Really enjoyed this stream, but having watched it, I think I have a different perspective to how this campaign played out than the players did. And I think it's a great example of John Company's storytelling at work. During the end game discussion, the players all spoke about Army Spending as though it was the one thing keeping the Company afloat. But really, in my view, it was what sunk the Company. The key thing to remember is that the army costs the Company money, but doesn't directly *make* the Company any money. As soon as Army Spending is enacted, that's an additional 6 pounds in Company expenses (from regiments) every turn. And then, with the bonus Officer action, it's another 4 pounds on top of that. So immediately, the turn after the law is enacted, the company has 10 more pounds of overhead, with no further income. And the players just keep throwing officers at the army - because, as Greg said, why wouldn't they? - further increasing expenses. And then a vicious cycle begins. The Company has a huge army, so they want to use it. So they give more money to the presidencies to buy local alliances to further bolster the armies, rather than buying ships to trade with. And because deployment is so lucrative, the commanders are incentivized to push as hard as they can - if they fail a roll, throw more armies at the enemy to try again. If they succeed, push further into India to to reap more spoils. Which means that the Company's territory is left undefended when the local populace fights back. Which closes off trade. Which incentives more military spending to reopen trade. Which leaves no money for ships to trade with. Which means the company won't be able to meet expenses. Which means the players have no incentive to keep the Company afloat, because it's already sunk. Which further pushes them to get as much as they can out of the military while it's still available. Of course, that's not a knock against the game - that's exactly the argument the design is making. The greed of individual actors coupled with structural incentives from both the institution of the Company and British society worked in tandem to fuel atrocities. It's neat to see it play out in the game, and have the players not even really aware of what's going on.
Accidentally stumbled on this video while learning the game. I read the rules just before you move to the next phase and then watched you play it to make sure I understood it. Now I am even more excited to play this with my group :D
@@Heavycardboard Finished now. Brutal. I love the game but am still on the fence on how it can be a bad experience based on luck. I love the risk management aspect of the game's luck, but it feels like it can ruin games sometimes for some players or, in this case, for everyone.
3:13:35 Litterally, there are far more options with the governors, since they can raise tax and put those in the Presidency box, which can then Trade !! (after the Commander has reopened the orders there)
Yet another great JC2E stream. I’m getting my copy this coming week - more than a little excited about that. One request that I hope isn’t too heretical: could you get a dice tower that keeps the dice in? 😂
All local alliances have to be purchased before any deploy actions, rulebook pg. 22. Can never hire more local alliances later. (was discussed but not performed)
If I understood the rules correctly, the decision to use the Royal Protection (1:48:15) was potentially wasteful. Taking four emergency loans (four is 3+) would have only lowered the company standing by 2, plus 1 for not meeting expectations. The company would still survive. And then the vote for deregulation would set the company standing back to '£10'. Of course, any region loss during the Events in India would then be disastrous, but Bengal does have some defence. So would it have been worth risking hanging on to the Royal Protection for later ... ?
I see where you’re thinking is, but at that point we were trying to salvage and kinda reset a bit, thinking it won’t continue to go that badly, right? RIGHT?!? Whoops, heh
I think on this version of history, given the foreign invasions, the French or the Dutch Will build the Empire on which the sur never sets! XD thanks for the new playthrough! I love your games of Oath and JC (I can't seem to convince other people to play those games... I must be bad at convincing them). Alyssa couldn't get à break it seems! I feel bad for her, coz she played really well!
You have to also consider failure chance---it's best to compute an expected value for each play, where you multiply the revenue by the overall probability of success, then subtract the cost from that result. My suspicion is that, if you do that, some or most of your plays had a negative expected value. In my opinion the company could've still been successful even with the events and the bad rolls.
Thank you for this play-through! I found it to be the perfect showing of the game for two reasons. 1. It presented the fragile and weird states the game allowes to be brought into (by the players and the game itself). It is my understanding that this is one of the integral parts of the design and I found the play-through to encapsulate this sandboxy nature perfectly. For some, this fragility might be a downside, for others the wide range of expressive possibilities this allows for might be very compelling. This leads me to 2. Even though it seemed like this specific play-through of the game was a little disappointing at least to a part of the group, as a piece of storytelling I found it to be very memorable. And in this story the game told, it made perfect sense that the company had to fail this early. This again shows in my oppinion one of the central aspects of the game which is that it demands a certain willingnes by the players to just come along for the ride and to accept (and ideally enjoy) the experience it provides. And this might not be the experience that you signed up for when the game started. In that regard I find the criticism during the discussion completely reasonable since this unpredictability, and to a certain extend, lack of agency might tarnish the experience for you. So all in all another informative and very enjoyable play-through by @Heavycardboard. Thank you!
3:04:02 Weak shares !! with the Company standard and/or the debt positions, the Company shares are no more available for investment into firms. Only workshops now permit new investments. It would be too easy ! A player with 5 shares in a Company next to failure could wipe out of it losing no points at the end of the game !!
Great game....few rules issues, but hopefully didn't influence the game (thanks chat!). Keeping the company afloat with a huge military is tough. That's a lot of expense. I found it funny that a few people were negoiating with Alyssa, but she was actively seeking to go against the company. A few times she auto voted against stuff (one because she didn't want to pay a buck), and I feel like she could have sold her votes for money money? For me, this is a kind of game where if you just act without even entertaining a deal, it falls flat. We played out first game last week, company failed in round 4 after my partners all thought they were winning? Turned out the person who wanted to fail the most came in last....so there's that! Looks like Ken won because of two decent retirements and spouses with 4. Military helped as well as the only firm that did something?
Hi Edward and congrats on the great playthrough i would like to ask why in london season someone would choose to send a family member to the two coin option since it doesn't give them any prize (i guess to spend more money and therefore to have the option of choosing a better card) also can our members be transferred from one prize option to another? thank you very much!
In order to chose one card if you don't spend anything else, in case only 3 players may retire, for example. And some spouses may be 2 or 3 victory points (with zero upkeep). Plus, if a player paid £2 to be in the 4 box (with £2 discount), you might pick your card before them, provide you possess more windows)
3:26:30 Actually, the former Prime Minister (Sykes family) should have one more power, because he passed 2 laws plus the deregulation law : that would made Benyon and Sykes equal for Power, so thay should both get 2 vp : Benyon should end with 3 less VP !!
Ironically, if you had all passed that "boring law" that would've put loot into the company coffers, it would've given you a way to keep the company afloat in the face of a strong and hostile India. As far as the end of the game being uninteresting, I think you hit a really nasty edge case where you got back to back Foreign Invasions followed by several absolutely critical bad rolls.
3:42:45 You didn't have bad events ! you merely had few events. I saw games with 4 events, 3 turns in a row, which is , believe me, quite challenging. You didn't get bad rolls either : you just took too much risk. Especially in military affairs, but in trade affairs too. 80% of succeed is very little for a trade or combat that will have damatic consequences. Because, 80% seems a lot when you have only one roll to succeed in, but let multiply those : 80% x 80% makes only 64% of chances to succeed in two crucial consecutive actions. The real thing, is the game is very difficult and frustrating. Cause you would need most of the times rather 5 or 6 dice to pass correctly. Which means far much more investments, and therefore less rentability. And though, you did not experience yet a deregulated market with 2 or more competitive firms ! Not only has the Company little chances to survive that, but probably one firm will most often easily go to bankrupt.... So, the Company is really difficult to manage correctly. And so are the firms. Plus, the chance in retirements can be quite unfair. I think a very little less risk could make the difference between a game that may easily become chaotic and one that would reward players efforts better. I'm finding out home rules in that direction. Kind of lower luck game. Cause, appart from that, the game is so cool.
Really enjoyed this stream, but having watched it, I think I have a different perspective to how this campaign played out than the players did. And I think it's a great example of John Company's storytelling at work.
During the end game discussion, the players all spoke about Army Spending as though it was the one thing keeping the Company afloat. But really, in my view, it was what sunk the Company. The key thing to remember is that the army costs the Company money, but doesn't directly *make* the Company any money. As soon as Army Spending is enacted, that's an additional 6 pounds in Company expenses (from regiments) every turn. And then, with the bonus Officer action, it's another 4 pounds on top of that. So immediately, the turn after the law is enacted, the company has 10 more pounds of overhead, with no further income. And the players just keep throwing officers at the army - because, as Greg said, why wouldn't they? - further increasing expenses.
And then a vicious cycle begins. The Company has a huge army, so they want to use it. So they give more money to the presidencies to buy local alliances to further bolster the armies, rather than buying ships to trade with. And because deployment is so lucrative, the commanders are incentivized to push as hard as they can - if they fail a roll, throw more armies at the enemy to try again. If they succeed, push further into India to to reap more spoils. Which means that the Company's territory is left undefended when the local populace fights back. Which closes off trade. Which incentives more military spending to reopen trade. Which leaves no money for ships to trade with. Which means the company won't be able to meet expenses. Which means the players have no incentive to keep the Company afloat, because it's already sunk. Which further pushes them to get as much as they can out of the military while it's still available.
Of course, that's not a knock against the game - that's exactly the argument the design is making. The greed of individual actors coupled with structural incentives from both the institution of the Company and British society worked in tandem to fuel atrocities. It's neat to see it play out in the game, and have the players not even really aware of what's going on.
Accidentally stumbled on this video while learning the game. I read the rules just before you move to the next phase and then watched you play it to make sure I understood it. Now I am even more excited to play this with my group :D
HC completely on fire right now. What a stellar start to this year
"All this does is make we want to play it again, now." Amen, Edward.
great to see Greg again!
Came to watch this only now. Saw the 3h44 time and went "well this probably went downhill pretty fast" hahahaha
Let's check it out!
I laughed, I cried...a lot.😂
@@Heavycardboard Finished now. Brutal. I love the game but am still on the fence on how it can be a bad experience based on luck. I love the risk management aspect of the game's luck, but it feels like it can ruin games sometimes for some players or, in this case, for everyone.
3:13:35 Litterally, there are far more options with the governors, since they can raise tax and put those in the Presidency box, which can then Trade !! (after the Commander has reopened the orders there)
Yet another great JC2E stream. I’m getting my copy this coming week - more than a little excited about that. One request that I hope isn’t too heretical: could you get a dice tower that keeps the dice in? 😂
Turn 2 Madras deploy failed, but the officers neglected to roll death checks, rulebook pg. 22.
3:24:32 firm expenses and dividend should go before Company expense (and Failure)
All local alliances have to be purchased before any deploy actions, rulebook pg. 22. Can never hire more local alliances later. (was discussed but not performed)
3:19:18 Can't Ken use his dspouse discount to get to the upper manor, since dividends permit him to invest 6 + 4 discount... ?
watching this right now and just laughing at everything - this game is way too good. I've been playing a lot on TTS, but hoping I can table it more.
Nice to see Greg again and "bye Ken " at least for a few weeks after that game.
3:01:26 with his roll back, Edwards forgot to move his glass onion on to the Buy Luxury position...
Pounds, not Dollars ;) You started so well with saying Quid...
Turn 2 Bengal region loss, the officer should have rolled a death check for officer rout, rulebook pg. 29.
If I understood the rules correctly, the decision to use the Royal Protection (1:48:15) was potentially wasteful. Taking four emergency loans (four is 3+) would have only lowered the company standing by 2, plus 1 for not meeting expectations. The company would still survive. And then the vote for deregulation would set the company standing back to '£10'. Of course, any region loss during the Events in India would then be disastrous, but Bengal does have some defence. So would it have been worth risking hanging on to the Royal Protection for later ... ?
I see where you’re thinking is, but at that point we were trying to salvage and kinda reset a bit, thinking it won’t continue to go that badly, right? RIGHT?!? Whoops, heh
@@Heavycardboard Having now watched the Events in India, you were right to use Royal Protection. The region loss would have triggered company failure.
I think on this version of history, given the foreign invasions, the French or the Dutch Will build the Empire on which the sur never sets! XD
thanks for the new playthrough! I love your games of Oath and JC (I can't seem to convince other people to play those games... I must be bad at convincing them).
Alyssa couldn't get à break it seems! I feel bad for her, coz she played really well!
Tell me about it! 😄
You have to also consider failure chance---it's best to compute an expected value for each play, where you multiply the revenue by the overall probability of success, then subtract the cost from that result. My suspicion is that, if you do that, some or most of your plays had a negative expected value.
In my opinion the company could've still been successful even with the events and the bad rolls.
Thank you for this play-through! I found it to be the perfect showing of the game for two reasons. 1. It presented the fragile and weird states the game allowes to be brought into (by the players and the game itself). It is my understanding that this is one of the integral parts of the design and I found the play-through to encapsulate this sandboxy nature perfectly. For some, this fragility might be a downside, for others the wide range of expressive possibilities this allows for might be very compelling. This leads me to 2. Even though it seemed like this specific play-through of the game was a little disappointing at least to a part of the group, as a piece of storytelling I found it to be very memorable. And in this story the game told, it made perfect sense that the company had to fail this early. This again shows in my oppinion one of the central aspects of the game which is that it demands a certain willingnes by the players to just come along for the ride and to accept (and ideally enjoy) the experience it provides. And this might not be the experience that you signed up for when the game started. In that regard I find the criticism during the discussion completely reasonable since this unpredictability, and to a certain extend, lack of agency might tarnish the experience for you.
So all in all another informative and very enjoyable play-through by @Heavycardboard. Thank you!
Rough game, well done. Eager to play myself.
3:04:02 Weak shares !! with the Company standard and/or the debt positions, the Company shares are no more available for investment into firms. Only workshops now permit new investments. It would be too easy ! A player with 5 shares in a Company next to failure could wipe out of it losing no points at the end of the game !!
Great game....few rules issues, but hopefully didn't influence the game (thanks chat!). Keeping the company afloat with a huge military is tough. That's a lot of expense. I found it funny that a few people were negoiating with Alyssa, but she was actively seeking to go against the company. A few times she auto voted against stuff (one because she didn't want to pay a buck), and I feel like she could have sold her votes for money money? For me, this is a kind of game where if you just act without even entertaining a deal, it falls flat.
We played out first game last week, company failed in round 4 after my partners all thought they were winning? Turned out the person who wanted to fail the most came in last....so there's that! Looks like Ken won because of two decent retirements and spouses with 4. Military helped as well as the only firm that did something?
Hi Edward and congrats on the great playthrough i would like to ask why in london season someone would choose to send a family member to the two coin option since it doesn't give them any prize (i guess to spend more money and therefore to have the option of choosing a better card) also can our members be transferred from one prize option to another? thank you very much!
In order to chose one card if you don't spend anything else, in case only 3 players may retire, for example. And some spouses may be 2 or 3 victory points (with zero upkeep). Plus, if a player paid £2 to be in the 4 box (with £2 discount), you might pick your card before them, provide you possess more windows)
Wow. You had no luck with events in India
2:54:43 Actually the Prime Minister should have won one more passed law token when deregulation was voted !
the Obra Dinn, right ?
3:26:30 Actually, the former Prime Minister (Sykes family) should have one more power, because he passed 2 laws plus the deregulation law : that would made Benyon and Sykes equal for Power, so thay should both get 2 vp : Benyon should end with 3 less VP !!
Is hiring mandatory, if possible?
Did Ken’s firm pay its expenses in the penultimate turn?
3:01:51 Weak shares Cannot be invested in firms !
Me, two hours in: I think I see why this video length is only 3.5 hours...
The game reeeeeeally hated them.
You can say that again!
Ironically, if you had all passed that "boring law" that would've put loot into the company coffers, it would've given you a way to keep the company afloat in the face of a strong and hostile India.
As far as the end of the game being uninteresting, I think you hit a really nasty edge case where you got back to back Foreign Invasions followed by several absolutely critical bad rolls.
3:42:45 You didn't have bad events ! you merely had few events. I saw games with 4 events, 3 turns in a row, which is , believe me, quite challenging. You didn't get bad rolls either : you just took too much risk. Especially in military affairs, but in trade affairs too. 80% of succeed is very little for a trade or combat that will have damatic consequences. Because, 80% seems a lot when you have only one roll to succeed in, but let multiply those : 80% x 80% makes only 64% of chances to succeed in two crucial consecutive actions. The real thing, is the game is very difficult and frustrating. Cause you would need most of the times rather 5 or 6 dice to pass correctly. Which means far much more investments, and therefore less rentability. And though, you did not experience yet a deregulated market with 2 or more competitive firms ! Not only has the Company little chances to survive that, but probably one firm will most often easily go to bankrupt.... So, the Company is really difficult to manage correctly. And so are the firms. Plus, the chance in retirements can be quite unfair. I think a very little less risk could make the difference between a game that may easily become chaotic and one that would reward players efforts better. I'm finding out home rules in that direction. Kind of lower luck game. Cause, appart from that, the game is so cool.
please, please, stream a solo game with Ricky!