Sir Garnet wrote:Often territory is to the strong and swift rather than the weak with Just Cause, so having Just Cause decide who gets the stake may be too simplistic.
Considering that the contender starts with -1 Just Cause in all cases, this is not a problem. Actually, what happened in our case is that Italy made some empty threats and got the territory. Actually, if it had gone to war it would probably have ended losing Somalia as well, as the Germans were much stronger in East Africa and could simply steamroll them.
It is always an advantage to start a crisis if you are a nation with high Domination (I don't know what counts exactly to this: Imperialism? Prestige?) as you simply need to focus on Just Cause. On the other hand, a low dominating country must focus on both just cause AND reversing the domination game.
I believe the stake player who starts -1 must do anything to convince that he is either a bully (winning through Domination) or has a case (winning through Just Cause) or going to war (winning through arms, after losing though the crisis that spiraled out of control). But winning depends... if you win Domination you show off us the bravest, if you win Just Cause you show off as the most diplomatic. Obviously the goal is to win both!! But in the end, who gets a recognition over what is decided either by the other nations (who acknowledge) or through war. The Prestige in these cases is for the selection of actions that might lead to that.
Btw, It is normal that the receiving part of the stake (especially if having a higher Domination, as in our case) should be advantaged. If Germany knew that Italy would mobilize and make an ultimatum, it could have done the same ending in a war with Italy that Italy couldn't win... losing both the Prestige allotted AND its colonial territories.
One limitation is that all cards are played in one turn rather than more interactively over multiple turns (which was what I expected when I first bought the game). This means each side is shooting blind and can't respond to the other. But a lot can be done in just building a "hand." There is a lot of game theory and practice out there in the field of strategic card games, of which I am relatively ignorant - however, I do know that a lot of it is rock/scissors/paper relationships, card synergies, and sequencing strategies in aid of building a strategic position.
With 6 cards to play in sequence we ought to be able to find a way to have players layout the cards and have the sequence matter and serve different potential strategies. E.g., the owner keeps the protectorate but is drained of prestige due to the steps taken to do it because the stake player set it up that way.
The red cards, for example, need not have the same value if played at the start as they do later when groundwork is laid for them - whether a certain level of intensity that magnifies their impact, a dominance advantage to press, just cause being established as the foundation, or specific cards setting forth the country's pretext.
Just some ideas.
Well, that would have been cool but most crises had historically their culmination in just few days (a single turn in our game is already 15 days). Remember that it's already a multi-month project as you play the stake several turns (possibly) before the crisis erupts. So you could say that the crisis already takes a couple of months growing in steam. It might be possible to adjust the system in the future, but I don't find this imperative. There is already a combination of luck and agenda playing even if you cast your choices all at once.
If we separate Just Cause from Domination it's already pretty close to perfect. Add to that mediation of third nations (an advertised/designed but not yet implemented feature) and it IS perfect!
