I'm thinking that maybe it's a good idea to start talking about how smaller factions-whether it's minor Clans, or Periphery states, or just little states like the UIW, can get the most playability out of their limited resources, whether it's on the strategic/tactical scale of the game, or the political/roleplay side, or just how to get the most from your (smaller) state's economy.
The challenges that smaller factions face in this game (or any other set in the BT environment) are actually quite different from the challenges faced by bigger nations-you're closer to the 'edge' in terms of remaining viable, playable, and fun.
I'd even go so far as to say that the relative 'challenge Rating' (to borrow from D&D's 3.5 and later rulesets) is a bit higher, meaning that smaller states have to actually pay a bit more attention to rarely-used parts of the rules that the big players really don't need to look at much-rules items that can be overcome with raw forcepower by a Lyran Alliance or Dominion, need to be approached with a bit more care, and where the big players have Dhoomstax as line-items, you've got to be a bit more flexible with the limited forces you have to fight with.
After all, generally a smaller faction doesn't have a lot of space to trade for time, nor a huge military that can only get better as it loses units in massive, attritional assaults.
a small faction, going on the offensive, therefore needs to maximize the effectiveness of every unit it can afford to deploy, while keeping in mind that it can't afford to deploy units in huge stacks-of-doom, due to its relative fragility-instead, the approach has to be one of making most-and-best-use of fewer forces, and accepting that territorial gains come with a price, even if it's not paid immediately in the Invasion thread.
So, let's talk about how smaller factions can keep themselves viable, effective, and fun to play.
The most obvious option to a micro-realms survival is political association. Group with a larger state that's close enough to help you, but make sure you keep your autonomy.
I think when it comes to micro states, their advantage is that the only sorts of players who want to play them are ones who have the energy and desire to do a lot of good RP and really stake out a place for themselves. Mostly, that means trade relations, but most smaller states have tended to attract a sort of power patron, like the Terrans were for the MH, who can offer them political cover (or millitary cover if it comes to that). So I think the key tactics would be political tactics: make sure you have more friends and stronger friends than you have enemies. And then make sure your have enough commerce with thouse friends that you can make a lot of extra money and start to claw your way up from microstate status (though by my mind, most of the small factions are hardly 'micro'; only Niops, Randis and just maybe the UIW really fit that bill, and the last only because all the states around it have become huge and powerful over the years.)
When it comes to fighting... I don't know that the game has yet seen a smaller state take on one of the great houses or one of the significant Clans (most of which have conquored and amalgamated themselves up to that level anyway). Not just and win, but at all. One time the OA and the DC fought for a turn, but there was almost no actual fighting, just the OA running away and then a negotiated solution (if memory serves, the OA just lied about the whole Horse thing). But the MH and MoC only ever fought each other, since the FWL and Terrans either didn't get involved or else they were too occiped pummeling eachother. Even that crazy CPS thing only ever
And I think that's the ticket. There's little to gain from a confrountation, and everything to lose. I tried a few cheeky manuvers with the Mandrills, who were smallish, and it never worked out well. Though some of that may be that I didn't have my political house well enough in order for any number of reasons (consitantly changing clan players for one, and honestly it wouldn't really have been IC for me to make deals with the IS powers, how ever important it may have been).
If you had to fight a larger power? Be flexable, I guess, so there's no sense in a manual for that. Concentrate if you need to, spread if you need to. And scream for back up.
The roleplay is what attracted me to running a small nation like the Marian Hegemony. There was a lot of highly developed background from my predecessors, and I did my best to stay true to it. However, that meant developing infrastructure and limited naval assets during the timejump, rather than building a completely unjustified, massive military machine. The nukes were a precaution against the stacks o doom that a larger power might throw against me, but little did I know what was about to happen.
The Spirit Cats invaded without any regard for the roleplay or development of the Hegemony. They saw a juicy, isolated target and they went for it. Only the political machinations of others have seen to the survival of the Marian nation. That's one of the reasons I'm ready to throw in the towel. Without the "respectability" of a larger nation, I don't think the Marian Hegemony is viable as an independent power. My opponents seem all to willing to pretend that the Marian Hegemony is just a bunch of pirates whose worlds need to be liberated, so rather than see it torn to pieces and their culture destroyed, Caesar's heirs are prepared to throw their lot in with the Lyran Alliance.
Whenever players ignore roleplay and approach the game the way they would a Risk board, smaller states will be at a disadvantage.
---
Quote from: GI Journalist on August 23, 2011, 09:09:13 AM
The roleplay is what attracted me to running a small nation like the Marian Hegemony. There was a lot of highly developed background from my predecessors, and I did my best to stay true to it. However, that meant developing infrastructure and limited naval assets during the timejump, rather than building a completely unjustified, massive military machine. The nukes were a precaution against the stacks o doom that a larger power might throw against me, but little did I know what was about to happen.
The Spirit Cats invaded without any regard for the roleplay or development of the Hegemony. They saw a juicy, isolated target and they went for it. Only the political machinations of others have seen to the survival of the Marian nation. That's one of the reasons I'm ready to throw in the towel. Without the "respectability" of a larger nation, I don't think the Marian Hegemony is viable as an independent power. My opponents seem all to willing to pretend that the Marian Hegemony is just a bunch of pirates whose worlds need to be liberated, so rather than see it torn to pieces and their culture destroyed, Caesar's heirs are prepared to throw their lot in with the Lyran Alliance.
Whenever players ignore roleplay and approach the game the way they would a Risk board, smaller states will be at a disadvantage.
---
That is...really depressing. Please, don't quit!!
he isn't, he's going to RP the nobility of the MH, but instead of being soverigns themselves, they'll rule as Dukes of Alphard. Considering their distance from Tharkad and the Estates General however, little is actually going to change, except that instead of 'Hail Caesar', it'll be 'Hail the Archon'...or so the Archon hopes :P
Yeah....The FWL is going to LOVE that. ;-) But don't worry we won't ignore the Role play when we bring you to heel. ;D
Unfortunetly for the FWL, the Lyrans(especially the Archon) couldn't give a surat's ass what the FWL thinks. :)
The Lyran's espcially the Archon survive as a nation state on the Captain-General's sufferance.
I do believe the Archon required the Captain-General's permission to take the throne on Tharkad.
It is one thing to have ungrateful neighbor's but cursed is he who has ungrateful servants.
;D
Heh heh heh
That is my response to you sir ::)
there should be an evil, scheming grin in there somewhere, but theres no emoticon, so this works too. Just you wait my friend, we'll see who sits what throne at whose sufferance soon enough
Quote from: chaosxtreme on August 23, 2011, 08:48:14 PM
It is one thing to have ungrateful neighbor's but cursed is he who has ungrateful servants.
Well let's assume that for a minute, that makes you the cursed one... impacting me not at all. Of course, the Lyrans arn't your servants, but considering the uprising you're facing, I'd have to agree that you ARE cursed, and that your servants don't know their place.
Oh by the way, how long did it take the FWL to smash the Adder fleet? Oh thats right, they escaped from you. Pretty sad showing from the 'almighty FWLN', 'eh? ;)
Consider yourself as now having an opponent in the Propoganda department. The Department might be named after you, but I'll show you who the boss is :P
They didn't escape me.
They complained to the GM until their fleet got magic'ed back into existence after I destroyed their fleet twice.
I then proved I had destroyed their fleet several time's over by pointing out salvaged Adder ship's that had been blown up and salvaged more then once.
Forefitting said ship's but not the damage they had done but meh.
It was the principle.
There was a lot more than that, the DC had the lead and most of the forces. Through GM intervention and disregard of the rules, the adder fleet escaped.
Best thing was seeing ships destroyed the turn before, fighting again.
Actually Chaos, what happened was that a specific person made an error when he ran the end-of-turn resolution, which went against the proscribed orders that had been laid out for the CSA fleet. They didn't whine and get it magick'd back in, they complained that their orders had not been followed- and rightly so.
THAT is why there was a redo over Coventry in the final pre-jump turn. As to warships miraculously not dying, yeah, shennanigens were present, or honest mistakes/oversights. Either way, the IG explaination(where all this propoganda would be playing out anyways)- they escaped. The FWLN was unable to hold the CSA fleet and destroy it in detail(the fact that the FWLN was outnumbered by the DCA is immaterial to this argument, as CLEARLY, the FWL considers itself the primary naval power in the region...and by region, i mean the known universe).
Thus, you let them slip away. Hah! :) let the in-game(friendly) flamewar begin!
Coventry had issues all over the damn place, but it was almost entirely a big-state show.
Actually DK no one who played at Coventry agree's with that point of view.
One of the GM's at the time of Coventry doesn't agree with that point of view.
Now I could comment on how often such "mistake's" seemed to be made by a "certain person".
Or I could bring up the written board rule that says that if your combat thread's are not completed you don't get to do a special set of instructions on how it should be finished, The GM just completes it in the simplest manner possible.
I could point out how the other side of Coventry did not get to do special orders even when they had been sent in either time. and our covert operations that would have effected combat did not take place.
I could do all that and more but I don't have to because none of the "a certain person" play this game any more. So pointing out that they cheated is irrelevant. Naming them is irrelevant.
You may continue to espouse your position its America you have the Constitution given right to be heard even when wrong. :-)
But the body of evidence, and perception of those who were focused in on it do not agree with you. A independent third person arbiter does not agree with you.
Thus whenever it comes up I will not hesitate to make it clear that "a certain person" cheated and got away with it.
I am also proud to say that the FWL made this palatable by making things right for its allies out of its own pocket. Giving them first shot to replace losses out of salvage AND first crack at the warships that were salvaged.
QuoteI am also proud to say that the FWL made this palatable by making things right for its allies out of its own pocket. Giving them first shot to replace losses out of salvage AND first crack at the warships that were salvaged.
That's how you buy loyalty ;)
Quote from: chaosxtreme on August 24, 2011, 12:26:46 PM
Actually DK no one who played at Coventry agree's with that point of view.
One of the GM's at the time of Coventry doesn't agree with that point of view.
Now I could comment on how often such "mistake's" seemed to be made by a "certain person".
Or I could bring up the written board rule that says that if your combat thread's are not completed you don't get to do a special set of instructions on how it should be finished, The GM just completes it in the simplest manner possible.
I could point out how the other side of Coventry did not get to do special orders even when they had been sent in either time. and our covert operations that would have effected combat did not take place.
I could do all that and more but I don't have to because none of the "a certain person" play this game any more. So pointing out that they cheated is irrelevant. Naming them is irrelevant.
You may continue to espouse your position its America you have the Constitution given right to be heard even when wrong. :-)
But the body of evidence, and perception of those who were focused in on it do not agree with you. A independent third person arbiter does not agree with you.
Thus whenever it comes up I will not hesitate to make it clear that "a certain person" cheated and got away with it.
I am also proud to say that the FWL made this palatable by making things right for its allies out of its own pocket. Giving them first shot to replace losses out of salvage AND first crack at the warships that were salvaged.
This response confuses me, perhaps because I think the phrase "a certain person" is being used to refer to different people in different parts of the post.
For the record: the results for Coventry had to be re-done because the first time around the rules were not followed. To the best of my knowledge, this was not deliberate (i.e. it was an issue of misunderstanding the written rules, not of cheating) but it still required re-review because of the rather extreme effect the error had on the outcome.
Problem was that The redo was even more off and this time their was no redo or questions we could ask, we just had to take it.
At the risk of wresting this topic back from the threadjackers who have run away with it, I find being a smaller state caught between the politics of larger powers a challenge. ::)
I too made some mistakes with a fleet of mine. However, rather than try and go back and retcon everything, I preferred to make it a plot point. The Lost Legion fleet will be seen as the tipping point that forced the Marian Hegemony into some hard decisions. Since the Free Worlds League never recognized the legitimacy of the Marian Hegemony, a marriage into the Steiner family seemed the only way to retain their cultural identity, even if they are losing their political independence.
The alternative to joining the Lyran Alliance was to be ripped to shreds by its enemies. I suppose its possible they could have survived as a Star League protectorate, but that had very little appeal. As it is, most of my remaining Legio are under Star League control. It's a better fate than some other smaller states in so much as I'm saving it from complete cultural annihilation.
---
That is reminds me wanted to discuss some plot points with you. I will send you an PM.