Broken_Erika
Play with me.
YOu could also break off some of frances new colonies to the independants, (i.e. Spain and/or Italy taking their own colonies following their secession from france)
Imperialism II PBEM
- Thread starter McMonkey
- Start date
techumseh
Deity
I'm curious. In the past, I've played a number of multi-player board games, from Risk and Diplomacy, to more realistic wargames. In them, the typical behaviour of other players when faced with a rising power that threatens them all is to unite in an alliance and attempt to defeat the upstart. This doesn't seem to be the norm in multi-player civ games however, and certainly not this one. Back when Prof. Garfield revealed his military strength, and well before he attacked the Brits, I warned of the need to unite against France - but no one did. To me, it seemed self-evident. So, with no challenge to his supremacy, Prof. Garfield exited the game. So, my question is: why not?
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 12,010
For the same reason the world doesn't untie against the U.S. today, and didn't against the British Empire in the real Victorian days.
techumseh
Deity
What reasons are those? With respect, I don't think you can compare a game with winner takes all victory conditions and actual global geo-politics, which is infinitely more complex. I think you can compare the behavior of multi-player civ games with the behavior of players of multi-player board games, and they are quite different, in my experience. Btw. behavior of players in this PBEM game is typical of other multi-player Civ games I've followed over the years.
Having said that, where a power has simultaneously threatened the existence (or at least the core interests) of all or most other powers, history does show that they will unite against the aggressor. Witness the coalitions against Napoleon and Hitler. The British Empire and the US do not fit those patterns of aggressive behavior.
Having said that, where a power has simultaneously threatened the existence (or at least the core interests) of all or most other powers, history does show that they will unite against the aggressor. Witness the coalitions against Napoleon and Hitler. The British Empire and the US do not fit those patterns of aggressive behavior.
Last edited:
Russia was attempting to build a rest of the world coalition behind the scenes with PM diplomacy. We had basically got the framework in place but in the end the British collapse of morale happened before we could join the fray. I'm not convinced it would have defeated the French but it would have made for a battle royale to finish the game. I'm really disappointed with the way this fizzled out just as the fuse had been lit for WW1. We had all put in a lot of time & effort & in the end it all counted for nought.
techumseh
Deity
Yes, if people quit because they think they've lost or because they think they've won, it's hard to see how it would turn out in the end. Tell me, was tech by conquest enabled in this game?
techumseh
Deity
I found this passive style so frustrating that back in 2002 I wrote an article for the Scenario League magazine we used to have (all lost thanks to the chaos at Apolyton) called Diplomacy for PBEMs. Diplomacy for PBEMs.txt
Germany and Japan would probably have been very foolish to join a world alliance against France. At least one of them would probably have been invaded and occupied before the other powers could muster the resources to help them in their fight. They wouldn't have been world powers when the dust settled, they would have sacrificed themselves so that Russia or the USA could gain world power status (or so that Britain could keep it). By staying out of the war, they could still trade and grow their economies (at least in principle) while the great powers fought it out.
In practice, I courted Germany as an ally, which, if the game continued, would almost certainly leave Germany in a better post war situation than if they decided to be Russia's shield instead. I suppose they could have taken my money and turned on me instead. I would have found that annoying, though mostly because I paid gold in lump sums rather than activating cheat mode each turn to make the payment.
It may have been in the "group" interest for everyone to ally against France, but not in the individual interest of each player to do so.
If our skills were more evenly matched, then there would be little need for everyone to ally against France. If France and Britain fought a protracted war, then the other powers would grow rich through trade by staying out of it, while the belligerents wasted resources. Britain could have negotiated a settlement under the threat that others would surpass France while France tried to conquer Britain. Britain may even have been able to get some money gifts to keep resisting.
For what it is worth, I don't think I really played France as a bully out to threaten everyone, at least until I declared a general war on Britain. I guess I did threaten Germany at one point during the Uganda Crisis, however.
techumseh
Deity
Agreed. But once you defeated Britain in 2 turns, you were revealed as an existential threat to all powers, though frankly I think that was obvious when you revealed your military strength. Perhaps the other powers might have taken a few turns to fully mobilize and redeploy their forces, but all had an overriding interest in trying to stop you.
Russia was in a strong geographic position with trade exits from the Arctic, Baltic, Black Sea, Meditteranean, Persian Gulf and the Far East which was connected to a high-speed Trans-Siberian Railroad. We had built defences in depth with a plan for scorched earth withdrawal in any attacked area while reserves were being brought up. The first batch of 27 veteran Battleships were due to come out of our naval shipyards on our next turn. We were certainly far behind France but could have begun to wear the French down with our newly founded sea power.
We had two friendly buffer states in Germany & Japan, though I agree that it would have been suicide for either one to declare war. With a promising alliance with the US on the cards, a nation with similar geographical advantages and the potential to produce a large Battleship fleet in quick order, we could have really put a dent in French trade & naval power. I suspect the French had developed their industry to a point where they were not dependent on trade alone to keep their armies going.
Ultimately Britain was on the front line and the strung-out nature of its empire meant it was difficult to concentrate forces & resist for long enough for the Russian and American assistance to make a difference. Canada, India, South Africa & Australia were the strongest territories to build up in but the home islands were terribly vulnerable.
We had two friendly buffer states in Germany & Japan, though I agree that it would have been suicide for either one to declare war. With a promising alliance with the US on the cards, a nation with similar geographical advantages and the potential to produce a large Battleship fleet in quick order, we could have really put a dent in French trade & naval power. I suspect the French had developed their industry to a point where they were not dependent on trade alone to keep their armies going.
Ultimately Britain was on the front line and the strung-out nature of its empire meant it was difficult to concentrate forces & resist for long enough for the Russian and American assistance to make a difference. Canada, India, South Africa & Australia were the strongest territories to build up in but the home islands were terribly vulnerable.
voltar
Drunken Russian
It seemed that the French were too far ahead, it would have taken me many turns to product anything resembling an expeditionary force. France had over 700 units and tons of cash, they would have been able to sustain losses quite easily.
I dunno, kind of a shame how quickly it all ended. I was enjoying my amateurish slow grinding build.
I dunno, kind of a shame how quickly it all ended. I was enjoying my amateurish slow grinding build.
Similar threads
