Tuesday, September 5, 2017

1763 - 1764 : Turn 1 Results

Thanks to the players for getting your turn 1 arguments in.  I know the first step in a Matrix game can be a little daunting if you have never played one before.  They were a great set of arguments and show that you guys put a lot of thought into them.

Here are the turn 1 results.  Players and observers, feel free to comment with any suggestions on format, etc.

Next set of arguments for the 1765-66 turn are due by Friday night / Saturday morning (let me know if this does not work)

A hint: If you wish, you can use results from this turn as a springboard for your arguments next turn, which will make them stronger.

1763 - 1764
Summary

As the disruption of the French and Indian War settles down, the colony of South Carolina is in a state of flux.

  • The Backcountry Farmers, worried about the threat of the Cherokee, have organized their militias into a network of patrols to defend themselves
  • The Low Country planters see that Parliament is going to try to increase their revenues from the colonies in order to recoup the monies spend during the French and Indian War.
    • To protect their own interests, they have sent an envoy to London to use their considerable financial resources to encourage Parliament to focus any new taxes on New England
    • In a bid to show their loyalty, they also privately offer to pass on any information about seditious activity in New England
  • Parliament plans to take a conciliatory approach to the colonies, while at the same time slowing increasing revenues. Delegates have been sent from London directly to the colonies to hear grievances and to subtly help enforce the rules of law and compliance with any new taxes.
  • The Royal Governor in Charles Town is still completely ineffective at preventing smuggling by the colonists, and as a consequence revenue collection remains pitifully low. Parliament has ignored his requests for funding to pay for extra customs enforcement officers and ships.
Click to Enlarge
Click to Enlarge

Detailed Arguments and results

Backcountry Farmers - Very Strong, SUCCESS


The backcountry farmers will establish a network of patrols to protect their homes and farms.  This will happen because:
  1. The backcountry farmers have an established, strong militia and everyone is armed - including our younguns.
  2. The backcountry farmers have the unifying interest in maintaining their independence and protecting their property and families.
  3. Individual backcountry homesteads are vulnerable to Indian attacks.
  4. Planters and British mucky mucks are too busy worrying collecting taxes to worry about the needs of the back country folk.

Low Country Planters - Strong, SUCCESS

Our brothers on the other side of this great pond are begrudging of our lack of financial contribution during the French and Indian War. King. George's coffers are empty and he and parliament now look to the colonies for their replenishment, after so many years of salutary neglect.  The planters of this region are glad to align ourselves with the King, as his Royal Governor shows us much favor. 

However, we must not allow for the plundering of our own hard won wealth to be depleted through the KIng's increase of taxes. Let those puritan savages in the North provide! We will immediately begin a campaign with the message that the King and parliament should focus their coming taxes and restrictions on the seditious New England colonies and assuring everyone that the Southern planters are  humble servants to the King.  
  1. We have the ear of the Royal Governor here in Charleston (as we pay his salary). 
  2. Britain spent little to none protecting the South Carolina colony in their war.  
  3. We have connections with Boston that we can use as currency with Parliament in regards to their sedition. 
  4. We also have plenty of money to use to lobby parliament to look the other way when the question of tax of planters is presented.

Parliament - Strong, SUCCESS

The Crown will solidify its hold on its colonies by sending officials to the colonies to hear grievances in an official fashion and subtly help enforce the rule of law for future taxation
  1. We already have a significant governmental apparatus for such endeavours.
  2. Colonial governors are likely to cooperate if it appears grievances can be heard by the crown, rather than levelled at the governors.
  3. The colonists will be amenable to slowly replacing the sight of red-coats with government officials… who tend to eat less of their produce.

Royal Governor - Moderate, FAIL

Parliament will provide funds to allow the governor to pay customs officers directly, instead of having them paid by the colonial assembly.  This will happen because:

  1. Customs enforcement is extremely weak as there are not enough customs officials, as a result enough tax revenue is to not flowing back to Britain
  2. Parliament is desperate for more revenue and weak tax collection is hurting the ability for any taxes they pass to be enforced
  3. Weak tax enforcement undermines the authority of the King and Parliament in the colonies.

2 comments:

Terrement said...

Great start and thanks for posting. I remember when Chris was first writing about Matrix Games in Hal Thinglum's MWAN.

Curious as to how you implement something like this:
"Building arguments on previously successful arguments makes them stronger. For example, if one turn you argue “my side builds a spy network” and the next turn you argue, “My side steals the enemy’s plans” you have a stronger argument than if you just argue you steal plans out of the gate."

How much stronger does the argument make it? Is it only if built on the immediately previous set? For instance if the spy network was on turn 3 but the theft of plans wasn't until turn 7, does that make a difference?

Can repetition stack? If so, how much? Turn 3 I have "network" turn 7 I "steal plans" does that make my turn 8 "I successfully replace the plans with an altered copy" stronger than the turn 7 argument was?

If I've developed a strong argument like the "network" / "stolen plans" and then fail on a later spy related matter, what does that do to the strength of the argument?

Thanks!

JJ

Jozi's Tin Man said...

Hey, that is where I first read about them too! I still have the issue somewhere.

It is truly the umpire's discretion. I think somewhere Chris has some rules of thumb for argument strength, but I find it helpful to think of it as a semi-free Kriegspiel.

To answer you question, yes, I would let the repetitions stack but probably not make the theft of the plans any better on turn 7 than on turn 4, unless your opponent has done nothing in the intervening time to penetrate your network. Then as a player I would add the reason "my spy network has been undetected for X amount of time." and I'd probably make that tronger.

In your second example, if you fail at something spy related later, I would probably lower the strength of subsequent sy related arguments.

I find Matrix games to be something of a "let a thousand flowers bloom" phenomena. There are some approaches that actually determine the degree of success or failure. I am just just my judgement on these, but it helps that I have been marinating in this particular topic with my wife for a few years. I suggest you take a look at this site: http://www.mapsymbs.com/wdmatrix.html

It has about three different variations. Also, if you have any interest at all, I suggest you pony up for this book as well, it is cheap and well worth the price: https://www.amazon.com/Wargaming-Developments-Professional-Educational-Innovations/dp/1291979654/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1504731723&sr=8-1&keywords=matrix+games+for+modern+wargaming

I hope you find this little exercise instructive. If all goes well, I will ponder some lessons learned and run another one afterwards, maybe more military campaign focused.