New GB

[Clint]

With 97 and 14 recently ending I'll be starting up a new GB game. Thing is should we change the format?

My personal opinion is that both sides are even (both sides win about evenly). Both sides have duos that are weaker than others - how could we address that and keep both nations even in level of desirability to play?

Clint (GM)

To get the ball rolling: My own take; I personally think that Cor/Har should be swopped back (ie Cor FP, Ha DS)- Harad is just a dead man walking IMO. The idea originally was to get a navy battle - well that works somewhat but at the expense of Harad being nuked by QA/Cor and Mordor attack weakened (good/bad?). One way to slow that down would be to have the Easterlings instead which would be interesting (especially if FP) and lose one of the Cor/Har combo.

One suggestion that I personally am not a fan of is WK/Rh being a combo. It's either very strong or very weak for the Angmar region.

Maybe giving Rhudaur some of it's allied duos pcs would be a help there?

NM/Dwarves I find a tad monotonous to play - although by the end of GB14 I had around 5k HC for the dwarves with the Conjure mounts item that made it easier (tried Mages for the dwarves - the info spells were actually very useful). So personally I'd be happy to see the FPs changed around a bit. (I've not really got any suggestions at present for this though).

IK/LR seems very strong but the FK/CL combo also seems to do very well. Maybe because it can support each other in Mordor and SG gets embroiled elsewhere? Duns never (admittedly from minimal info) seem to assist the NG - seems wrong that.

Diplomacy: Another option - trade PDFs/XML. On Turn X you get to send your current pdf & XML to another nation (or 2 nations) - no other information allowed. (Say every 7 turns). Diplomacy and limited forms don't seem to work (most players just stop sending diplos or miss their turn). Or use the forum for chatting? Or keep it the way it is?

Set-up: Spend starting gold/ or points on nations you want to duo up with?

Feel free to start chucking out ideas.

Clint (mostly player)

[thuiatt]

I think giving Harad back to the dark servants is a bad Idea. As southern gondor I go straight for Harad and without cloud lord agent support it would be toast in a very short time frame. Northern Gondor will figure out he gets no help and he will blow the bridge. Just my opinion. If Southern Gondor does not help Harad as a free people, those are probably the games that the dark servants win. Again, just my opinion. If Southern Gondor, Northern Gondor and the Corsairs all strike Harad on turn one, then the Dragon Lord and Harad are dead by turn ten and the nation drops. A lot harder to root out Corsairs then Harad.

After playing gb14, I would be in favour of swapping pdf's every few turns. Fortunately we had the Arthedain with the palantir's which we used every turn so it helped us with some idea of what was going on.

I like the idea of bringing the easterlings into play, but that would also change the balance of the game a lot. Interested to here what other vetern gunboat players have to say as I have only played in one gunboat game.

tim huiatt

[Alain]

Hi guys,

For exactly the same reasons as Tim, I too don't like the idea to change the Harad back to the FP. The stronger Corsairs as DS balances the game more.

I see Tim's point (in the other thread) about the WK/Rhudaur combination, even with the coordination advantage it would still be very hard and then there would be no point in Mordor to retreat to if it went wrong.
How about changing to a WK+CL combination and FK+BS combination? This would give some agent aid to the WK and indirectly to Rhudaur, plus it would ease up the pressure on NG which is a very difficult position right now, even if the Duns help out.

BTW Clint's idea of giving Rhudaur some of it's allied duos (DLieu) pcs does work (I handed 3622 to Rhudaur at the earliest opportunity in GB game 14) if only to keep the Rhudaur alive, but it comes at the cost of a weaker Dark Lieutenants.

Easy to imagine Dwarves+Northmen is not an exiting combination. What do you guys think about combining Dwarves+Sinda and Cardolan+Northmen?

I like the suggestion in the other thread that when nations get picked up the new pairing should be announced. The other side knowing that a nation is picked up shouldn't change the game. But I also think that in future GB games neighbouring nations should not be allowed to pick up a dropped nation.

With regards to "diplomacy" I am neither pro or against, I like it fine the way it is but adding the change to send turn+xml to a nation of your choice every some many games might make an interesting change.

Not sure Clint what you meant by "Set-up: Spend starting gold/ or points on nations you want to duo up with?"

Cheers,
Alain

[DaveHolt]

As previously stated, I think Corsairs needs to be DS and Harad FP. it's relatively well balanced with SG to help Harad. The other way around and Harad is toasted quickly by Corsairs/SG. I've seen it both ways, and it's darn ugly with Harad as the DS.

I have a lot of thoughts about GB. It's incredibly fun to play. But "winning" needs to have different meanings. I very much respect what Alain said about playing Rhu/DkL. He did the best he could in incredibly difficult circumstances. That counts as something in my book. And I am most sorry that I didn't prevent the army from landing on the DkL capital. another hindsight mistake of CL's agents... sigh...

Let's look at the regions:
Harondor:
DS Corsairs & QA vs. FP Harad & SG is relatively well balanced
NW:
this is a big problem area. Rhu/WK playing against DW/Noldo/Arth/Card & maybe some Dun help is very very tough. Especially with Rhu/WK being different players
Mirkwood:
Sinda & Woodmen & EO vs. Dragon Lord is also tough on the DS
NE:
LR vs. Northmen should be advantage LR, especially with EO probably going against Mordor & DrgL
Mordor:
early battles should be roughly a draw. Then it's up to CL to take out enough NG armies so that NG has to blow the bridge. When DrgL is out of Mirkwood, SInda, EO & Woodmen can all come down and pressure the North Gate. I don't see how CL can be focused on helping WK. there aren't enough resources and it's a very far distance away. If CL sends a bunch of agent power NW, there's going to be FP armies running around in central Mordor quickly... Game over dude!

But GB as a format has a big problem for the DS. The character war is more difficult in GB than it is in regular 1650 for DEFENSE. It's probably not much more difficult when used on offense. as a nation duo can do the recon & intel needed to send agents out on the offense. But to use agents for defense, you need to catch the incoming armies BEFORE they reach their targets.

How to fix the GB imbalance? I have 2 different proposals:
1. Mordor needs more beef at the start. More economy & more starting armies. If Mordor can come out fighting, instead of being on its heals vs. NG/EO, then that would counter balance the FP significant advantage in the NW. Then it might make sense to pair CL with WK...
2. Signficantly beef up Rhu/WK. This might be even better. It'd be better for the Cardolan & Arthedain nations to actually have a challenge (And I think Tim/Tony played great - I'm not trying to detract from their excellent play)... I agree with Tim - I can't imagine how a competent FP team could fail to nuke WK & Rhu in the current scenario.

Another GB problem is "how to end the game?" Maybe there should be a clear "victory condition" established at the beginning? I'm sorry Alain didn't like me quitting in 14, but I did it because if I was on the other side, I'd have wanted the DS to resign so a new game could start up. There was no way for the DS to win when I quit (IMO). The one ring was at the bottom of the sea of rhun. If it was achievable, then heck, I'd have kept going and tried for a one ring victory (very difficult given all the FP curse squads, but worht trying).

I totally agree that any changes to nation pairings should be broadcast to all players. Arth/Card is even more unfair that CL/BS (which was very helpful in information gathering for CL)

Finally, Tim suggests exchanging .pdfs. I'd like to better understand what problem specifically Tim is wanting to solve with this idea. I think it really runs the risk of taking away the mystery of the unknown and the urgent need for discovery that gives such a nice edge to the current GB game. If the idea is to help figure out that indeed, the game is now over, I think we should come up with a different solution. If it's a different problem, I'd like to hear more from Tim.

just some thoughts. Overall I enjoyed the game immensely.
Dave

[Alain]

Dave, thanks for your comments.

The idea of beefing up Rhu/WK at the start of the game appeals to me. How would you see that? An extra MT somewhere in Mordor? Stronger starting armies? More starting gold? Give each of them one of the lost agent artifacts? Boost one of the characters? Let these 2 nations choose between one or more of these at game start?
What do other players think about this?

Regarding the ending of the game a possible idea for discussion:
- Before turn 20 the game is not lost unless there is a 3 to 1 advantage between the number of playing nations
- After turn 20 any player can ask his team to vote, if more then 2/3 of the players agree to quit then the game is over, if not it continues untill another nation is eliminated and then a new vote can be asked. If the game gets to a 2 to 1 advantage ME games automatically asks for a vote. If the game gets to 3 to 1 advantage it is automatically over.

Perhaps it should be announced to the team only (not to the opposing side) if a nation is eliminated?

Cheers,
Alain

[Woody]

I've played 5 GB's now and I think the results have been fairly even. One of the most significant deciding factors in my opinion is dropped nations you can’t legislate against this happening but due to the nature of the game it can be a lonely experience and it maybe easier to drop without a team to encourage you to stay.

948's are an effective way of telling your team you are alive and kicking, but I would like to be told if any nations on my team were alive but inactive.

You are not allowed to take offensive actions against your own team and that includes doubling their known characters and their unknown characters unless they are on your PC's. I would drop this rule it does your team members no harm, allows you to gauge who is still in and who is inactive as well as being an invaluable source of information. Or if you wanted to go a little further I would go so far as to allow each player to select one character from each of their allies combinations who starts as doubled.

I agree with being told if nation combinations change as it can have a critical affect on your strategy and make it ineffective if you didn't know that Nation A had a new wealthy and seemingly invulnerable co-partner.

With respect to changes to combo's, may be some of the suggestions are influenced by particular events and strategies from one game. For example Harad is not a no-hoper if SG decides to go south. Conversely the Dragon/Corsair combo no longer looks impregnable. Rhudaur may be a whipping boy but if Arth and Card focus on him then the BS has time to get the Agent & Curse arties up to the NW that makes the WK a real obstacle.

Maybe a Cloud Lord / Rhudaur and Fire King / Dark Lieutenant combination may work better. It would also relieve NG a bit more and he will need it if it becomes a more regular move for SG to go south rather then help him out in the gap.

Apart from Rhudaur I think the other exposed nation is actually the Northmen, they have in all 5 games been in the first 3 FP nations to get knocked out as neither they or the Dwarves have much response to LR/IK agents and the LR hidden capital. The Noldo/Sinda/Duns tend to get forget about the east. I would therefore suggest changing the NM partner to either Noldo or Sinda.

Just some thoughts

[Ed Mills]

[QUOTE=Woody

You are not allowed to take offensive actions against your own team and that includes doubling their known characters and their unknown characters unless they are on your PC's. I would drop this rule it does your team members no harm, allows you to gauge who is still in and who is inactive as well as being an invaluable source of information. Or if you wanted to go a little further I would go so far as to allow each player to select one character from each of their allies combinations who starts as doubled.

[/QUOTE]

Don't forget you can't name characters after dead enemy either. All this ,and more, offends someone's sense of Englishness.

[pseudo]

Clint, et. al.,

I can see how the Northmen/Dwarves would seem to be limited. Characters aren't great etc. Militarily inclined, no other real bennies, can't counter agent actions readily...

I think the CL and Rhudaur would be a great combination to help out the NW. Put the Drk Ltnts with FK, or put BS with FK and put Drk Ltnts with WK (now THAT would be a fun duo...).

As to FP duos...my two cents worth....

SG/Woodmen
Noldo/Northmen
Harad/Duns
NG/Sinda
Eothraim/Arthedain
Cardolan/Dwarves

[Clint]

but due to the nature of the game it can be a lonely experience and it maybe easier to drop without a team to encourage you to stay.

948's are an effective way of telling your team you are alive and kicking, but I would like to be told if any nations on my team were alive but inactive.

Yes a big factor is that players if they take a hit give up the ghost and move onto pastures greener more readily in GB (there's less team spirit and loyalty). That's the nature of GB I think. I use the 948 to find out if key pcs are still there sometimes. Note you have to be aware of attempting to communicate in any way - it's not allowed.

Games are pretty even so beefing up the DS I don't think is needed. There are weaker duos on both teams.

Point taken on Harad as DS. What about lose Harad and have KE as FP?

SG/Woodmen
Noldo/Northmen
Harad/Duns
NG/Sinda
Eothraim/Arthedain
Cardolan/Dwarves

I quite like this idea. I would swop Harad for KE though as basically in most games the Harad is out of play very quickly. (As quickly as the Rhudaur nation).

Rhudaur suggestion: What about having a MT from the Corsairs? It changes the balance appropriately IMO.

What about DS combos? If you can put up the full 6 split that would be good.

I also like the advertising of new duos. It came up before - slight disadvantage is that it implies that other nations are dead. So I'd suggest the full normal listing at game start and then amend that as time goes on (would add a bit of confusion to the mix keeping the mystery of GB).

Not sure about the doubling being allowed. It's technically to stop enemies but standard play has found out another method. I sometimes double my own characters so if suddenly it was no longer there then I'd see that as an enemy action etc. It also starts blurring the line and what is pretty much a clear cut ruling and might open up an entire can of fish. Eg Vrish coming along to PC Bolvag and Bolvag dying... Ouch. Both cases have an implicit consent in them (implication of diplomacy) so could be awkward to rule.

Agor y genau, urghhh, dw i'n Cymraeg Ed dim Saesneg, diolch yn fawr. ;)

Thanks

Clint

[DaveHolt]

Dave, thanks for your comments.

The idea of beefing up Rhu/WK at the start of the game appeals to me. How would you see that?

Regarding the ending of the game a possible idea for discussion:
- Before turn 20 the game is not lost unless there is a 3 to 1 advantage between the number of playing nations
- After turn 20 any player can ask his team to vote, if more then 2/3 of the players agree to quit then the game is over, if not it continues untill another nation is eliminated and then a new vote can be asked. If the game gets to a 2 to 1 advantage ME games automatically asks for a vote. If the game gets to 3 to 1 advantage it is automatically over.

Perhaps it should be announced to the team only (not to the opposing side) if a nation is eliminated?

Cheers,
Alain

I very much like the idea that any player can ask hist team to vote to concede (rob would have to do the solicitation). I think that if 2/3 or more of the nations (not players) surviving vote to quit, the game should end. that's a great idea. I don't see why you'd have to limit it to after turn 20 though. It should be the whole game. if 2/3 of the nations at any point want to concede, well, that's pretty compelling.

Regarding beefing up Rhu/WK - i think they need more firepower in the NW. Maybe another MT each would be an interesting experiment. There's already a recognition that Rhu's backup needs fortification. bump 2109 to a MT/tower and 1905 to a MT/tower. That would be interesting to experiment with...

[DaveHolt]

Clint, et. al.,
SG/Woodmen
Noldo/Northmen
Harad/Duns
NG/Sinda
Eothraim/Arthedain
Cardolan/Dwarves

these pairings look good to me. We are talking about 1650, right? I'm confused by clint mentioning KE... I think it'd be an interesting experiment game to have easterlings as FP and no Harad. It would shore up Northmen, provide some back pressure on Mordor, and put significant pressure on SG.

[Judas]

Agor y genau, urghhh, dw i'n Cymraeg Ed dim Saesneg, diolch yn fawr. ;)

Thanks

Clint

Mae'n gas geni cymraeg...... (is that right? forgotten most of it) :D

Imran.

[pseudo]

After thinking about the duos for FPs...I have better suggestions. Looking above, I'm not to thrilled about the EO/Arth, Cardo/Dwarves combinations. A better set would be with dropping of Duns and adding Easterlings as follows:
Noldo/Northmen
Cardolan/Sinda
SG/Eothraim
Arth/Easterlings
Harad/Dwarves
NG/Woodmen

I think any of those combinations would be very playable....Harad/Dwarves may be a weak link....and NG/Woodmen would be a challenge as well.

As to DS...the current pairing are ok...but I'd like to "strengthen" the NW by pairing the CL with Rhudaur. Other combinations could be...

WK/Drk Ltnts....very strong combination
BS/FK
Dog/QA
IK/LR
Corsairs/DragL

To help assist with the change by adding Easterlings to the FP, I would give the LR the Drag Lord MT at 3822. Give Rhudaur the LR MT at 3929, and start the Dragon Lord with a Corsair MT. This helps the DS in the NW by making Rhudaur "not eliminatable" as early as he currently gets blasted, and saves the transfer orders later...It also puts a little more pressure on the FPs Cardolan and Arthedain, who I think should still win if the Noldo/Dwarves/Woodmen give even just the littlest bit of help. With CL supporting Rhudaur, I think it would add the element of agent "worry" to Cardolan/Arthedain...and make it a little easier on NG from that aspect.

My two cents worth....I'd play ANY of the combinations listed above...and that's what makes me think this might be better than the current arrangement...albeit IMHO

later

tony huiatt

[Alain]

FP pairings as suggested above:
SG/Woodmen
Noldo/Northmen
Harad/Duns
NG/Sinda
Eothraim/Arthedain
Cardolan/Dwarves
I like this combination but replacing the Harad by the Easterling could work as well.

DS Pairings based on some of the above susgestions:
WK/DarkL
Rhu/CL
FK/BS
QA/DogL
IK/LR
DrL/Cor

Combined with these pairings I would suggest to beef up Rhudaur a little by making 1908 a Town/Tower instead of a Town and 2208 a MT/Fort instead of a Town/Tower, that should let Rhudaur hold out longer.
I also like the suggestion that one of the Corsairs MT's (2339?) is transferred to the Dragon Lord.

Alain

[Alain]

I very much like the idea that any player can ask hist team to vote to concede (rob would have to do the solicitation). I think that if 2/3 or more of the nations (not players) surviving vote to quit, the game should end. that's a great idea. I don't see why you'd have to limit it to after turn 20 though. It should be the whole game. if 2/3 of the nations at any point want to concede, well, that's pretty compelling.
...

You are right, there should be no reason to limit it.

Clint/Rob, what do you guys think of this?

[Jeppe Skytte Spicker]

Hello gentlemen

I have only played one grudge game and it is still running, so my observations may be based on inexperience. However I have the following comments/suggestions (which I guess is limited to 1650).

Duos/Nations: Somebody mentioned pairing DkLt with FK. That sounds like the sure way to get an in-penetratable Mordor to me, or at least west Mordor. And a south with a DS Corsair and QA and no FP Harad doesn’t sound nice either in my ears. Pairing WK and DkLt sounds like a VERY strong combo in all respects. But again, some will be strong and some weak. The DS success would maybe be too much decided if an incompetent/unenthusiastic/dropper player would get this….
Easterling back in game instead of Duns or Harad: Wouldn’t FP suffer greatly in the agent/info war from loosing Duns? However I enjoy the idea about bringing Easterlings into play as FP. What about replacing Easterling with a FP nation e.g. dwarfs? Would that be possible? My suggestion would be:

SG/Woodmen
Noldo/Northmen
Harad/Sinda
NG/Duns
Eothraim/Arthedain
Cardolan/Easterlings

WK/BS
Rhu/DarkL
FK/CL
QA/DogL
IK/LR
DrL/Cor


Comments on alternative from standard GB combos:
Noldo/Northmen: I think it is hard to find a suitable partner for NM that can help them military without pairing it with Eo or dwarfs. However, I would think that pairing it with Noldo would be the best?
Harad/Sinda: Harad needs a strong partner. With the Sinda navy and 2325 the player would be able gain an upper hand in the naval combat and keep Corsairs more anxious regarding his own lands. Combined with Sindas agents this would help Harad. Only minus is Sinda's lack of a back-up capital for Harad that is not hidden. I am most thrilled by my FP combos, I think DS a hard, especially now with BS facing Easterlings….

Beefing up/change set-up: Even though I do not feel strongly on the matter, I see this as the never-ending story if we start this. There are stronger and weaker combos, which ones are which are more or less subjective.

Doubling: I just don’t see the point why it is not allowed to double allied nation chars. I REALLY think this should be allowed in ALL aspects! Why is this illegal in the first place?

Communication: Clint says that the limited communication is not used. This surprises me because I would definitely use it. I think the diplos should be limited to e.g. once every 5 turns, only e.g. 50 words and perhaps only to one or two other players. All should go through ME. Maybe should the diplos be held back on turn to lessen the immediate impact they otherwise would have.

Announcing dead/inactive/new combos: I definitely think dead nations should be announced as they are now (is it two turns after the nation dies?). However, as I understand it, is a nation has not been picked up after 4 turns of inactivity, it is not considered playable anymore? (read that somewhere). If it is like that for GB, I definitely think such nations should be considered dead nations in all respects. The difference in an inactive and a dead nation is close to none-existing to me.

Game ended:

- After turn 20 any player can ask his team to vote, if more then 2/3 of the players agree to quit then the game is over, if not it continues untill another nation is eliminated and then a new vote can be asked. If the game gets to a 2 to 1 advantage ME games automatically asks for a vote. If the game gets to 3 to 1 advantage it is automatically over.
I really like this one. I think that is a very good idea!

Dropped nations: I would really like there to be some kind of penalty for doing this unless it is done as surrendering (at least then there is not a VERY good reason like disease or death involved). However, I just cannot think of any way or system to do it, so I guess we just have to hope for people’s conscience.

Those were the words.

- Jeppe

[Ed Mills]

Doubling: I just don’t see the point why it is not allowed to double allied nation chars. I REALLY think this should be allowed in ALL aspects! Why is this illegal in the first place?



- Jeppe
Jeppe:
I think someone is trying to prove to a second person that they are also a Proper English Gentleman. I remeber when this was done--I beleive the term is "logrolling".
Ed
(no gentleman and proud of it)

[Jeppe Skytte Spicker]

I don't understand what you mean?

- Jeppe

[Ed Mills]

This game was designed and intended to be an amoral Real Politik. Thus international or non-national, since ethics does not app;y. Alien/national ethical systems are being applied to it. Specifically, English sporting values.

[Celebion]

Per a recent email from Rob, when the pairings change during the course of the game, the new duos or trios are suppose to be listed. There was strong support for this some months back. Unfortunately there are some games where no dead nations are announced hence a duo becoming a trio does not get announced and someone on the other side most likely pays a price for this.

I think you should be able to double anyone period, this would at least let you take the pulse of the game. I am not in favor of limited diplomacy but I do think active nations/combos should be listed every turn and there should be no restrictions on doubling. In my view, doubling an ally should give you enough intel.

I am wasting money in game right now that is over though one side does not know this.

If the standard is better than 3 to 1 and one nation is playing 3 nations then game goes on. To me 6-9 versus 3 is pretty much of waste of money barring a big disparity in skill.

[VEO]

I've personally never understood the desire to affect all these administrative rules against using the Rules of the game in this scenario. I was under the impression the scenario was originated as a response to not wanting to talk to one's annoying allies..what's that got to do with doubling, et al...?

Brad

[MichaelK]

My 2pence worth... get rid of Dun and introduce Eas... mix the pairing around... take a look at the strengths of the pairs versus the strengths of the pairs they are facing.

Eot / Eas
NGo / Sin
Har / Nol
SGo / Nor
Art / Woo
Car / Dwa

WiK / BlS
Rhu / ClL
FiK / DkL
QAv / DrL
IcK / Cor
Dog / LoR

By eliminating Duns, you make the DS in NW very strong... giving them BlS and ClL makes for a fun encounter in the NW...

By including Eas, you weaken mordor... which might make LoR not concentrate on Nor so much as defend the back of mordor.

I couldn't get rid of Har, as this completely unbalances the south. SGo has to commit lots to defend Har just to keep that nation going, so I think its a nicely balanced area of the map as is.

Catch you later...

Michael

[Rommel88]

Yeah, I like the suggestion of bringing in the Easterlings. It would spice the game up a bit.

Playing Rhu in 97 was a real pain because the FP just went for me and the WiK just stood by and watched for 14 turns. There was little my DkL position could really do to bail them out, without significantly weakening the their position.

So, yes, I like the idea of combining the Wik/Rhu because it forces them to work together against a less united FP and/or the idea of providing the Rhu with a MT down south would solve the problem too.

[Clint]

Some good feedback and a good discussion - thanks. Generally if you don't want to play this format that's fine with us - but for those that do keep it coming.

Okay some answers. Doubling - I've answered that in previous posts - it could be detrimental to your allies if you have already doubled their duos character already. It also opens up a whole can of worms on what is a simple rule at present (eg Shoglic 210ing Bolvag to get his Mage rank up). Note there are many instances where you can double characters (eg your own pc if unknown etc).

Giving out the dead nations - sounds fine.
Giving out new nation duos/triplets - fine. Both combined will imply inactive nations as well which might end games that are ready to end I think.

Ending a game - voting not sure when this would be done. Every turn? I don't think something like that would work so would it be less often? If so when? Every 8 turns would not mean a lot of admin but I'm not a big fan of this. Some players just won't bother - implicitly if they are playing they think the game is winnable it seems to me. We sometimes contact players if we think the game is over and not going to be fun for anyone but always leave the option open for them to continue if they want to (within the rules of the game).

Duos - my favourite is removing the Dwarves and giving the FP the Easterlings. That would ease the pressure on Rhudaur so it wouldn't be so necessary to upgrade Rh. Also would mean that DrL wouldn't need any extra support (and it's a strng combo as it stands). I think the Dunlendings need to stay as FP to keep the option of tasty agents for FP. We could then remove the 1910/4217 fort as well (Rhun area safer for FP but still leaves Dilgul, NW safer for DS).

FP:
1/7
2/10
6/9
3/4
5/25
22/23

DS:
11/20
12/21
15/18
13/17
14/24
16/19

Seems fine to me as well. Feedback welcome (I think I've addressed most of the points but remind me if I've not). Note GB is a player designed concept and rules not us. I'm trying to modify what I see are problems with the format (due to feedback from players).

Clint

[thuiatt]

I personally do not think there are a lot of problems with the current Gunboat, but I have also only played one game. I still like tweaking the nations, especially getting rid of the Dwarves. This will make not only the North interesting, but Mirkwood as well. The Easterlings will really throw a whole new wrench into the mix. I think the play of the Easterlings becomes extremely important.

As a suggestion Clint, why don’t you allow one game where allies can double their allies, just to see how it works. I think it is pretty much a moot point as you will not run into your allies all that often with emissaries anyway.

I still think it is a must to announce new pairings/triplets, even if it lets both sides know who has been eliminated. You could always just assign the eliminated nation to a person. This tells only the person that the eliminated nation is assigned to that the nation is eliminated and not everyone, so there are drawbacks to that as well.

Dave, my earlier request to exchange pdf’s is not to end the game, but to find out just how bad off some of your allies are. I like the lack of communication, but it would still be nice to have some idea of what my allies are up to, and if they need some help. We would have sent out more money if we had known some of the nations were hurting so much.

Tim Huiatt

[Rommel88]

Waiting for the game to end in both of the GB games that I have been in was very tedious. I knew that the team I was on had effectively won the game about 7 turns before the game actually ended. Is there anyway that the victory requirements can be tweaked?

Dwarfs out and Easterlings in - involving the Easterlings still sounds cool. Yup, like that :o

[DaveHolt]

Ending a game - voting not sure when this would be done. Every turn? I don't think something like that would work so would it be less often? If so when? Every 8 turns would not mean a lot of admin but I'm not a big fan of this. Some players just won't bother - implicitly if they are playing they think the game is winnable it seems to me. We sometimes contact players if we think the game is over and not going to be fun for anyone but always leave the option open for them to continue if they want to (within the rules of the game).
Clint

Clint - I think you have to fix the end-of-game-criteria of GB. whatever the fix, you need to publish it before people sign-up for a particular GB game so that they know what they're signing up for. In a game where it's illegal and unethical to communicate with opponents or allies, it is essential that the rules establish how the game will end. I don't think it is satisfactory the way it is right now and personally don't want to play GB again until you fix this one item with an easy-to-understand rule.

So, here is the specific proposal for you or others to shoot holes in. If this isn't good, then please propose something else. We need some firm way to end the game when we can't talk to each other:

GB End-of-Game Rule
No more often than once per four turns, a player may request that their team vote to concede. Each surviving nation on the team gets one vote. If 2/3 or more of the surviving nations on the team vote to concede, the game ends. Votes are confidential (including which player requested the vote) and are solicited by ME Games. A "no-response" is considered to be a vote to continue play. The other team is not informed the vote is taking place unless the vote is successful, at which point all players are notified, the final turn is run, and the game ends. Additionally, if there is at any time a 3:1 advantage of surviving nations allegiance vs. allegiance, the game ends automatically.

People - please let ME Games know if the above is a good rule from your perspective or not. If not, what do you propose?

thanks for listening.
Dave

[Clint]

Additionally, if there is at any time a 3:1 advantage of surviving nations allegiance vs. allegiance, the game ends automatically.

Note this is slightly different and maybe needs alternate discussion. Otherwise I, as a player, would find that okay.

Something extra (bit of a plug). I allow the duo of nations to be run by 2 players (one each) players and would like to advertise that more. For some players running 2 nations is a financial difficulty so splitting the cost gets the same cost to play as normal.

Any other feedback on the suggested set of nations.

Clint (GM)

[pseudo]

Duos - my favourite is removing the Dwarves and giving the FP the Easterlings. That would ease the pressure on Rhudaur so it wouldn't be so necessary to upgrade Rh. Also would mean that DrL wouldn't need any extra support (and it's a strng combo as it stands). I think the Dunlendings need to stay as FP to keep the option of tasty agents for FP. We could then remove the 1910/4217 fort as well (Rhun area safer for FP but still leaves Dilgul, NW safer for DS).

FP:
1/7
2/10
6/9
3/4
5/25
22/23

DS:
11/20
12/21
15/18
13/17
14/24
16/19

Seems fine to me as well. Feedback welcome (I think I've addressed most of the points but remind me if I've not). Note GB is a player designed concept and rules not us. I'm trying to modify what I see are problems with the format (due to feedback from players).

Clint

As to the FP duos....I like the option of dropping the Dwarves and adding Easterlings. As to FP combos....hmm, I see the 3/4 combo as weak...not from a military aspect, but from a "sucky characters" aspect. And you have the Sinda paired with NG. I've been out of the game for a few years now, and I haven't really followed all the gunboat results, but I'm curious as to how NG fairs...is he always a low finisher? If this is the case, then pairing NG with the Sinda makes some sense. I would think that if you paired Arthedain/NG and Sinda/Eothraim it might make for more "playable" type duos. Also I think Jeppe put in a suggestion for Sinda/Harad....an intriguing combo to my tastes. Commenting on the FP duos....

1/7....good combo, keep together
2/10....weak/strong....not as weak with Easterlings playing now
5/25....ok combo, challenges at beginning, both should be in conflict with CL, Rhudaur....need to develop agents etc. interesting possibilities
My suggested alternatives to above:
3/23....Duns weak early to Rhudaur all out...Eothraim has MTs to spare, Eothraim could use agent support all game
4/6....Arthedain should be able to support later in game when NG is weak
9/22...Combining Sinda with Harad could actually make Sinda consider more active role down south. Strong/weak characters....weak/strong economies

could swap 4/5...put Cardolan with NG and Arth/Easterlings together.

Don't have any major hardspots with the DS pairings. I due like the CL/Rhud and WK/DrkLtnt pairings...a lot! I'd play any of the DS combo's....

As to doubling other nations characters....especially allies...I don't see the harm Clint that it does to an ally. An ally my know his character is "doubled", but it doesn't "hurt" an ally per se...because we can't otherwise take advantage of that "information". But I don't have a hard spot with this either way...

later

tony huiatt

[Fletch]

How about ditch the Duns and give the Easters to NG?

This would take some pressure off of the WK and Rhu and allow NG to attack from both ends on Mordor, which could be kind of interesting (Axis and Allies anyone! :>)

[Clint]

How about ditch the Duns and give the Easters to NG?

Reasons given before - ie this removes a lot of agent potential from the FPs. Also weakens the NW for the FP (possibly too much).

Clint

[Fletch]

I dont think it would weaken the FP that much, as it is the NW is overkill for the DS unless you end up with some luck or sub par opponents...like myself! :>

I dont think the Duns provide that much agent support. They can name at 40, but dont start with a decent agent so it puts them several turns behind the CL on this. THey do have tw decent mages who can locate agent artis for them, which the CL doesnt have, but the chances of them keeping those artis are fairly slim I think.

But anyway, I do like the idea of adding in the Easterlings and the WK/DkLT combo would be hot to take for a test drive! :>

[Ed Mills]

Note GB is a player designed concept and rules not us. I'm trying to modify what I see are problems with the format (due to feedback from players).

Clint

Hey! Thats right. Shouldn't Chris be making these decisions? After all, Gunboat was his artistic vision.

[Fletch]

Breaking up FK/CL might be a bit iffy though. I ran this position in G97 and the FK certainly needed to CL hitters to help out and to provide cash for troops. Pairing the FK/BS might be a tough one with the Easterlings in the mix. So, maybe have the QA/BS run together, this way they can combine to fight the Easterling armies but are far enough apart as well. Good mix of mage and agent emmi action. Put the FK and Dog together?

But then to Devils Advocate myself.. FK/Dog might be too much as well...yikes!! Too many nations in Mordor, too little room! :>

[Woody]

IMHO being able to double your allies is still a very clear delineation and does no discernible harm to your ally, 210 orders are not in the same category and allowing doubling does not mean there is any need to consider allowing other more clearly harmful orders.

What it does do is help information gathering and gives some guide as to an ally's strategy and where you may help them. This is especially important in the Gunboat scenario. Also all the GB games I have been in have been influenced to one degree or another by dropped nations doubling allies is going to give you an early warning something is wrong and you may need to rethink your strategy. I have picked up nations that have been inactive for 4 turns and it is almost too late to do anything.

A suggestion for finishing a game earlier then the 3:1 ratio is a good idea but I can see a situation where a player asks for a vote to end the game the vote goes against them and they see it as the final straw and drop anyway leaving the rest of the team on an irrecoverable downward spiral. I think I would prefer something a little more finite to trigger the vote, eg if the ratio fell to 2:1 (excluding inactive nations) then the vote would be triggered.

[Blueface]

Rhudaur/Dklt is fun. If you want a sae build position look elsewhere, if you want fun tick that box. 1910 as a fort should beef up Rhudaur enough.

Dwarves/Northmen mixes safety with danger. play it well and you can be fighting everywhere with a great character set.

Easterling/Northmen says goodbye Mordor. No BS/CL attacks to the North, Harad or defending Mordor gates as tehy will be fighting Easterlings. Why not just give the game to the Free T1 and save everyone some cash.

Harad /arth is designed so that the DS can pick on Harad. Stong Arthedain, weak harad.

As Clint says, the game is balanced, so why mess with it? Sure some positions are more challenging than others and some are more suited to building play. Pick the one that suits your style.....

Make the 50 word communication, once every five turns or more so 6, 11, 22 etc as I always fail to notice I can do it or dont have time that turn.

Regards
Chris courtiour

[Rommel88]

The following was posted by Dave Holt:

GB End-of-Game Rule
No more often than once per four turns, a player may request that their team vote to concede. Each surviving nation on the team gets one vote. If 2/3 or more of the surviving nations on the team vote to concede, the game ends. Votes are confidential (including which player requested the vote) and are solicited by ME Games. A "no-response" is considered to be a vote to continue play. The other team is not informed the vote is taking place unless the vote is successful, at which point all players are notified, the final turn is run, and the game ends. Additionally, if there is at any time a 3:1 advantage of surviving nations allegiance vs. allegiance, the game ends automatically.

This seems like a good system to me. It gets my vote.

[Celebion]

IMHO being able to double your allies is still a very clear delineation and does no discernible harm to your ally, 210 orders are not in the same category and allowing doubling does not mean there is any need to consider allowing other more clearly harmful orders.

What it does do is help information gathering and gives some guide as to an ally's strategy and where you may help them. This is especially important in the Gunboat scenario. Also all the GB games I have been in have been influenced to one degree or another by dropped nations doubling allies is going to give you an early warning something is wrong and you may need to rethink your strategy. I have picked up nations that have been inactive for 4 turns and it is almost too late to do anything.

A suggestion for finishing a game earlier then the 3:1 ratio is a good idea but I can see a situation where a player asks for a vote to end the game the vote goes against them and they see it as the final straw and drop anyway leaving the rest of the team on an irrecoverable downward spiral. I think I would prefer something a little more finite to trigger the vote, eg if the ratio fell to 2:1 (excluding inactive nations) then the vote would be triggered.

Exactly, doubling of allies should be allowed but for information purposes. Nothing else needs to be considered as an add-in. Not sure where any PC idea came from, that makes little sense.

I think listing the eliminated nations along with current nation combos each turn should be sufficient to make an informed decision regarding how your side is doing in the game. If you need to put in rule to stop bug hunts then that is fine.

[Clint]

I've taken Ed's advice and chatted to Chris about the game design.
:D
We came up with the following:

FP: (5th set of combos btw!)
1/4
2/8 (stays same)
3/7
5/9 (same)
6/23 (same)
10/22

DS:
11/20
12/21 (same)
13/15
14/24 (Also CL town @3428 goes to village, CL town @3629 goes to MT).
16/19 (same)
17/18

Forts @1910/4217

We decided not to go with the Easterlings as this would probably make Mordor too open to attack. The NW should be stronger now as should Harad so we think this is an overall improvement.

Diplos:
You can send a diplo to your entire team any time once in every 5 turns. So on any turn from turns 1-5 you can send a single diplo (when you want to), then 6-10, 11-15 (so on naming character turns for simplicity and as an aid to memory). Diplo 50 words long, hexes count as single word, BS (for Blind Sorcerer) would count as one word, one diplo for your whole set of positions allowed.

Doubling:
I personally don't agree with this, but happy to go with what you guys want and so Doubling in the new games will be allowed on any characters you want.

Combos and Dead Nations:
Every 3 turns (or when we get the chance to update it) we'll update the nation combos, Dead nations as well. Inactive nations will, by default, revealed but not specifically mentioned.

End game:
Ending the game, I'd like to change that a little. No more often than once per five turns (ie turns 1-5, 6-10, 11-15 etc), a player may request that their team vote to concede. Each surviving nation on the team gets one vote. If 2/3 or more of the surviving nations on the team vote to concede, the game ends. Votes are confidential (including which player requested the vote) and are solicited by ME Games. A "no-response" is considered to be a vote to continue play. The other team is not informed the vote is taking place unless the vote is successful, at which point all players are notified, the final turn is run, and the game ends.

Additional rules:
Additionally, if there is at any time there is a greater than 3:1 advantage of surviving nations allegiance vs. allegiance, the game ends automatically.

Otherwise pretty standard rules for GB.

Feedback?

Clint

[thuiatt]

Pairings look fine with me. The game seems relatively well balanced anyway as the dropouts probably determine the outcome more than the pairings. I look forward to playing in the next game.

Noldo/Harad is an interesting Combo and Probably a pretty good one. Thanks for incorporating the changes and trying things that you don’t agree with Clint.

Good luck to all and when does the next game start.

Tim Huiatt

[Clint]

I'd like some more feedback before implementing this. There might be a major error or a better set of combinations of nations that I've not noticed and someone can bring it to my attention.

So far we have 2 players interested.

Clint (GM)

[bernout]

I think that looks pretty good Clint although I do have a couple of comments.

1. Diplos. I'm not keen on this idea at all. I always liked the idea of no diplomacy since it greatly adds to the whole fog of war concept. If it really needs to be done then how about 1 every 10 turns with everyone doing it on the same turn to make it easier on your end? (turn 1, 10, 20, etc.)

2. Dropped Nations. I'd like to see an emphasis on giving dropped nations to new players as opposed to loading up existing players. In a game format where coordination is supposed to be limited, having 1 player doing 3 or 4 nations seems like an unfair advantage. Maybe increase the incentive to have someone take over these nations (2 free turns or something).

3. Given the lack of need for coordination, how about an option for weekly turns instead of once very 2 weeks?

Bern

[Clint]

2. Dropped Nations. I'd like to see an emphasis on giving dropped nations to new players as opposed to loading up existing players. In a game format where coordination is supposed to be limited, having 1 player doing 3 or 4 nations seems like an unfair advantage. Maybe increase the incentive to have someone take over these nations (2 free turns or something).

3. Given the lack of need for coordination, how about an option for weekly turns instead of once very 2 weeks?

2. I do but it's very hard to fill GB drop outs.

3. I doubt there's a desire for this. More than happy to run a weekly game but there has to be a player base for that.

Okay I'll try to fill this game (2wk at present, diplos as requested 1/5 as players are in the majority for that) and as time goes on we can tweak it if need be.

Clint

[thuiatt]

Bern,

I agree that priority should be given to finding replacements instead of giving a player a third nation, but I doubt that it is easy to find a replacement player. I know I for one would prefer to start from the beginning as opposed to picking up a dropped nation. Secondly, if one nation is eliminated I know I would not pick up just one nation when everyone else is playing two. Honestly, I can not think of a situation where I would want to take on the challenge of a dropped nation. It is just not worth my time to risk picking up a nation that was not ran the way I would like to play.

Possibly emphasis should be placed on trying to make sure the player pick ups or somewhat neutral/fair to the other side, but to keep game balance dropped nations have to be picked up. Secondly, I am not sure how many players can financially afford to pick up a third nation so Clint and company will be limited in how they are able to distribute dropped nations.

Just my two cents worth.

Tim Huiatt

[DaveHolt]

I think the pairings cause a problem for the DS in Mordor - specifically, having the CL paired with WK. The idea is to pull CL resources to the northwest to increase the viability of the DS in the northwest. I agree the DS need strengthening in the NW. However, this will cause big problems for Mordor in the Ithil pass and at the gate. I guess my question is for all of you who would play Mordor DS nations... do you want the CL focused on WK? how often does this happen in regular 1650? ANS: rarely... why? because it's not the highest and best use of CL assets. Thus, trying to force it in GB 1650 seems wrong to me.

My $0.02.
Dave

[Rommel88]

1. I think the pairings look sound and good idea to beef up the CL town --> majtown.
2. Good point made about replacements re: 3 nations vs 2 but I fully understand the difficulty in replacing GB dropouts.
3. Re: diplos. I am not sure about this. Will these be read by ME Games? Are players allowed to diverge their identity? [This could give an indication to how a duo of nations will be played]. Fifty words sounds a lot - especially given the lengths that players will go to cram all they have to say into 'text-style' minimalistic writing.

Bryn

[Clint]

specifically, having the CL paired with WK.

Note: CL is allied with Rhudaur not WK. Dark Lieutenants is with the WK. But your point is pretty much the same. Note in most games that I have played I had to focus on different parts of the map with my different nations so I'd expect something similar here. It's part of the design of GB. Not that you have to stick to it.


Re: diplos. I am not sure about this. Will these be read by ME Games? Are players allowed to diverge their identity? [This could give an indication to how a duo of nations will be played]. Fifty words sounds a lot - especially given the lengths that players will go to cram all they have to say into 'text-style' minimalistic writing.

It's a pain for us but players seem to want it (from what I've read). I'd say that you can't mention who you are but I'll ask the players who sign up for the game when it starts. Note we have 7 players already. :-) 5 more to go. Open for debate this one - thanks for brining it up. Will we read them sometimes - mostly not but will do spot checks.

50 words is what was used before - you have 2 nations (maybe 3) to write about there.

Clint

[Fletch]

I'm not a fan of the diplo communications thing. It wouldnt stop me from playing...but is it worthwhile? The one GB game I was in where it was used, I think I only got one diplo from another player that was pretty worthless in regards to info in my area...I dont know for certain, but it seems some people tend to ask for it, but it sounds like it falls apart as the game goes along?

I think the pairings are ok, yes the CL is paired with Rhudaur and will likely send agents to the area, but any CL player worth his salt will also keep an eye on the happenings around Mordor, if anything to protect his own "soft" pop centers from Gondor invasion. Much better to kill enemy commanders on FK pops than when they are on your own.

Part of the game is also how each player uses his resources. Some players are generous, they'll send out cash to other players, pass off arties they dont need etc. Other people will horde until the end

-Fletch

[Alain]

FP: (5th set of combos btw!)
1/4
2/8 (stays same)
3/7
5/9 (same)
6/23 (same)
10/22

DS:
11/20
12/21 (same)
13/15
14/24 (Also CL town @3428 goes to village, CL town @3629 goes to MT).
16/19 (same)
17/18

Forts @1910/4217
Clint

I would be fine with this set of combo's, count me in for the next game, but I would also like to transfer 2329 from Corsairs to DrL at game start.


Diplos:
You can send a diplo to your entire team any time once in every 5 turns. So on any turn from turns 1-5 you can send a single diplo (when you want to), then 6-10, 11-15 (so on naming character turns for simplicity and as an aid to memory). Diplo 50 words long, hexes count as single word, BS (for Blind Sorcerer) would count as one word, one diplo for your whole set of positions allowed.
Clint

Like several others above I do not like the idea of this, I like the fog of war effect, my vote is for no diplo's


Combos and Dead Nations:
Every 3 turns (or when we get the chance to update it) we'll update the nation combos, Dead nations as well. Inactive nations will, by default, revealed but not specifically mentioned.
Clint

Good.
In addition at all times "where possible" it should be avoided to let neighbouring nations take over dropped positions, though I accept it might not always be possible. No player more then 3 nations.


End game:
Additional rules:
Additionally, if there is at any time there is a greater than 3:1 advantage of surviving nations allegiance vs. allegiance, the game ends automatically.
Clint

The end game rules as proposed sound fine with me.

Cheers,
Alain

[Clint]

The one GB game I was in where it was used, I think I only got one diplo from another player that was pretty worthless in regards to info in my area...I dont know for certain, but it seems some people tend to ask for it, but it sounds like it falls apart as the game goes along?

We've tried making it simpler to remember how to use it and when. So if it's a name character turn (ie turn 6,11 etc) then you can send a diplo.

We have no plans to give the DrLd the MT - it's a very strong combo as it is. In the same way that the CL MT isn't transferred across to the Rhudaur - we leave that as an option play for the controlling player. There are many instances where a swop here or there would be a major help but...

Actually I think the DS are stronger (without any other factors) due to them having the Corsair nation compared with normally they have the Harad.

I've put Alain down for the game - that's 8 need 4 more. I'm very tempted to join myself - anyone playing got any objections?

Clint

[thuiatt]

I would love to play with our against you Clint. My favorite part of the game is trying to guess which player you are, simply from your reputation.

Tim

[Clint]

My favorite part of the game is trying to guess which player you are, simply from your reputation.

Favourite part?! :o Never had a fan before... :eek:

Clint (GM) (in fun)

[DaveHolt]

LOL. Clint - Tim & Tony had figured out 2 of the 3 nations I was in the last game (GB 14). I have no idea how... And I hadn't even thought about trying to figure out who was playing what nation...

[Ed Mills]

Black antelopes make handy house pets.

[smuller]

for the seats,
the rhudar seems the be the problem in most of the above points. teamed with the dk lts, who's only ability to support rhudar is too weaken itself but giving 3622 away.
that makes for a dysfunctional pairing. solutions? the problem is that the free can bury the rhudar under hordes of troops, and in a typical 1650 game, evil agent support is none existent. evil agents are so dependant on information sharing, that your taking a game strength, communication (sometimes in excess), and trying to script a version against that strenght.

sm

[blind one 118]

lol dave..I had all 3 nations you were playing figured out...something about cloud lord agents knowing to be there at the harad capital with the blind sorceror army tipped me off to that one

[thuiatt]

My guess was Dave was playing the Fire King and Cloud Lord, and I just figured he had picked up the Dog Lord because when we kidnapped Ren at 2926 he was guarded by two Dog Lord agents. Not that they did any good hehehe.

Who was playing the QA/Dog Lord. Anyone. Bueller. Bueller.

Tim

[Clint]

Okay we have 9 players so far for this format. Filling fast... :-)

Clint (GM)

[Fletch]

So Clint, are you jumping into this one or not?

I need to know if I need to race someone to bankruptcy or can take my time!! :>

Fletch

[Clint]

I need to know if I need to race someone to bankruptcy or can take my time!! :>

Very likely I'll be playing as there's been no-one ask me not to - I just need a spare lifetime but GB doesn't take me much time to run compared with a normal game.

As for bankruptcy - only if I get Rhudaur. :rolleyes: Otherwise it will take me at least 3 turns. :p

Clint (player)

[Clint]

Just 3 players needed for this game - any takers?

Clint

[bgp0231]

I hope you keep this format around i would love to give it a try when i get back from sand country; Iraq

[Clint]

Just needs the one player now.

Clint

[SmokeYou]

Clint,

Can I play the GB game if you need one more? I have never played so just need the rules. I think the only difference is you can not talk to each nation? Dave Holt can vouch for my ability.

John Folz

[Clint]

Sorry now filled.

Clint