Introduction by Congress of Vienna (CoV)’s Assistant Designer & Editor, Fred Schachter: This article follows up a previous piece’s description of efforts made by one of the CoV Teams making fine and appreciated contributions to the game… “Gutt’s Guysâ€â€¦ who’ve come up with a set of rules converting CoV’s 4-player game into 3 and 2-player versions.
With this article, designer Frank Esparrago describes efforts to make Congress of Vienna into a completely competitive and fun two player game with all the intensity and excitement of its Standard multi-player versions… but one which delivers some unique design elements to hopefully create novel and exciting player experiences and “puzzles to victory†conundrums to explore. Later articles will describe how CoV’s Bots were created for solo play enjoyment; and shall provide a description, with examples, of how they work.
Understanding Congress of Vienna’s basic game system(s) should enhance readers’ appreciation of this article and its ensuing follow-ups. To that end, GMT’s site for the game contains a wealth of material: GMT Games – Congress of Vienna
We hope you enjoy that content and take it away Frank!
General Background: A Congress of Vienna Two Player Game
Parallel to the work by Jim Gutt in Arizona and David Illanes in California with Congress of Vienna’s game rules and Bots; in Spain, both myself and Ignacio Badal started efforts to create a 2-player version of the game, with similar concepts to what Jim and his United States team derived. This would be a game intended to be as fully competitive and interesting as the original 4-player version. Both Ignacio and I became enthralled and compulsive players of this 2-player CoV game.
The two sides are France and the Allies of the Sixth Coalition. However, in CoV the strength of cards is omnipresent in all game Phases and they influence each player’s strategies. We needed to change a few things about the mechanics of this highly interactive multiplayer game to make it into a viable 2-player contest!
Once those design concepts were fixed; we realized if we created a good 2-player Congress of Vienna game; designing a solo game could be easier than by advancing directly from 4-players to just a single “human†player! What a boon to developing CoV Bots and a solitaire game the 2-player version proved to be!
The Protagonists’ Two Player Game Hands of Cards
The first point that we were clear about was that in CoV, an Allied player, managing the three Major Coalition Powers of Britain, Russia and Austria, has ahistorical advantages. Furthermore, his hand of cards, consolidating what the 4-player game version provides, had such a size magnitude (more than thirty cards!) that it made an unmanageable situation supervising what would be three hands of cards… even for our team’s veteran expert play testers who were familiar with CoV’s cards. A newbie player would confront a truly vexing and daunting challenge!
It also became a boring and tremendously frustrating experience for a French player possessing a comparatively “weak” hand of cards (practically a third the size of an Allied consolidated hand)! No fun there, eh?
Furthermore, in a 4-player CoV game you’re always uncertain of what cards the other players have, as both your potential Allies, as well as declared enemies, have face down card hands. For example, as the Russian player, you have no knowledge of the French card hand nor the British or Austrian ones.
After a turn’s Issues are selected, Diplomacy Phase Rounds take place which include the trading of cards and player negotiation and debate of Issues; as those Rounds proceed, the knowledge of cards remaining in the different hands, by process of elimination, becomes better. This happens in 4-player games, but to preserve this effect in a 2-player game… how to keep a manageably sized Allied hand? How to simulate some of the uncertainty that exists when France confronts three completely independent Allied players?
In responding to this design challenge, we first decided the Allied player would receive far fewer cards than would be allocated under normal CoV rules: 15 less cards! The Allied player’s initial hand is still a great hand of 17-23 cards; but it is one which will be depleted during Diplomacy Rounds while prudence dictates needing to retain military battle cards for the upcoming War Phase. Furthermore, we do not allow an Allied player to trade between his own Major Powers.
To compensate for this deficit of cards, in each Diplomacy Round after the first, the Allied player draws two or three additional cards from the deck. Whether 2 or 3 cards are received could be a pre-game decision for purpose of play-balance; or fully dependent on chance (the rules offer players both alternatives). These cards are placed face-up in an “open†hand in full view of the French player. This provides a fun and fascinating game mechanic for France, who therefore has a better chance of favorably trading with his opponent and preparing for upcoming battles with any of the Allied Major Powers through having this partial view of what cards his nemesis has.
This delayed draw of cards adds uncertainty and tension to the game since the Allied player cannot fully apply a coordinated strategy with his three Major Powers. He does not know from the Diplomacy Phase’s beginning which cards he will ultimately possess.
Two Player Game Handling of CoV Issues
We also had to change some game mechanics like the Initial Issues bid; when an Allied player would always use a single high value card and two low cards for the three Major Powers under his control. Winning the Initial Issues bid ensures an additional Issue of choice that you place in a favorable space of the winning Power’s National Track (determined by the difference between highest and lowest card). It was also an unfair advantage for the Allied player being able to dispose of two French cards. We changed this for our first 2-player playtest game. Then, to further reinforce a sense of game tension, in ties, France wins the wager! (This is the one instance which overrides Britain’s usual tie-breaking National Ability.)
Also, to strengthen the French player and weaken the Allied Coalition (now under a single unifying mind!) we decided that rather than twice per Diplomacy Phase, France can use its pre-emptive National Advantage ability each Round to debate if a French National card is used.
With just these two changes, the 2-player game’s handling of Issues now worked quite well. Only a few other minor tweaks were made to some Issues’ negotiation and debate: enabling the game to be run without ahistoric or illogical situations.
For example, Britain cannot debate the Liberalism Issue when it is on the French Track. That’s because both France and Britain have common interest in this Issue and are supposed to defend free trade and Democracy! But above all we wanted to avoid tricky tactics among Allied Major Powers which would force the French player to “bleed” his hand of cards with some key Issues (which could grant VPs) or defending vital “Survival Issues” like French Recruitment!
Furthermore, Britain must debate the Absolutism Issue if its marker occupies space 1 or 2 of the Russian National Track. In other words, the Allied player is compelled to oppose himself as Russia! In this way we force the Allied player to use good cards to move Issues, as if they were controlled by independent self-interested players. This emulates the forces at work during a 4-player game as well as simulate those Powers’ historical motivations.
Another critical Issue (in terms of VP) is the Future Government of France. To avoid another possibly “tricky†Allied tactic; this Issue cannot be debated by an Allied Major Power if it is placed on any Allied National Track. This makes it easier for the French player to debate his opponent’s move.
Two Player Game Victory Conditions
With the preceding settled, we established historical victory conditions for this version of Congress of Vienna. In other words, we considered that the Allied player has the advantage of a unique human mind (allowing, with hindsight, better coordinated decisions than what historically occurred or was possible). For this reason, the three Allied Powers (Austria, Britain and Russia) must attain greater victory over France in terms of VP at the end of the game than any individual Allied Power needs for a 4-player game win. This tough condition means the Allied player must always keep an eye on all his Powers’ VP positioning! No easy cruise to victory for the Coalition!
After several play tests we knew the 2-player CoV game mechanically worked very well. However, found some things about it ahistorical. The Allied player could decide the moment of Armistice and the Entry of Austria into War with unreasonably easy effort for his three Major Powers. He had many cards with positive modifiers for those two particular Issues. Not good… not good at all.
For this provided the French player a really tough task far beyond what the historical Napoleon had to contend with. France had to play against an enemy with an overwhelming number of cards and three consecutive Allied Diplomacy Rounds – Russia, Britain and Austria – resulting in only our toughest, somewhat masochistic, veteran Congress of Vienna Grognard wargame testers being willing to play France! We dreaded how newbie CoV players would find such an unbalanced contest. Ah, but a solution fortunately came to light!
Managing Austria in Two Player Congress of Vienna
It is at that moment Ignacio Badal proposed a decisive modification for CoV’s 2-player game: The French player, yes France, should control Austria until Austria’s Entry into War! Ah, Ignacio to the rescue!
A bit of introduction is now appropriate. Ignacio is a compulsive Spanish wargamer member of the Congress of Vienna Spain Play Test Team. He studied history, works as a postman, and possesses an appearance like the serious Spanish characters that the famed painter “El Greco†portrayed during the sixteenth century. Perhaps the only differences are that Ignacio does not wear a ruffle, does not wear black, and he does not carry a sword (much as he might like to… present times precluding), all the same, I below present him transformed!
Ignacio’s changes to CoV’s 2-player game means that for practically half its usual duration both card hands (Allied & French) are balanced. Diplomacy Phase Rounds and debates are two by two. The timing of the Armistice and Austria’s Entry into War are now potentially more subject to dispute. The commitment to these two key Issues’ implementation are as transcendental as they should have been during the early 19th century to our game’s historical counterparts.
Furthermore, the existence of these partially “open” hands and minor rule changes facilitates a new dimension to trading cards between players. They must quickly decide to negotiate or debate with their enemy’s face-up cards to prevent a subsequent unequal trade. Diplomacy Rounds are now frantic and unpredictable!
However, to ensure Austria is not a simple pawn in the hands of France, we provided for possible independent Austrian actions which the French player cannot control. To accomplish this, the following rules are added:
1) Although as of turn one Austria is controlled by France, the initial Issues for Austria’s Diplomacy Phase are selected by the Allied player!
2) These Issues can only be the so-called Austrian Priority Issues when they’re available: Absolutism, Italy, Naples, Bavaria, Saxony, Poland, Austrian Recruitment, British Financial Aid and Armistice. That is, even if the Allied player would like Austria to place a British Military Operation or the Russian Recruitment Issue on the Negotiation Table before commencing Diplomacy Rounds, these Issues cannot be selected by Austria.
3) Similarly, the French player, when playing as Austria, can only negotiate or debate these specified Issues. For example, he cannot debate a British Military Operation with an Austrian card to favor France.
4) During the turns France “controls†Austria, what was previously described by this article is modified. Both players do not receive all their cards in the Initial Phase’s deal. Consequently, they don’t have unmanageable and hugely sized card hands. The basic10 or more cards are not dealt to a Major Power and each Diplomacy Round (starting with the second) players each receive two additional cards face-up in full view of them both.
5) The Austrians, that is the French player, must always accept a trade from Russia or Britain if a Russian or British card is visible in the face-up portion of the French hand, this makes the Diplomacy Phase devilishly unpredictable!
6) We also placed some minor rules to prevent tricky tactics by a French player, just as done to curtail similar Allied player dodges!
Of course, this pseudo-Bot requires a bit more rules complexity when Austria is controlled by France. So we built our first decision sequence, trusting that inexperienced players will be helped by a relatively simple “yes/no†flow chart or a check list of priorities presented within the CoV 2-player game rules. Â
An example of such a flow chart is presented above in which a series of decision nodes respond sequentially to the requirements Austria must meet before allowing France to act “freely” with Austrian cards. Of course, if players wish to use the checklist alternative procedure, that’s available as well!
Using CoV Handicap Cards to Balance a Two Player Game
We know that converting a highly interactive 4-player game into a two-player one is a difficult task; especially when CoV encourages player selfishness (which is already built in through gamers’ intrinsic competitiveness. What?!? Gamers competitive? Be still my heart!). But with needed game mechanics in place; we believe a very interesting, fun, exciting, and competitive two-player CoV game is being offered.
However, playing France remains enormously stressful, especially once Austria enters the fray to join the Allies. I suppose it simulates the historical pressure Napoleon and the French Empire endured during the last months of War. Despite everything, France, when played by an experienced player, usually wins more than 50% of the games!
To foster player perception of fair game balance when choosing to play France or the Allies; they may agree how many of ten Handicap Cards should be drawn each turn. On some occasions, with two players wanting to play the Allies, one could decide to play France as soon as a Handicap Card is offered for the initial side-choice bid. They could even hold a bid for awarding a turn’s Handicap Card (each turn roll 1d6; 1-3, a card is drawn; 4-6 no card is drawn!)
Adapting Two Player CoV for Vassal
For testing 2-player game rules; we built a Vassal module with special rules windows (and access to the appropriate flow charts) plus two windows for displaying the Allied and French players’ respective card hands.Â
In addition, another two “open†windows accommodate the face-up cards received from a turn’s Diplomacy Rounds 2 to 6. These cards are exposed to both players. The “closed” hand windows for face-down cards are larger than for the Standard 4-players contest since there can be times when a player’s card hand is larger than during a normal game! The remaining game components (map board, markers and cards remain the same in both Congress of Vienna game versions).
An Invitation
If any readers of this InsideGMT piece, upon finishing this article, have their interest piqued and consider that some of our approaches can be improved or desire contributing ideas and/or participate in play testing (we’ll keep play testing until the happy day GMT advises CoV’s final production planning may commence).
All will be welcome and could certainly aid the team’s efforts for the 2 player and solitaire versions of Congress of Vienna being the best they can be.
If interested in participating, contact Fred Schachter, CoV’s Assistant Designer & Editor, at msfs060849@aol.com.
Previous Article: Congress of Vienna: Designing Its Solitaire Game
Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic.