games ending on a 6.

So, I think that's what you were experiencing in this thread. Its almost as if you suffer from the same stuff that your group does with this die roll. You just don't get it. So, its hard to explain it.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Duke
United States
Georgetown
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As an add on for the Britain player in my limited experience probably playing them 5 or 8 times out of my 20, one of the keys to success is to spend your cards for others. You've got the one card you can give to anyone else you want to and you have the ability to influence the peace table by spending cards too. A lot of times the latter will cause France to have to answer in kind, burning his cards and limiting his options on the continent.

Early on, it is easy to fall into the trap of trying to build up a lot of forces and get a good foothold in Spain or somewhere else. IMO, it's a waste of assets. Keep the fleet out, have enough of a pin prick ground force to annoy France, probably by pressuring Spain, and spend your cards both on the peace table and the peace roll if necessary. Helping Austria stay in the game is critical.

Group dynamics have a HUGE impact on this game, IMO, since it is everyone against France at least initially. I think as groups get to know each other better, they tend to work better together. But being generous and giving up 'your' card(s) for some other player, or to modify the peace roll, is a foreign concept for some groups or for new people playing together for the first time.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Read the rulebook, plan for all contingencies, and…read the rulebook again.
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
iamspamus wrote:
No one's answered my question yet, so I'll change it. How do your groups decide who's giving up a card? Everyone in my group points left.


As mentioned, since Britain is a big card holder, they should probably ante a card if someone else is winning. The only mitigating factor I can see is if they've already spent cards on behalf of other players in the game. In that case, one of the big benefactors should probably do it. France can almost always afford a card to keep the game going. If they want to.

(If they want to. Some folks may secretly want the game to end, no matter who is winning. Even a short game is a long game for some if they're playing a small power or another player is chronically an A/P type.)

But if folks really can't agree on who should ante, or simply don't want to and prefer to put the burden on "the other guy," then there should be no surprise when the game ends on a Peace Roll. That's the game.
 
 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.