Maharaja: Fix for Yellow?
Gary Robinson
So, has anyone come up with a working fix for the horrendous imbalance in
Maharaja (4-player version) ? We tried playing it again recently, this
time not removing the second set of Gupta removals, but that still left
them with only two pieces and Yellow got mauled as usual.
Any experiences with making Yellow fun to play would be appreciated... I
would rather adjust the playing pieces than the victory points because
Yellow has so few pieces in the mid and late game they aren't very fun to
play.
Gary
Will Quale
Gary Robinson (Wig...@cris.com) wrote:
: So, has anyone come up with a working fix for the horrendous imbalance in
We had this problem the last time Maharaja was played by our group. It was
a three player game, but even with the somewhat different tribe assignments,
the Gupta player (me) still had nothing to do for quite some time between
the second Gupta removal, which wiped them all out, and the arrival of the
French, who didn't have all that many pieces to begin with, and the Afgans,
who also don't have many pieces.
I've only played it the one time, so I can't speak with authority on the
matter, but cancelling the second Gupta removal sounds like a start, though
since they don't breed they'll eventually dwindle away anyhow. The forced
extinction of races in Maharaja gets to me. In Britannia, certain races
aren't intended to be long-lived (the Belgae, the Romano-British), but they
can still hang around longer than intended through a combination of luck and
bizarre tactics. I had R-B's on the board until Turn 14 once; they killed
three of the four remaining Saxons, and the fourth retreated from battle
only to be slain by the Welsh :> They were able to stick around because
breeding still happened, albeit quite infrequently. That just doesn't
happen in Maharaja, though, with the "X can't breed from now on" bits. How
radically would it alter the game to remove or lessen the birth control?
--will
Steve Burt
Gary Robinson <Wig...@cris.com> wrote in article
<5j0mgk$5...@chronicle.concentric.net>...
> So, has anyone come up with a working fix for the horrendous imbalance in
> Maharaja (4-player version) ? We tried playing it again recently, this
> time not removing the second set of Gupta removals, but that still left
> them with only two pieces and Yellow got mauled as usual.
>
This is always a problem with the player who is strong in mid game -
everyone attacks them (the same thing sometimes happens to red in
Brittania, but the balance is better there).
We've tried giving the Afghans to yellow. This has a number of merits:
1. It gives them something to do in the end game
2. It de-powers Blue, who otherwise seem over-powered
3. It gives everyone the same number of factions (Mauryas & Guptas are the
same one really).
4. It's simple.
Steve Burt
sb...@mdsi.co.uk
Niek van Diepen
"Steve Burt" <sb...@mdsi.co.uk> writes:
>Gary Robinson <Wig...@cris.com> wrote:
>> So, has anyone come up with a working fix for the horrendous imbalance in
>> Maharaja (4-player version) ? We tried playing it again recently, this
>> time not removing the second set of Gupta removals, but that still left
>> them with only two pieces and Yellow got mauled as usual.
>>
>This is always a problem with the player who is strong in mid game -
>everyone attacks them (the same thing sometimes happens to red in
>Brittania, but the balance is better there).
>We've tried giving the Afghans to yellow. This has a number of merits:
>1. It gives them something to do in the end game
>2. It de-powers Blue, who otherwise seem over-powered
>3. It gives everyone the same number of factions (Mauryas & Guptas are the
>same one really).
>4. It's simple.
We have been thinking about the following changes:
a. Instead of removing 8 Gupta's, halve the Gupta's each time (round in
favour of Yellow);
b. Let them grow on non-removal turns;
c. Give the Dutch an extra round of 2 reinforcements (this uses the last
Dutch counter too -- only one reinforcement enters if the Dutch have
taken no losses yet).
Still, there is little to do for Yellow in the second half. I like this
Afghan colour switch.
Niek van Diepen (ni...@cs.kun.nl)
Richard Heli
Will Quale wrote:
>
> Gary Robinson (Wig...@cris.com) wrote:
> : So, has anyone come up with a working fix for the horrendous imbalance in
> : Maharaja (4-player version) ? We tried playing it again recently, this
> : time not removing the second set of Gupta removals, but that still left
> : them with only two pieces and Yellow got mauled as usual.
>
> : Any experiences with making Yellow fun to play would be appreciated... I
> : would rather adjust the playing pieces than the victory points because
> : Yellow has so few pieces in the mid and late game they aren't very fun to
> : play.
>
> We had this problem the last time Maharaja was played by our group. It was
> a three player game, but even with the somewhat different tribe assignments,
> the Gupta player (me) still had nothing to do for quite some time between
> the second Gupta removal, which wiped them all out, and the arrival of the
> French, who didn't have all that many pieces to begin with, and the Afgans,
> who also don't have many pieces.
>
> I've only played it the one time, so I can't speak with authority on the
> matter, but cancelling the second Gupta removal sounds like a start, though
> since they don't breed they'll eventually dwindle away anyhow. The forced
> extinction of races in Maharaja gets to me. In Britannia, certain races
> aren't intended to be long-lived (the Belgae, the Romano-British), but they
> can still hang around longer than intended through a combination of luck and
> bizarre tactics. I had R-B's on the board until Turn 14 once; they killed
> three of the four remaining Saxons, and the fourth retreated from battle
> only to be slain by the Welsh :> They were able to stick around because
> breeding still happened, albeit quite infrequently. That just doesn't
> happen in Maharaja, though, with the "X can't breed from now on" bits. How
> radically would it alter the game to remove or lessen the birth control?
I think the game tries to hard to mirror what happened historically
without providing
any way for the reality to be reflected in game terms. If someone could
go into
the history, probably not the less-than-wonderful one provided with the
game rules,
and determine what these removals mean, there would probably be a better
chance
of making sense of it by inventing less arbitrary and draconian rules.
If a removal is indicative of a cultural inheritance, for example, why
not have a
shift along the lines of Romans to Romano-British instead?
Daniel U. Thibault
> >In Britannia, certain races
> >aren't intended to be long-lived (the Belgae, the Romano-British), but=
they
> >can still hang around longer than intended through a combination of lu=
ck and
> >bizarre tactics. I had R-B's on the board until Turn 14 once; they ki=
lled
> >three of the four remaining Saxons, and the fourth retreated from batt=
le
> >only to be slain by the Welsh :> They were able to stick around becaus=
e
> >breeding still happened, albeit quite infrequently.
That doesn't compare to the game I played where two Belgae survived
the Roman onslaught and sought refuge in Cornwall. As the game
unfolded, strange gods were looking over the dice because the Belgae
eventually wiped out the Welsh!
=
> The only version of Britannia I have played, the original Gibson's
> version, doesn't allow the R-B's to breed as far as I can remember. Doe=
s
> the AH version?
R-B's aren't allowed to breed on their first turn.
Daniel U. Thibault
a.k.a. Urhixidur
a.k.a. Boh=E9mond de Nic=E9e
Julian Barker
In article <5j0pc7$c...@larch.cc.swarthmore.edu>, Will Quale <will@condor
.sccs.swarthmore.edu> writes
>I've only played it the one time, so I can't speak with authority on the
>matter, but cancelling the second Gupta removal sounds like a start, though
>since they don't breed they'll eventually dwindle away anyhow. The forced
>extinction of races in Maharaja gets to me. In Britannia, certain races
>aren't intended to be long-lived (the Belgae, the Romano-British), but they
>can still hang around longer than intended through a combination of luck and
>bizarre tactics. I had R-B's on the board until Turn 14 once; they killed
>three of the four remaining Saxons, and the fourth retreated from battle
>only to be slain by the Welsh :> They were able to stick around because
>breeding still happened, albeit quite infrequently. That just doesn't
>happen in Maharaja, though, with the "X can't breed from now on" bits. How
>radically would it alter the game to remove or lessen the birth control?
>
>--will
The only version of Britannia I have played, the original Gibson's
version, doesn't allow the R-B's to breed as far as I can remember. Does
the AH version?
Julian
--
Julian Barker
There is a coherent plan in the universe,
though I don't know what it is a plan for.
- Fred Hoyle
Will Quale
Daniel U. Thibault (sel...@io.com) wrote:
: That doesn't compare to the game I played where two Belgae survived
: the Roman onslaught and sought refuge in Cornwall. As the game
: unfolded, strange gods were looking over the dice because the Belgae
: eventually wiped out the Welsh!
Egads! Did the Roman player have extremely bad die roles that you were able
to escape, or did he just try to go up the east coast and ignore the Welsh
and the western Belgae? The converse of this game is the strategy which I
keep hearing about and want to try when next I am the Romans--devote the
Roman armies to wiping out the Welsh in order to create a home for the
Romano-British, who then can pillage the Saxons ..
--will
Joshua Kaufman
On 18 Apr 1997 17:40:27 GMT, wi...@condor.sccs.swarthmore.edu (Will
Quale) wrote:
I don't like the strategy. It seems to me the majority of green's
points are scored by the Romans. And going after the Welsh seems to
be a losing proposition to me. I've actually thought about going
after the Welsh because it protects the Romano-British, but it just
doesn't seem worth it.
BTW, I've played a game where the Belgae survived the whole game. It
was pretty cool and pretty funny. The Romans did have bad dice rolls
against me, but the funny part was that other people (Saxons, Danes,
etc.) tried to kill me off because they were getting annoyed that I
kept living in the hills. But it didn't work. I just sat there
with 2 armies and kept on rolling 5's. They finally said the hell
with it and decided to let me live. It is pretty hilarious and
pretty rewarding to keep the Belgae alive for the whole game.
Daniel U. Thibault
> >: That doesn't compare to the game I played where two Belgae surviv=
ed
> >: the Roman onslaught and sought refuge in Cornwall. As the game
> >: eventually wiped out the Welsh!
> >
> >Egads! Did the Roman player have extremely bad die roles that you wer=
e able
> >to escape, or did he just try to go up the east coast and ignore the W=
elsh
> >and the western Belgae? The converse of this game is the strategy whi=
ch I
> >keep hearing about and want to try when next I am the Romans--devote t=
he
> >Roman armies to wiping out the Welsh in order to create a home for the=
> >Romano-British, who then can pillage the Saxons ..
The Roman used the rush-to-the-Picts strategy, skirting the Downlands
and that swamp, ignoring the Welsh entirely. The Belgae bred and made a
break for Cornwall. Once there, they slowly bred while the Welsh tried
to expel them, losing systematically (bad die rolls). The Belgae were
sort of "sucked" into the vacuum, eventually becoming numerous enough to
finish off the Welsh.
> I don't like the strategy. It seems to me the majority of green's
> points are scored by the Romans. And going after the Welsh seems to
> be a losing proposition to me. I've actually thought about going
> after the Welsh because it protects the Romano-British, but it just
> doesn't seem worth it.
It can make sense for the Romans to go after the Welsh and subdue
them. This allows the Roman to better fortify his possessions in
southern England, scoring well as a result. (And not suffering
hit-and-run raids from the Welsh)
Doctor K
> The Roman used the rush-to-the-Picts strategy, skirting the Downlands
> and that swamp, ignoring the Welsh entirely. The Belgae bred and made a
> break for Cornwall. Once there, they slowly bred while the Welsh tried
> to expel them, losing systematically (bad die rolls). The Belgae were
> sort of "sucked" into the vacuum, eventually becoming numerous enough to
> finish off the Welsh.
> > I don't like the strategy. It seems to me the majority of green's
> > points are scored by the Romans. And going after the Welsh seems to
> > be a losing proposition to me. I've actually thought about going
> > after the Welsh because it protects the Romano-British, but it just
> > doesn't seem worth it.
With slightly above average dice rolls, the Roman player can beat
submission out of the Brigs and the Welsh and still wipe the Belgae out.
It is VERY useful to have the Romans target the Welsh in Devon and
Cornwall. My ideal retreat to the R-B is to stack to high in Devon
Cornwall, Avalon and the Downlands as a nice link of their remaining 8
population. With some luck, they can survive to the end in
Devon/Cornwall.
Douglas_J._Evans
In article <3356C0...@io.com>
"Daniel U. Thibault" <sel...@io.com> writes:
>> >In Britannia, certain races
***snip, oh, snip***
Just thought I'd change the subject, as it HAS changed...
You never know when J. Martin's watching. ***kill, kill, kill, blood makes
the grass grow***
The_Beast
Steve Burt
Will wrote:
The converse of this game is the strategy which I
> keep hearing about and want to try when next I am the Romans--devote the
> Roman armies to wiping out the Welsh in order to create a home for the
>
odious in Britannia (as indeed are the Picts) because they have a big
counter mix and mostly highland area with some nice breeding area as well.
The downside (from the Purple player's point of view) is that it lets the
Irish and the Norsemen in, and can make life too easy for the Red player.
The Welsh are good at keeping the Saxons down. Without them, the Irish can
let them into Wales, which is very bad for everyone else.
If you happen to be playing the Welsh when the Romans try this, point out
this effect, they might just leave you alone and attack the nasty Picts
instead (they don't have time to wipe both of you out). This will also help
your nice Caledonians.
Genociding particular groups in Britannia often has unanticipated effects
much later in the game
Taking Devon &/or Cornwall is almsot always good for the Romans if they
have time, though.
Steve Burt
sb...@mdsi.co.uk
Edward
> > The Roman used the rush-to-the-Picts strategy, skirting the Downlands
> > and that swamp, ignoring the Welsh entirely. The Belgae bred and made a
> > break for Cornwall. Once there, they slowly bred while the Welsh tried
> > to expel them, losing systematically (bad die rolls). The Belgae were
> > sort of "sucked" into the vacuum, eventually becoming numerous enough to
> > finish off the Welsh.
>
> > > I don't like the strategy. It seems to me the majority of green's
> > > points are scored by the Romans. And going after the Welsh seems to
> > > be a losing proposition to me. I've actually thought about going
> > > after the Welsh because it protects the Romano-British, but it just
> > > doesn't seem worth it.
I agree. Get the Welsh to agree to submission, in return for not
killing
many of them, and letting them hold the hilands they want. Devon,
Cornwall,
and the northern and southern ones. You take the middle hiland in
Wales.
They evacuate the lowlands, to get down to 4 areas (with as many units
as
live), and submit. Roman then bails, with forts fairly safe, and a
balanced position for Green, Red and Blue in the south. Don't want any
of them running away with it.
Leaves the Roman free to subdue the Picts. Cut a deal with the
Brigantes
to fight Picts. Leave your R-B in Scotland, to pave the way for Fergus.
Let the Brigantes get their points for Strathclyde, while you conquer
the
rest of Scotland.
>
> With slightly above average dice rolls, the Roman player can beat
> submission out of the Brigs and the Welsh and still wipe the Belgae out.
But not the Picts. And the goal is to subdue the Picts. To help Fergus
and the Scots.
Mastermind
Excuse me, but my Romans always succeed into killing off the belgae, subduing the
brigands _and_ the picts. Targeting the welch will -imo- help the red player too
much(besides, you get more points for scotland). I don't think the romans can subdue
the welch also, especially since the welch player's first incitive will be to fight,
him holding a fairly good defensive position, wich will cost the romans in time and
legions.
I seem to recall it's illegal to put the Romano Brittisch in scotland, so the Romans
themselves should kill as many picts as they can. If the picts surrender quickly, move
on to the celedonians. That will help your scot's severely if you succeed in whiping
them out(although that's not _very_ likely) Cutting deals with the brigands to bash
leftover picts is also good.
M.
Frederic Bush
> Leaves the Roman free to subdue the Picts. Cut a deal with the
> Brigantes
> to fight Picts.
I would submit that it is a bad idea to cut a deal with the Brigantes.
They breed like crazy if the Romans don't attack them. In two of the three
games I've played, the Brigantes have been able to completely wipe out the
Angles with little difficulty, thus leaving Red in complete control of
England until very late in the game. Plus, Brigantes score lots of points,
more than the Picts.
The problem with the Roman player is that not only does he need to score
points for himself, he also needs to stop other players from scoring
points. The Roman is the major curb on the Brigantes and the Welsh.
Annihilating the Belgae is less important from a game balance point of
view, because they hardly score any points: so what if they hide in
Devon? Annihilating Brigantes is better, and at least touching the
(inevitably high-scoring) Welsh or Picts is essential.
Fred Bush
fbu...@cc.swarthmore.edu Dream. Imagine. Wonder.
Swarthmore, PA
Z. Johnson
Frederic Bush wrote:
> I would submit that it is a bad idea to cut a deal with the Brigantes.
> They breed like crazy if the Romans don't attack them. In two of the three
> games I've played, the Brigantes have been able to completely wipe out the
> Angles with little difficulty, thus leaving Red in complete control of
> England until very late in the game. Plus, Brigantes score lots of points,
> more than the Picts.
Very true. A strong Brigante player in the middle game can rack up the
points at an unbelievable rate, and if they last until the endgame it's
almost a guaranteed win for red. The Brigantes need to be seriously
hurt to reduce Red's (fairly high) chance of winning, and the Romans are
in the best position to do this.
> The problem with the Roman player is that not only does he need to score
> points for himself, he also needs to stop other players from scoring
> points. The Roman is the major curb on the Brigantes and the Welsh.
> Annihilating the Belgae is less important from a game balance point of
> view, because they hardly score any points: so what if they hide in
> Devon? Annihilating Brigantes is better, and at least touching the
> (inevitably high-scoring) Welsh or Picts is essential.
>
Again, I agree. The Belgae are not worth the effort, although I would
go for the Picts before going for the Welsh; cutting the Picts down to
size will provide an opening for the Scots and hidey-holes for the (much
hunted) Romano-British. Purple can't win off the Romans alone, they
need to set up northern England and Scotland to get as many points as
possible off the Scots and Dubliners.
-Z. Johnson
John David Galt
> The problem with the Roman player is that not only does he need to score
> points for himself, he also needs to stop other players from scoring
> points. The Roman is the major curb on the Brigantes and the Welsh.
> Annihilating the Belgae is less important from a game balance point of
> view, because they hardly score any points: so what if they hide in
> Devon?
I've played in two games where the Romans made a deal not to kill off the
Belgae; once as blue, once as purple. It doesn't work for either player.
If Purple uses the truce to send all the more force (either as Romans, or
Romano-British) against the Scots, then Blue has made a bad deal; the
Scots have much more scoring potential than the Belgae. If the Romans
_don't_ do this, then the Belgae have no reason not to break the truce on
Turn 5 and kill every fort in sight, because they have no reason to live
longer anyway, and Purple will not be in a position to hurt Blue again
until the Dubliners come. (The Scots? Not likely. If the Picts have
been left alone until Turn 5, there should be two Picts in every space
where the Scots can land on Turns 6 and 7. And neither Red nor Green can
afford to attack the Picts enough to matter.)
If I'm the Romans, I usually start with the "Pennines-in-one" strategy
that was in The General. This usually involves a non-aggression pact
with the Welsh, which makes sense for both players. A major war between
those two powers would cost both Purple and Green the game. The Welsh do
need to be attacked some, but that is mainly the Red player's job.
In my view, Britannia is "balanced" only in the sense that, if everyone
follows the "script", the players come out fairly even. Otherwise, the
first person who should have been attacked but wasn't usually wins. For
this reason it's important, even more than in most games, to ban the kind
of player who gives lots of "advice" in order to use others as puppets.
John David Galt
Daniel U. Thibault
> Again, I agree. The Belgae are not worth the effort, although =
I would
> go for the Picts before going for the Welsh; cutting the Picts down to
h
> hunted) Romano-British. Purple can't win off the Romans alone, they
> need to set up northern England and Scotland to get as many points as
> possible off the Scots and Dubliners.
It's not so much that the Belgae "aren't worth the effort"; it's mor
a matter of "they are in the way". Whatever path the Roman takes, he's
gonna walk all over the Belgae on his way there...
Gary Johnson
John David Galt (j...@but-i-dont-like-spam.boxmail.com) wrote:
:
: I've played in two games where the Romans made a deal not to kill off the
: Belgae; once as blue, once as purple. It doesn't work for either player.
: If Purple uses the truce to send all the more force (either as Romans, or
: Romano-British) against the Scots, then Blue has made a bad deal; the
: Scots have much more scoring potential than the Belgae. If the Romans
: _don't_ do this, then the Belgae have no reason not to break the truce on
: Turn 5 and kill every fort in sight, because they have no reason to live
: longer anyway, and Purple will not be in a position to hurt Blue again
: until the Dubliners come.
Well, have seen the Belgae used quite effectively to thoroughly stuff up
the Saxons, letting the Angles do the running in England. While the Danes
prospered later in the game, the Welsh had been pulverised by the Romans
en route to the Brigantes, so green didn't get up over blue. I'm fairly
certain blue won.
[remainder snipped]
Yours,
Gary Johnson
_________________________________________________________________________
The Red Skull: You finally see that this is the way it *must* be--two
gods locked in a raging battle--for all *eternity*!
Captain America: SHUT UP! We are *not* two gods! We are just two tired
old men! from Captain America #300
-------------------------------------------------------------------------