Gunboat suggested rules changes

[Kitirat]

Having seen in the gunboats I've played and read about from everyone else here I have some observations and suggestions:

1) The single worst situation in a gunboat game is a drop early, or a dormant players for 2-3 turns.
2) Three man teams, especially on the dark side where character (Agent) abilities tend to allow nations to gang up against the enemy are the root cause of the unfairness/collapse in gunboat games.
3) Drops on the free side are almost invariably worse for the team than drops on the dark side because the three man free team most commonly can not do a 3 nation on one gang up (unless the free get two nations right next to each other).

Those things said. I feel the following solutions are perhaps the better situation:

1) All gunboat games are no drop. If a person drops they can not play gunboat again for a year. However, if they can find a friend to take over both nations this penalty does not apply.
2) Gunboat groupings can not be enlarged to three nations per team/person.
3) If a nation's player drops the nation's turn pdf is sent out to all allied players so they know the situation in that arena. This allows the team to attempt to recover chracters and information.

This prevents the nasty inevitable pairing of the cloud lord with someone when rhudaur falls/quits, helps the team to know how bad a regions collapse is, etc.

I suggest it is worse for the game to give a three team pairing then it is to simply allow a nation to collapse. Of course it could bring MEPBM game less money in the short term, but would likely keep eople playing more often and keep people from quiting the game overall.

See ya,
Ken

As an aside from what I have seen/heard the most common dropped pairings are arthedain/woodmen and north gondor/dunland. (wonder why, hmmm) on the dark side I am guessing it is rhudaur/cloud lord but later in the game.

Also note the drak win against the free 2 to 1 roughly and do not need augmentation of rhudaur.

[happymadcat]

I totally agree, G19 (ongoing) has been ruined by the FK-CL being given
the QA on turn 5(ish).. How can one fight against such a 3 nation
combination?? Very unhappy with ME over this; QA should never have been
given to CL-FK. If it hadnt been a no drop game I would have dropped.

Lets see give the best DS agent and military power, the QA with double
scouting and fantastic emissaries!!! Ridiculous, has completely
changed the game and has lost the game for the Free. Let's see I've
paid over 180 pounds for a game which ME won for the DS.

These may be strong words but I believe them to be right and true. A
rule change is badly needed. Certain nations MUST NOT be given to
other nations. Why isnt there a small pool of players willing to take
dropped gunboat positions?

Guy Roppa

[SmokeYou]

Quick Thoughts:
1. Lets say the QA/IK player drops:
-- ME tries to fill spot with another ME player not in game. If that does not
work, than ME have the other team vote on where the other 2 kingdoms should be assigned (if only 1 kingdom than vote on the 1). This will allow the goods in this example to make sure QA is not paired with CL ect...
3. Other option is decide how the nations will be assigned if there is a drop so that everyone knows. No randomness. Problem here is does a player want to take on cost of 3 kingdom?
4. Three kingdoms in one player is always an advantage to whoever gets it so we have to come up with ways to minimize the effect. Lets not kill a kingdom because WK or Rhu gets knocked out so than there is not CL or DrkL due to drop. Image if CL or DrkL was taken out due to drop. That changes the game a huge amount also.
5. I also think ME should not list on your turn results email what nations are out or pairings (only list it as the "starting pairings"). The first thing I do in GB games is see if there are any single kingdom players and attack them. If you did not find out on your own within game rules (using mages, recons, scouts, doubles ect), you should not know that WK just got knocked out so now DrkL is a lone kingdom.

These are just some quick thoughts.

John

[SmokeYou]

Forgot one item to Guy's comment:
"Why isnt there a small pool of players willing to take
dropped gunboat positions?"
--Most of the time it is for 1 nation and as you know if you play 1 nation in GB you have little chance to live at all. 2 nations available I would guess is not a problem for pickups.
John

[happymadcat]

Forgot one item to Guy's comment:
"Why isnt there a small pool of players willing to take
dropped gunboat positions?"
--Most of the time it is for 1 nation and as you know if you play 1 nation in GB you have little chance to live at all. 2 nations available I would guess is not a problem for pickups.
John

Personally I would give a 1 nation gunboat a shot, ofcourse you will never
become a power but sometimes thats not the point. But in this case it
was a 2 nation drop and 2 DS players ended up playing 3 nations each.

If the rules aren't changed or without any ME assureances of non repeat
I won't be signing up for any more GB games. All that hard work and
cost to be beaten by ME? No thanks.

[bernout]

1) All gunboat games are no drop. If a person drops they can not play gunboat again for a year. However, if they can find a friend to take over both nations this penalty does not apply.
2) Gunboat groupings can not be enlarged to three nations per team/person.
3) If a nation's player drops the nation's turn pdf is sent out to all allied players so they know the situation in that arena. This allows the team to attempt to recover chracters and information.

I agree except as somebody mentioned already, losing the second nation as well in a pairing because the player dropped is unbalancing as well. The ideal solution is of course for the player not to drop and perhaps pick up a 2nd nation again at some point in the future. But barring that, I like Guy's idea of having a pool of players arranged beforehand who would be willing to take over a lone nation. Perhaps MEGames could give some kind of price break to encourage that to happen. And if the decision was made to drop the nation then certainly sending out the last PDF to the team helps recovery.

Bernout

[happymadcat]

I agree with both Kitirats and Bernouts thoughts. The rules must change :mad:

[Ed Mills]

Harley could always use the GSI system. Don't fill drops at all. Of course, that might be to close to admiting a mistake may have been made.

[Clint]

Our take on drops is as follows:

1) Drops have invariably left the team at a disadvantage. This can often be a big disadvantage as 2 nations have often SSed for 2 turns. The reason that players SS in that situation is that regularly they are in a weak position (ie under heavy attack) so their nations are in a weaker position again - these factors multiply up to cause a big disadvantage for the dropping player side.

2) Solution to drops: i) No drop games - as we've seen they reduce the impact of drops but don't stop it. (So far 4 sets of positions have been dropped like this).
ii) Use GSI system of no drop pick-ups. I think this kills games and players enjoyment - when there's no competition left on the other side what's the point in playing (well for many I can see that this would be enjoyable). I've gone into this in detail in the past why we don't like it (and why we think it's bad for you guys as a game as well).
iii) Pick-ups. Okay one thing to address is the impact of the pick-ups. Given that in 1) above there is a big impact from missed turns/reduced effective positions then allowing a trio helps brings the "balance" back - ie an even, competitive game which is what I think the majority of you want. (If we go with ii) above the game generally ends in around 5 turns due to snowballing drops and it was basically kills most games of GB when we can't get replacements). We can certainly limit duos and their allowed triplet - I think that is one solution that would be very pertinent here.

My suggestion given iii) would be for you guys to fill in the gaps below:
1650 FP (I'll look at 2950 later if this fits players approval)
1/4 not allowed with: eg 1/4 n/a: 5,8,9 (my initial thoughts but more as an example)
2/8 n/a:
3/7 n/a:
5/9 n/a:
6/23 n/a:
10/22 n/a:
1650 DS
11/20 n/a:
12/21 n/a:
13/15 n/a:
14/24 n/a:
16/19 n/a:
17/18 n/a:

My assumption here is that we'd aim to keep character based nations apart (particularly double scouters with CL it seems to cause the most ire) and ditto economic/army based nations apart but feel free to put in some feedback and what you'd like to see.

Quick note on pick-ups - we send out an email asking players if they want to pickup a nation if we can't get a player to pick up the duos (sometimes that happens) without giving out the nation duos. We then divy up those nations as follows: i) players with least nations get 1st "refusal" ie they get a 2nd nation if they come back at this time, ii) we then give out the nations that most don't fit their present situation. Only when this fails do we then email again with the nations that have not been picked up and list those nations and you can ask for a specific nation (this happens 0% of the times for the first duo dropped, but subsequent duos there's an increased chance we have to fall back to this situation).

2nd thing: I intend that for future games we not allow old turns for the 3rd nation. Thoughts on that (and other ideas on how to move forward on this) welcome?

Game 19 - I can't comment at present as it's still on-going and you should not comment in anyway about it please.

I can talk about generic concepts here at best but I think they'll end up being discussions about current games and I want to avoid that at present (for obvious reasons). Ideally I'd like comments from players that have played the game as they are clearly the most important here and we're to help you guys enjoy the game.

Apologies for the long post.

Clint

[lothrim]

Hi ME, I think you are doing an excellent job with gunboat games, and I enjoy them.

My only grudge is that you do not immidiately list which nation-combos are being played with. I play in game 97 and has been playing 3 nations for 10+ turns. However the list of nation combos does not reflect that, even though you state that you intend to update it every 3 turns. I feel it gives me an unfair advantage that would vanish if my opponents knew what they were going against.

Gunboat games will never be fair. They will be unpredictable and at most times very satisfying. No killer combos will ruin the games. Basically your teammates decide if you win as you cannot hope to kill all opposing nations by your self.

I find that picking up the 3. nation (as I always does) is fun because it is typicaly in a hopeless position and requires the immidiate and full support from from my 2 original nations. It typically takes me 6-8 turns to bring back the 3. nation to life again and make it valuable to me. But that time could also have been spent making life really difficult for some other nations. Sometimes it is hard to evaluate if the 3. nation should just be gutted or kept alive.

[happymadcat]

And the idea of a pool of players to takeup dropped nations? This would
eliminate most of the problem and I would be the 1st to put my name down
for it.

If ME understands the 'ire' it causes why was QA given to CL-FK in the
game we can't mention? :) Surely they would have understood it would
lead to a victory for the DS. With that 3 nation combo only a poor
player would'nt be able to win the game.

Guy Roppa

G95 DkLts & FK
G30 CL
G5 EO
G32 Dog
G34 SG
G19 ? & ?
G45 SK
G48 ?

Past Games..
Lots an lots

[thuiatt]

I think it is a bad idea to not pick up the dropped nations, as Clint mentioned the game will end shortly if you let two nations drop. You have to allow some type of pick up to make the game viable. The only real limit I can see would be for the Cloud Lord to get the Dragon Lord or QA and possibly the Noldo to get the woodmen or Duns. Gunboat game 70 is an example where we picked up a third nation yet by turn 30 there was only one other free pairing left playing. The game just wasn't fun anymore although all three positions we had were still very viable. Had we only had two nations the game would have ended a lot sooner. And the outcome was still the other side winning although they had a few three pairing nations as well.

I would be a fan of paying for the first ten turns in advance with no refund. That way if you drop, you have already paid for the turn. If you bankrupt the nation, oh well that was an expensive game. I really don't understand how someone drops in the first five turns of a game. You really ruin the game for everyone else involved.

tim huiatt

[happymadcat]

I think it is a bad idea to not pick up the dropped nations, as Clint mentioned the game will end shortly if you let two nations drop. You have to allow some type of pick up to make the game viable. The only real limit I can see would be for the Cloud Lord to get the Dragon Lord or QA and possibly the Noldo to get the woodmen or Duns. Gunboat game 70 is an example where we picked up a third nation yet by turn 30 there was only one other free pairing left playing. The game just wasn't fun anymore although all three positions we had were still very viable. Had we only had two nations the game would have ended a lot sooner. And the outcome was still the other side winning although they had a few three pairing nations as well.

I would be a fan of paying for the first ten turns in advance with no refund. That way if you drop, you have already paid for the turn. If you bankrupt the nation, oh well that was an expensive game. I really don't understand how someone drops in the first five turns of a game. You really ruin the game for everyone else involved.

tim huiatt


Yes, an agent nation can't be paired with a scouting nation either side.
But surely a GB player pickup pool can be created to stop the 3 nation
teams from creation in most cases..?

Paying for the 1st 10 turns sounds plausible but if the nation is knocked
out in the 1st 10 turns (regular with Rhuduar, EO, Coriars and Harad) the
remaining turn fees should be returned.

[IronLord]

I totally agree, G19 (ongoing) has been ruined by the FK-CL being given
the QA on turn 5(ish).. How can one fight against such a 3 nation
combination?? Very unhappy with ME over this; QA should never have been
given to CL-FK. If it hadnt been a no drop game I would have dropped.

Lets see give the best DS agent and military power, the QA with double
scouting and fantastic emissaries!!! Ridiculous, has completely
changed the game and has lost the game for the Free. Let's see I've
paid over 180 pounds for a game which ME won for the DS.

These may be strong words but I believe them to be right and true. A
rule change is badly needed. Certain nations MUST NOT be given to
other nations. Why isnt there a small pool of players willing to take
dropped gunboat positions?



Guy Roppa

Hey Guy looks like we are on the same page here for once. I was personly so upset about this issue I found it hard to even look at my turns, they sat for days in my mailbox I never opened them. I'll not go on more as the game is still active. But I do have a lot to say about it....

I know Clint tryed to make it work for us but, I feel that sometimes if there is no right way to fix somthing then just don't, let the nation (or at least one of them) drop. Whats going to happen in this game is that the true winners, the FP, are going to lose becasue the DS where giving a huge edge, becasue their teammate failed to man up. Simply put, thats not right. I know that I would have been much happier even if the game was just called there. Or if the game had just been opened up and let us talk to each other. One thing was clear it was no longer a Gunboat.


John Lamulle

[johnstrac]

I have never played Gunboat so it occurs to me to ask, why do players get 2 Nations ?
Seems the easiest way to resolve the issue of double drops is to assign 1 Nation per player ?

[Ed Mills]

I have never played Gunboat so it occurs to me to ask, why do players get 2 Nations ?
Seems the easiest way to resolve the issue of double drops is to assign 1 Nation per player ?

It was GSI policy that no one played more than one nation. That is how the game creators envisioned the game. Harley feels it must be the un-GSI and substitutes their judgement for the game's creators.

[bernout]

It was GSI policy that no one played more than one nation. That is how the game creators envisioned the game. Harley feels it must be the un-GSI and substitutes their judgement for the game's creators.

Really Ed, this gets old at times.

My understanding is in a no-communication environment, some nations start off in really, really bad positions and thus no one would likely ever want to play them and wouldn't last long if they did. Thus you give each player 2 nations and pair the weaker nations with stronger ones in order to create a more balanced game.

Bernout

[happymadcat]

Hey Guy looks like we are on the same page here for once. I was personly so upset about this issue I found it hard to even look at my turns, they sat for days in my mailbox I never opened them. I'll not go on more as the game is still active. But I do have a lot to say about it....

I know Clint tryed to make it work for us but, I feel that sometimes if there is no right way to fix somthing then just don't, let the nation (or at least one of them) drop. Whats going to happen in this game is that the true winners, the FP, are going to lose becasue the DS where giving a huge edge, becasue their teammate failed to man up. Simply put, thats not right. I know that I would have been much happier even if the game was just called there. Or if the game had just been opened up and let us talk to each other. One thing was clear it was no longer a Gunboat.


John Lamulle


Hi John, sooner or later we had to agree over something. ;) When I saw
the QA had been given to CL-FK I knew it was over on T5. I completely
agree, the Free were the true winners in this game and have been let
down by ME. Sorry Clint and co, I like you guys but you have to concede
it was a game winning decision QA-CL-FK. It cannot happen again.

[happymadcat]

To summarise;

1) No CL or Noldo to be paired with any of the double scouting nations.

2) A GB player pickup pool should be established to pick up dropped nations.

3) Only when the player pool is offered the dropped nations are the
players already playing the game offered the dropped nations.

Guy Roppa

[happymadcat]

So put me in the GB pickup pool please ME... Anyone else??

[johnstrac]

Surely the lack of communication prevents single "weak" Nations being picked on and gives them time to develope their strengths ?

[thuiatt]

First of all, I am not interested in the Gunboat pickup pool. Unfortunately I like to run a nation one way and usually it is not similar to how others run the nation. Sorry, that is just my opinion. I would prefer to start a gunboat game and run my nations from scratch. I think this is one of the problems that Harly has with dropped nations hence why I am in favour of allowing other players to pick up dropped nations.

I agree that the Cloud Lord (Noldo) should not be allowed to pick up a double scout nation. If someone else on your team does not pick up the dropped position, then the nation should be retired for the rest of that game.

And Ed, I totally disagree that a player should only be allowed to run one nation. I like running more than one nation, I like playing games against others where they run more than one nation, and I think it is great rule.

Tim

[thuiatt]

Surely the lack of communication prevents single "weak" Nations being picked on and gives them time to develope their strengths ?


John, it does not. Take Rhuduar. You don't think he is going to get picked on. He might not even be able to develop a high enough emissary let alone enough money to upgrade a new camp to a Major town in a safe area. Gunboat with no communication needs to be played with two nations per pairing, not individual nations.

tim

[Kitirat]

To summarise;

1) No CL or Noldo to be paired with any of the double scouting nations.

2) A GB player pickup pool should be established to pick up dropped nations.

3) Only when the player pool is offered the dropped nations are the
players already playing the game offered the dropped nations.

Guy Roppa

I disagree.

In most cases it is the cloud lord (and the long rider to a lesser extent) being a 3rd nation which is the game breaker. He is well hidden, hard to reach so he is almost always a boon as a 3rd nation. On top of this he can apply his power anywhere. When teamed up with any other agent nation pairing (which is all of them except dog lord/blind sorcerer) it effectively means the end to a free nation who is ganged up on, generally with no or little defense (northmen and eothraim come to mind).

Where it really gets bad is when you are the free and pick up a 3rd nation pairing and it goes against a cloud lord 3 team bam.

So I'll go through the clint "no gains" system, but I think it will not be effective because there tends to be drops everywhere and things mix the pairing up quickly so you can get 2-3 pairing which are not like the inital ones.

Thus a no two nations paired together seems more appropriate.

I'll post what I mean in a bit.

See ya,
Ken

[VEO]

John, it does not. Take Rhuduar. You don't think he is going to get picked on. He might not even be able to develop a high enough emissary let alone enough money to upgrade a new camp to a Major town in a safe area. Gunboat with no communication needs to be played with two nations per pairing, not individual nations.

tim

I'd play Rhudaur as a single nation Gunboat. I've been blown to smithereens in every other kind of game as Rhudaur, a nice peaceful, glass of wine on the docks watching the sunset no allies ignoring your pleas for money/safe haven, yeah, that sounds like a nice game, actually...

Arfanbrad

[happymadcat]

I disagree.


Where it really gets bad is when you are the free and pick up a 3rd nation pairing and it goes against a cloud lord 3 team bam.

See ya,
Ken

Far worse when you fight a 3 CL team with double scouting when you're
only a lowly 2 teamer. :p

[Clint]

"If ME understands the 'ire' it causes why was QA given to CL-FK in the
game we can't mention? Surely they would have understood it would
lead to a victory for the DS. "

There is no right solution in some situations. I don't think it has caused the game to go in a specific situation here (I've checked the situation in some depth). Please stop talking about it - the game is current and the rules state that you cannot discuss a current game.

As for my ideas - more feedback here would be welcome - I see that Ken will give me his list - I would like that from the other players who've asked for an updated set of rules for all the nations please.

Clint

[br_fisher]

The fundamental problem is that a character-based nation can project its power back and forth across the map more easily than a military nation. Since the Darks start with the characters; three-man sets for the Darks create more problems once the agents get going.

The Cloud Lord being added to ANY new set is a problem; it dramatically shifts the dynamic of the game and the Free cannot compensate for the sudden introduction of large numbers of agents that flow freely across the board. I know; I've experienced it first-hand twice now. Simply do not allow the CL to be added to a three nation-pair, period. If that means the CL is eliminated, so be it. (I do not object to the CL being added to a single nation).

Three nation sets on the Dark Servant side are the problem because characters (and dragon information) can be shared so easily, unlike military strength. Perhaps dark servants shouldn't be allowed to get 3-nation blocks at all, and not just the Cloud Lord.

I find it particularly frustrating to unleash a massive assault on a nation pairing, only to have that pairing be split apart as they're crumbling and each nation of the pair handed to a separate pair, who can now prop each separate nation up. This plays havoc with military strategy for the Free.

Here are some concrete suggestions or possibilities:

(1) Eliminate or weaken (+10%) the CL kidnap/assassinate ability in gunboat. This weakens the impact of a 3-man CL block. Since I doubt this can be done without programing changes, some alternative suggestions:

(2) Do not allow the CL to join ANY three-man team, ever. The CL either gets picked up (solo) or added to another single nation, or it goes inactive til eliminated in six turns or someone can pick it up.

(3) Remove Rhudaur from the Dark Servant team entirely, give the Darks the Easterlings instead. You may have to tinker with fortifications for the Northmen and Eothraim to balance it if you did this.

(4) I like the idea of a pool of players before each gunboat game begins to pick up dropped positions, but I too am concerned that the nation may have been driven into the ground prior to my picking it up. You'll need to give some free turns to people picking up nations, especially in gunboat.

(5) One person per nation... but the "nation pairings" can still talk to each other and coordinate normally. Frankly I think that this increases interest in the game and makes drops less likely. Then if one person quits, the other person can immediately pick it up.

(6) it's a good idea to not give old turns of the third nation to the three-nation pairing. That may help a little.

[bernout]

(4) I like the idea of a pool of players before each gunboat game begins to pick up dropped positions, but I too am concerned that the nation may have been driven into the ground prior to my picking it up. You'll need to give some free turns to people picking up nations, especially in gunboat.

Yep. I'd volunteer to be part of such a pool but some financial incentive is definitely in order to come in and try to make the best of a single nation (or a nation pair since one is likely on the verge of being dead anyhow).

(5) One person per nation... but the "nation pairings" can still talk to each other and coordinate normally. Frankly I think that this increases interest in the game and makes drops less likely. Then if one person quits, the other person can immediately pick it up.

MEGames already allows this in any case. You can bring in someone to join you and split your nation pair between the two of you. I did this with a set of 3 nations in one GB game actually (i.e. brought in 2 other players).

Bernout

[br_fisher]

MEGames already allows this in any case. You can bring in someone to join you and split your nation pair between the two of you. I did this with a set of 3 nations in one GB game actually (i.e. brought in 2 other players).

Bernout

Yes, I do this as well, but perhaps it should be mandatory. That would provide a ready pool of back-up players as well as discouraging people from signing up and then quitting on turn 3 because they're mad that they only got 2 points of agent skill the prior turn. It might also help people maintain interest.

[johnstrac]

What does it cost per turn to play Gunboat ?
Is it twice the normal fee ?

[VEO]

Same cost per nation, so 2 nations is 2x the cost of 1 nation.. Special Set Up though, so the game start fee is the same as Grudges (aligned neuts, extra fortifications, removal of a neut, etc...) which is 2x regular set up. So Gunboat is essentially a more expensive game. They will allow you to "share" a duo such that 2 of you can play the 2 nations how you like at standard single nation cost each, of course. Note, the set up fees are double "per nation" so setting up a Gunboat and getting your 2 Turn 0 pdf's costs you double set-up fees for each nation. Yes, a more expensive game..

[Clint]

Guys - I need more feedback if you want me to do changes. GB format is very much a game in development and I think often will - there's been lots of different formats of the game already and I think that's a great thing.

We can't do code changes - I think the CL (as a player) is a fine nation and is, although, clearly the best Killer nation, it's got weaknesses. Game balance seems to be okay as there are weak nations - Rhudaur with CL definitely offsets- strengths and weaknesses there for example. The debate seems to be focussed on Cloud Lord - what about other nation duos. (Ditto Noldo with Harad - a weak with a strong nation).

Clint (GM)

[Clint]

Suggested Gunboat changes for future games

1) A pool of players come forwards that offer to pick up a nation should we not be able to find players outside the game for GB drops. They would be offered an additional free turn for the pick up (ie 2 free turns) with a guarantee that they pay for 5 turns (if the game ends any not used turns would be refunded). After that they’d get an additional free turn if they are still playing only one nation. They’d be eligible to pick up a dropped nation as first preference (along with other players on 1 nation). If we can't get a player to pick up a nation then in that situation we'd allow the 3) to occur.

Note dropped duos could be picked up and split between 2 players- no special offer then.

2) Future games we not allow old turns for the 3rd nation.

3) Gunboat 1650 FP
Woodmen/Arthedain not allowed with: Cardolan, Dwarves, Sindar
Northmen/Dwarves n/a: Eothraim
Eothraim/South Gondor n/a: North Gondor
Cardolan/Sindar n/a: Arthedian, Noldo, Dunlendings
North Gondor/Dunlendings n/a: South Gondor
Noldo/Harad n/a: Woodmen, Sindar, Dunlendings

If a nation is down to one nation then it can pick up any other nation except Noldo can’t pick up Woodmen or Dunlendings.

1650 DS
Witch King/Dark Lieutenants n/a: All allowed
Dragon Lord/Corsairs n/a: Cloud Lord
Dog Lord/Blind Sorcerer n/a: All allowed
Cloud Lord/Rhudaur n/a: Dragon Lord, Ice King, Quiet Avenger
Ice King/Long Rider n/a: Dragon Lord, Cloud Lord, Quiet Avenger
Quiet Avenger/Fire King n/a: Cloud Lord, Ice King, Long Rider

If a nation is down to one nation then it can pick up any other nation except Cloud Lord can’t pick up Quiet Avenger or Dragon Lord.

Thoughts welcome (I think I've combined all the points above as best I can). Particularly want feedback on nation combos that are allowed.

Clint

[happymadcat]

Clint,

The Harad/Noldo combo is a good one and is needed to provide the Harad
with any long term sustainablity. The Noldo agents and emissaries can
provide much needed character support to the Harad giving the Harad
a chance against the QA and Corsiars military and some cover against
the character actions of the CL and DrL.

I agree with neither CL nor Noldo being teamed with a double rank nation
but I don't think Sinda or a LR teaming with a double scout nation would
have the same effect. Simply because the LR or Sinda would probably
on have 3 or 4 killers max while a CL could have 10 killers utilising 5 double
recon scouts every turn. Big difference.

What do you mean by bonus would the players want to have in a player
pool? My thoughts would be the 1st turn free followed by every 5th turn
free and the last 5 game turn files.

Guy

Yes, a 3rd nation team shouldnt recieve old turns

[VEO]

A thought - nation pairings are both complimentary and generally geographically dissimilar. Weak and Strong, avoiding combining powerful SNA's, and distant. Piffle. How about matching them geographically..?

Noldo-Arthedian
Cardolan-Duns
Dwarf-Woodmen
Sinda-NG
Eothraim-Northmen
SG-southern neut

for example. This would actually increase the Fog of War, as these pairings would have similar or extended maps, instead of 2 maps from different areas. (Sinda-Woodmen together would really "suck" there..!).

Throw in the Easterlings/LR pairing as a DS, make the Cloud Lord a single nation play (get's 25 nations) that can never 1) add a nation to the duo or 2) be added to a duo - ie Cloud drops can be picked up by solo players or left to die only.

WK-Rhudaur
Dragon-Dog
Fire-Ice
QA-southern neut
Dark-BS
LR-Easterlings

Personally, it would be frustrating having Murazor dragging Arfanhil down like this, but if Duo's are insisted on, it'll have to do.. ;)

Brad

[Kitirat]

As per Clints Request:

Not allowed:
1/4 n/a: 5,8,9,10,23
2/8 n/a: 1,3,4,5
3/7 n/a: 2,4,8,22
5/9 n/a: 1,3,10,22
6/23 n/a: 1,4,5,9,10
10/22 n/a: 1,4,7,9
1650 DS
11/20 n/a: 14*, 24
12/21 n/a: 14*,17,19
13/15 n/a: 14*
14/24 n/a: 11
16/19 n/a: 12,13,14*, 17
17/18 n/a: 13, 14*, 16, 19, 21
Note: The cloud lord can not be placed in a triple group. It can only be placed as a single or double pairing and can not be placed with the dragon lord or quiet avenger even if this is the case. This should not be a problem in the least. The CL is perhaps one of the easiest positions to fill in the game and can easily be run as a single nation. The only other duo restriction is the Noldo can not be placed with the woodmen.

IMO the CL is the crux of the problem as he can bring so much power to bare down so quickly anywhere on the board. When tripled he can swing games (I know the "uber experienced people" all giggle about how easy it is to "deal" with the CL assault, but for most players, having the two team group your fighting all the sudden have 5-8 agents camping your capital or freezing your forward assault can be game changing while your stuck with only two nations (who are geographically distant and tend to not have the character power to deal with the three to 1 advantage on them) .

Lets take a hypethetical. You are the Eothraim/South Gondor. You are doing good, the corsairs are losing the battle and you have them bottled in mordor and at turn 12 or so (A reasonable time for the classic "rhudaur fell, I quit" time. Oh look the Dog Lord/Blind Sorcerer got the cloud lord. Of course, you do not know that the turn it happens.

The Cloud lord now plops down on the South Gondor (it would be more likely EO, but lets make it as hypothetical as possible). with his 6 agents. Up to this point you have had no need to as of yet spread your characters to the wind because your playing gunboat against 2 player teams and the agent powers have tended to be dealing elsewhere.

Oh look you see the darks split up and the CL is now with the doglord/blind sorcerer. Best time to scatter the characters. But you can't as 4 get kidnapped and 2 assassinated before you can react (you find out the same turn they issue the 6 agent orders)

Now I know you could have "spread out" as a precaution before hand, but you play with what your dealing with and the game your in. When this happens it drastically alters the game in general for the people playing against the enemy. It is the most exaccerbated with the CL who can project his power so quickly and effectively.

As a note, the comment of "you could just make a 30 point agent and send it to where they are stealing" is nutty at best. What idiot leaves an agent company at a pop center for more than a turn or 2 (unless there is reason).

From what I have seen often times crushing you enemy causes them to split (guy drops) and all the sudden your worse off than if you had just stalled him becuase now you have to deal with 6 instead of 2 nations (again exaccerbated if your the free because the darks all have a character nation in their combos).

[Kitirat]

A thought - nation pairings are both complimentary and generally geographically dissimilar. Weak and Strong, avoiding combining powerful SNA's, and distant. Piffle. How about matching them geographically..?

Noldo-Arthedian
Cardolan-Duns
Dwarf-Woodmen
Sinda-NG
Eothraim-Northmen
Brad
That would an early death at best (Eothraim/Norhtmen).

They displace nations also to mimize collapse. It is less likely both the north/dwarf and the eothraim/SG players are going to suck. but a bad North/Eothraim means that whole flank collapses as an example.

[br_fisher]

The problem with matching things completely geographically is that the Free need to know what's going on in other areas or they start suffering from "elf sickness".

I like Clint's suggested limits on pairs more than Ken's; in fact I do not believe that military combinations (Rhudaur / WK or Eothraim / NG, for example) are likely to influence the game the way the rapid introduction of agents can. Also, I'd rather be a minimalist and keep the (can't play with X) restrictions down if we can; it'll be a pain to implement otherwise. So i'd strike military combinations from the restricted list.

Modifications that I would suggest to Clint's list:

Only the ones in bold would be restricted.
FOR THE FREE: I think Eothraim / SG / NG might be a bit much for the darks, that's why I'd leave that one in place. Otherwise I'd allow various combinations that Clint suggested limiting (due to my lack-of-concern for military combinations).

FOR THE DARKS: I generally agree with Clint's assessment, except that I'd add the CL as not being allowed to join the WK / Dark Lts.

Bradford (bolded ones are what I'd suggest restricting)



3) Gunboat 1650 FP
Woodmen/Arthedain not allowed with: Cardolan, Dwarves, Sindar
Northmen/Dwarves n/a: Eothraim
Eothraim/South Gondor n/a: North Gondor
Cardolan/Sindar n/a: Arthedian, Noldo, Dunlendings
North Gondor/Dunlendings n/a: South Gondor
Noldo/Harad n/a: Woodmen, Sindar, Dunlendings

If a nation is down to one nation then it can pick up any other nation except Noldo can’t pick up Woodmen or Dunlendings.

1650 DS
Witch King/Dark Lieutenants n/a: All allowed Cloud Lord
Dragon Lord/Corsairs n/a: Cloud Lord
Dog Lord/Blind Sorcerer n/a: All allowed
Cloud Lord/Rhudaur n/a: Dragon Lord, Ice King, Quiet Avenger
Ice King/Long Rider n/a: Dragon Lord, Cloud Lord, Quiet Avenger
Quiet Avenger/Fire King n/a: Cloud Lord, Ice King, Long Rider

[Kitirat]

The problem with matching things completely geographically is that the Free need to know what's going on in other areas or they start suffering from "elf sickness".

Modifications that I would suggest to Clint's list:

Only the ones in bold would be restricted.

1650 DS
Witch King/Dark Lieutenants n/a: All allowed Cloud Lord
Dragon Lord/Corsairs n/a: Cloud Lord
Dog Lord/Blind Sorcerer n/a: All allowed
Cloud Lord/Rhudaur n/a: Dragon Lord, Ice King, Quiet Avenger
Ice King/Long Rider n/a: Dragon Lord, Cloud Lord, Quiet Avenger
Quiet Avenger/Fire King n/a: Cloud Lord, Ice King, Long Rider

This would basically mean the dog lord/blind sorcerer gets the CL between turns 8 and 20 most games. That is a nasty surprise to the SG/Eothraim team.

How about a middle ground. Everything listed as above except the cloud lord can not become part of a 3 nation team?

See ya,
Ken

[VEO]

That would an early death at best (Eothraim/Norhtmen).

They displace nations also to mimize collapse. It is less likely both the north/dwarf and the eothraim/SG players are going to suck. but a bad North/Eothraim means that whole flank collapses as an example.

I still think it would work, well, interestingly at least. And nobody wants to note I solved the Cloud with Anyone dilemna.. No credit, no credit at all.. :eek:

[Kitirat]

I still think it would work, well, interestingly at least. And nobody wants to note I solved the Cloud with Anyone dilemna.. No credit, no credit at all.. :eek:

Except it gives the darks 13 nations and they aready win more with only 12.

See ya,
Ken

[VEO]

It's a heavily tweaked game (extra fortifications, improved pops, etc..) that can be "adjusted" back downwards. And the most common complaint is the Cloud as a member of a triplet (I was going to say threesome...but thought better of it...er...ooops..). But yeah, I know I'm reaching, I'm just looking for something that's potentially interesting and not the kind of adminstrative headache that I've seen elsewhere..!

[happymadcat]

13V12, no matter how you try to sell it Brad it just ain't going to work. Put
it down as 'interesting' but it just needs so much tweaking to workable. Now
who will sign up for the Free team against 13 DS...?

[Pearly]

I am in GB 19 right now. It will be interesting to talk about this one when it ends.

I would play GB as it is currently modified. I would play GB with the unmodified setups. I would tweak GB, if given divine authority:

First thought- I would play the 12vs12 DSvsFP where: the FP nation pairings were tweaked in advance by the designated FP players, and perhaps a limited diplo was allowed between FPs but not DS.

I would still limit the pre-game communication between FPs to nil, indicating only to HQ what their desired pairings might be. The pre-game communication could be one way, and in corresponding rounds. FP players each send in 6 pairings of all 12 nations in round 1. HQ accepts all similar pairings that are also on each of those 6 players' lists and HQ rejects all other nation pairings. HQ does NOT allocate these consensus pairings until all6 pairs are determined. HQ then sends back the unused nations for the 6 players to again independantly pair up. Repeat add nauseum, until the FP players have picked the pairs via consensus, and then have HQ randomly assign the players to the final pairs. The pre-game rounds might last a few days, but integrity is built in to the system where 1) the FP players do not know who their teammates are and 2) the FP players are not guaranteed any particular pairing so they should default to choosing optimally balanced pairs. Perhaps 6 players choose DU-NE, but it is unlikely to have anyone choose NM-HA.

Perhaps this kind of pre-game process would get some of the more experienced players to buy into the FP side; before anything else ask for players to sign up as FP and after a finite amount of time accept all others. That in itself would alleviate some inequalities in the game.

[DaveHolt]

Lots of good discussion here.

I agree that CL should not be in a threesome.

I agree that double Scouter nations shouldn't be paired with NE or CL.

I don't think we should further limit things, except that ME Games should ascertain if a player is dropping to help their side. This has happened before. If you know that your nation pair is bearing the brunt of attack of the other side and can't support each other (let's pick SG/EO for example), and if you drop your two nations will be split and taken up by other nation-pairs making 2 threesomes that *Can* support the nations under attack, you are gaming the system by dropping. This shouldn't be allowed by ME Games. i.e. if they see that the two nation pair is in serious trouble and that both nations will together likely die, but if separated and added to 2 other strong nation pairings, both will survive, ME games should not allow the nations to be picked up. That's taking sides by propping up a side, not being a neutral moderator.

The thing that ticks me off most in GB is when you execute a great strategy to take down a nation-pair, and the player drops and the nations get distributed to other nations that now prop them up. That is just plain wrong and just as bad as putting CL with QA IMHO.

I agree that nation pairings-changes should be published IMMEDIATELY to the players in the game in the frontsheet (not "sometime later")

I agree that if a nation changes hands, that the past turn sheets should NOT be given to the new owner.


Dave

[Clint]

FOR THE DARKS: I generally agree with Clint's assessment, except that I'd add the CL as not being allowed to join the WK / Dark Lts.

This has come up twice. Ken's comments that basically the Cloud Lord can only go with BS/Dog combo is valid here. I've gone with Cloud Lord can’t be part of a 3 nation team but with the below restrictions. (I've taken on lots of the feedback but getting a list that everyone agrees is correct is going to be impossible I feel. I think the below set of rules updates are reasonably good though.

Suggested Gunboat changes for future games

1) A pool of players come forwards that offer to pick up a nation should we not be able to find players outside the game for GB drops. They would be offered an additional free turn for the pick up (ie 2 free turns) with a guarantee that they pay for 5 turns (if the game ends any not used turns would be refunded). After that they’d get an additional free turn if they are still playing only one nation. They’d be eligible to pick up a dropped nation as first preference (along with other players on 1 nation). If we can't get a player to pick up a nation then in that situation we'd allow the 3) to occur.

Note dropped duos could be picked up and split between 2 players- no special offer then.

I've only had one or two offers for this - if you want me to implement this rule I need more players.

2) Future games we not allow old turns for the 3rd nation.

3) Gunboat 1650 FP
Woodmen/Arthedain not allowed with: Cardolan, Dwarves, Sindar, Noldo
Northmen/Dwarves n/a: Eothraim
Eothraim/South Gondor n/a: Northmen, North Gondor, Harad
Cardolan/Sindar n/a: Arthedian, Noldo, Dunlendings
North Gondor/Dunlendings n/a: South Gondor
Noldo/Harad n/a: Woodmen, South Gondor, Sindar, Dunlendings

If a nation is down to one nation then it can pick up any other nation except Noldo can’t pick up Woodmen or Dunlendings.

Gunboat 1650 DS
Witch King/Dark Lieutenants n/a: All allowed
Dragon Lord/Corsairs n/a: Cloud Lord, Quiet Avenger,
Dog Lord/Blind Sorcerer n/a: All allowed
Cloud Lord/Rhudaur n/a: Dragon Lord, Ice King, Quiet Avenger
Ice King/Long Rider n/a: Dragon Lord, Cloud Lord
Quiet Avenger/Fire King n/a: Cloud Lord, Ice King, Long Rider

If a nation is down to one nation then it can pick up any other nation except Cloud Lord can’t pick up Quiet Avenger or Dragon Lord. Cloud Lord can’t be part of a 3 nation team.

So for example WK/Dk/Cl wouldn't be allowed but if either of the WK/Dk died and the Fk/Cl duo drop then you could end up with, for example, DkL/CL.

You guys happy with this? I don't like the 13v12 game at all but limited diplos are fine with me (but that's upto you guys). There's been more requests for no-drop games - but that's not possible to have the game where you cannot drop I'm afraid (RW issues get in the way). We can have games were no-drop are set but I feel that we can't 100% enforce it - which means that you are much more likely not to drop (if you do drop you can not play another no-drop game for example).

Clint

[Clint]

The thing that ticks me off most in GB is when you execute a great strategy to take down a nation-pair, and the player drops and the nations get distributed to other nations that now prop them up.

As a player this ticks me off as well... :D Can't comment more at present. :o

Clint (player)

[DaveHolt]

Just say "NO" to diplos in GB. They help the DS far more than the FP.

Dave

[happymadcat]

Clint,

Proposed rule changes are fine by me..

Guy

[thuiatt]

Proposed rule changes look good to me as well.

tim

[DaveHolt]

The thing that ticks me off most in GB is when you execute a great strategy to take down a nation-pair, and the player drops and the nations get distributed to other nations that now prop them up.

As a player this ticks me off as well... :D Can't comment more at present. :o

Clint (player)


So, would you agree that ME Games won't "save" a failed/failing nation-pair that was targeted for destruction by splitting them and pairing them up with strong nation pairs? i.e. they should die if the player quits.

Dave

[Kitirat]

So, would you agree that ME Games won't "save" a failed/failing nation-pair that was targeted for destruction by splitting them and pairing them up with strong nation pairs? i.e. they should die if the player quits.

Dave

First: As a clarification a person picking up a 2 nation pairing should get all old turns, only 3 nation pairing do not get old turns correct?

Like the rule alterations overall.

I have one more rule to suggest, it is simple and makes things fair for the whole beat down spliting rule. There is no real way for Clint and crew to determine why a player is dropping, they would have to keep tabs on the game and there are many games.

Just have the 2 turn rule.

2 turn rule: A pairing can not be split up to allies (either 2 or 3 nation groupings) for two turns after the player droppping quits. Pick ups of the two nation pair by players outside the game can occur before this period.

This prevents (to a good degree) the 2 beaten down nations becoming 6 nation monster thing.

Heck with it you could probably cool down the restricted pairing to no noldo or CL double scout combos and no CL triple pairings. Might be simpler to impliment, but the other system (plus the 2 turn rule) might be the best total package.

See ya,
Ken

[Clint]

So, would you agree that ME Games won't "save" a failed/failing nation-pair that

No that's not the case - ME will do that. Not for the purpose of saving it but just due to the 3 nation rule.

I think most of the problem is the 3 nation rule in the game (I'd say that overall it helps out, but sometimes it somewhat penalises the other side) - the other things are "knock-on" effects of players playing 3 nations. The problem that comes up is due to players dropping in the first place, but I can't see an easy solution to that. If there are players who are happy to be on the "pick-up" nation list that would certainly help.

Clint

[bernout]

The problem that comes up is due to players dropping in the first place, but I can't see an easy solution to that. If there are players who are happy to be on the "pick-up" nation list that would certainly help.

The no-drop rule is a good one, especially if that is person is banned from playing in another no-drop game for some period of time. It needs to be recognized that these games require a higher level of commitment. Besides, the time required isn't that large anyhow since you have no one to coordinate with.

As mentioned earlier, I'd be happy to be on a "pick-up" nation list.

Bernout

[DaveHolt]

So, would you agree that ME Games won't "save" a failed/failing nation-pair that

No that's not the case - ME will do that. Not for the purpose of saving it but just due to the 3 nation rule.

I think most of the problem is the 3 nation rule in the game (I'd say that overall it helps out, but sometimes it somewhat penalises the other side) - the other things are "knock-on" effects of players playing 3 nations. The problem that comes up is due to players dropping in the first place, but I can't see an easy solution to that. If there are players who are happy to be on the "pick-up" nation list that would certainly help.

Clint

Surely Clint, you see that this then puts you, the moderator, into a position of helping one side and penalizing the other side? One of the best strategies in GB is to go after a nation pair. If the attack is effective, that nation pair shouldn't be allowed to "resurrect" itself by the player quitting and the nations getting split off to be supported by other strong nation pairs. That's just not right and goes against the whole idea of GB.

Ken's idea of waiting a mandatory 2 turns if the nations are to be split up and handed to existing team-mates is a reasonable compromise. And I agree with Ken that there should be no mandatory 2-turn penalty if the nation pair is being taken up by someone not already in the game.

Dave

[Kitirat]

Surely Clint, you see that this then puts you, the moderator, into a position of helping one side and penalizing the other side? One of the best strategies in GB is to go after a nation pair. If the attack is effective, that nation pair shouldn't be allowed to "resurrect" itself by the player quitting and the nations getting split off to be supported by other strong nation pairs. That's just not right and goes against the whole idea of GB.

Ken's idea of waiting a mandatory 2 turns if the nations are to be split up and handed to existing team-mates is a reasonable compromise. And I agree with Ken that there should be no mandatory 2-turn penalty if the nation pair is being taken up by someone not already in the game.

Dave

As I think about it more, the rules listed are complex for most people and are not required to be seen as they may reduce the interest of people to play Gunboat.

How about the following:
New Gunboat Rules:
In the case of dropped nations, the following rules apply:
1) 1 extra free turn!: People who pick up gunboat nations recieve the first turn of both nations free as normal, but now recieve an additional free turn for any surviving nations on the 4th turn after picking up the nations. You can be placed on a list to fill gunboat vacancies, ask Clint for more information.
2) Two turn rule: A pairing can not be split up to allies (either 2 or 3 nation groupings) for two turns after the player droppping quits. Pick ups of the two nation pair by players outside the game can occur before this period.
3) Three nation pairings: The Noldo and CL nations will never be placed in the same pairing as a double scout nation and the CL nation will never be placed in a triple nation grouping. Old turns will not be provided of 3rd nations picked-up. Note: Some nations will not be available to some pairings as determined by MEPBM Games.

Quick, easy, and rememberable. (Clint then keeps the list of no nation groupings for his own reference). The 4th turn free is easier to understand then you get 2 turns free but have to pay for 5 then you get X amount back on thursday if your two nations aren't bankrupt or if one is, take the 4th factorial of the turn in which the nation bankrupted, multiple the number of turns the previous player played the game by 1 sum X and this amount, add that number to $1.50 and then spin around fast enough to forget it or apply it as credit to your account (players choice on every day but monday in which case Clint chooses for you). Note any requests for refunds on thursday will force you to play on a team with Ed Mills for 10 turns and then be the selected nation to go into controlled bankrupty so he can take your best characters without having to worry about gold thefts stopping him from making his own.

[Drukarzun]

The 4th turn free is easier to understand then you get 2 turns free but have to pay for 5 then you get X amount back on thursday if your two nations aren't bankrupt or if one is, take the 4th factorial of the turn in which the nation bankrupted, multiple the number of turns the previous player played the game by 1 sum X and this amount, add that number to $1.50 and then spin around fast enough to forget it or apply it as credit to your account (players choice on every day but monday in which case Clint chooses for you). Note any requests for refunds on thursday will force you to play on a team with Ed Mills for 10 turns and then be the selected nation to go into controlled bankrupty so he can take your best characters without having to worry about gold thefts stopping him from making his own.

I know good comedy when I see it; that's hilarious. <g>

[DaveHolt]

Yes, Ken wins the coveted ME comedian of the week award!

[Kitirat]

Clint, any comments on the 1 2 3 rule set posted above?

See ya,
Ken

[Clint]

I've put my suggestions forward Ken... ;)

I'm waiting to see what others say at present. I prefer to be more thorough so that we can avoid this in future if need be.

Like I said my biggest worry is the 3 nations for a player. If we can find a solution to that then I'm content.

Clint

[Clint]

More thoughts needed guys.

Clint

[Kitirat]

I've put my suggestions forward Ken... ;)

I'm waiting to see what others say at present. I prefer to be more thorough so that we can avoid this in future if need be.

Like I said my biggest worry is the 3 nations for a player. If we can find a solution to that then I'm content.

Clint

Thinking about it more, the three nation issue is bigger in Gunboat 1000. For example, you set up two strong military nations to fight off a set of nations your next too. You kill one off or almost and the guy quits. Now two other pairs pick up the two your beating down on and one is an emmy pair (behind the front lines) and the other an agent pair (say also behind lines). Because you beat down this one guys pair you are now subjected to the power of 4 other strong nations who can project their power to you and you know NOTHING about them cause they are on the other side of the map.

Talk about a way to piss someone off.

I can't remeber the rules for the gunboat 1000 games as they stand, but IMO, 3 nation pairs should be strictly banded in those games.

Come to think of it, why not just ban 3 nation pairings in gunboat and be done with it? If a pair quits let the team know it and see if anyone picks it up until it dies off or a team member who has a pair which has been split/one nation killed off can take on one of the nation decides to do so.

See ya,
Ken

[Clint]

Come to think of it, why not just ban 3 nation pairings in gunboat and be done with it? If a pair quits let the team know it and see if anyone picks it up until it dies off or a team member who has a pair which has been split/one nation killed off can take on one of the nation decides to do so.

For the above reasons. I think it's worst to have 2 nations not being played than for a duo to be made into a triplet (x2) given the other factors that apply, missed turns, reasons for duo being dropped (under attack, doing badly etc). Lots of resources from the other 2 nations are then put onto the 3rd nation to bring it back to viability meaning the opposing side actually gain a short term benefit.

Clint

[DaveHolt]

Well, once again, in a NO DROP game, we have had someone drop, to help their team. THIS IS UNNACCEPTABLE. Of course, what has happened is that the nation(s) who were under assault were allowed by ME Games to combine.

Clint, this is just WRONG. you guys are supposed to be neutral. combining weak nation(s) who are under assault, who are losing, with a strong supporting set of nation(s) is NOT BEING A NEUTRAL MODERATOR.

This really upsets me. I am a VERY UNHAPPY CUSTOMER.

you should let losing teams lose. Not prop them up.

totally unnacceptable. totally! grrrrrrrrrrrr

Dave

[Clint]

Hya Dave, as I asked Guy earlier, please do not comment about a current game. It is clearly giving information away and therefore not appropriate. Send your query to Rob and he'll sort it out for you.

Clint (GM)

[DaveHolt]

Well I tried to be as circumspect as I could Clint, but this is majorly broken.

You guys need to be neutral. What happened is *REALLY* not neutral moderation.

Dave

[thuiatt]

I think you have to still allow three nation pairing or the game will go by the wayside.

Game 71 which was easily won by the free side had the fire king/cloud lord drop on turn three. Nothing had happened (Dave correct me on if the Fire King got blasted early as you played Northern Gondor) to either nation and noone wanted to pick up the dropped nations.

Do you just let the nations die and the dark servants play 10 vs 12 without the Cloud lord from turn three on. Although the game only lasted another 10 to 12 turns before we voted to concede as the dark servants, I would have ended the game on turn five if I had known the fire king and clould lord were out.

I find no easy solution to dropped nations. Clint has pointed out time and time again that just letting the nations drop is far more counter productive to a balanced game than allowing three nation combinations. Having played three nations combinations I agree it is an advantage over a two nation pairing.

I would prefer to play a game without drops from beginning to end, but that is probably never going to happen.

Clint is still looking for a viable solution per his earlier post.

I like the proposed changes of trying to minimize which nations are allowed with any given pairs.

A solution is to make the Cloud lord and Noldo positions no drop positions. If you can not commit to this then don't play the pairs. Set up a dropped position waiting list to have the Cloud Lord and Noldo pairs picked up if they are dropped. Ban the dropping player from playing gunboat games for a year or whatever time frame it is.

Lastly, is it possible to have a GM step in and inherit a critical dropped naiton pair if no one else is going to step in and take the dropped nations.

tim

[DaveHolt]

Here's my response to Clint's rule suggestions & my own suggestions:

1. ok with 3-nation pairing N/As
2. agree strongly with no prior turns for *any* nation picked up by an existing player of another nation or nation pair in the game
3. ok with prior turns being given to a *new* player (not already in the game) who's picking up nation or nation pair of a drop
4. strongly argue that changes in nation pairings should be *immediately* be broadcast to all nations, not delayed a turn or two.
5. agree strongly that CL & NE can't be part of 3-nation pairing
6. agree strongly that CL & NE can't be joined with double scout nation
7. strongly argue that ME Games should not allow player drops of nations under duress solely so that the nations under durress can be combined with stronger nations to prop them up. This breaks GB.

Dave

[EverSilentOne]

Just out of interest the focus on the non-3 nation groups from the Free seems to focus on the Noldo. Why not the Sinda/Woodmen too? Just curious.

JK

[Clint]

Well I tried to be as circumspect as I could Clint, but this is majorly broken.

Sure - but respect the rules that you personally (I strongly infer) put forward here please. Let Rob do his job here.

Clint

[thuiatt]

Here's my response to Clint's rule suggestions & my own suggestions:


7. strongly argue that ME Games should not allow player drops of nations under duress solely so that the nations under durress can be combined with stronger nations to prop them up. This breaks GB.

Dave

Point seven is the hardest point to make fair. It stinks to be part of a game where you do significant damage to a nation only to have the player drop (and ruin the game for everyone else I might add) and be propped up by a stronger duo.

However, this is where having standby position could be a problem. Do you really want to pick up a single nation or a pair of nations that are in bad shape and pay money for those nations when you could simply start a new game from scratch?

I don't have a solution to this problem.

tim

[DaveHolt]

Maybe we should just have a rule that drops can not be picked up by players already in the game. period. If the nation or nation pair is viable, then likely an external player will be happy to pick it up. If not, then it dies as it should.

I think this takes us back to where Guy Roppa was coming from early in the thread.

Dave

[DaveHolt]

Well I tried to be as circumspect as I could Clint, but this is majorly broken.

Sure - but respect the rules that you personally (I strongly infer) put forward here please. Let Rob do his job here.

Clint

Agreed. I accept your critique. Take whatever action you deem appropriate. For my part I apologize and must just say that I let my anger get the better of me. I have no other good defense.

Please consider my critique as well. You guys need to be neutral moderators. I have expressed, in email, all of the details regarding non-neutral moderation in the situation in question.

Dave

[Clint]

Define viable?!

The problem with this is that it's very esoteric. Who knows what a playable nation is? Different players will play different formats and different strengths of nations.

Define "drop under duress" do you mean nations that have been hit in the game. Some players drop due to lack of time (major reason for dropping a game I've found as a GM), others due to apathy or many other "external" forces.

I don't see that penalising your team in GB is the right solution - so a drop for whatever reason if we don't implement a pick-up system of some sort basically detriments your side to the point that effectively your team is no longer going to win - not much fun for anyone (opposition who I assume want a competitive game and clearly your own side). When Game 94 ends I'm more than happy to discuss my take on that as I think it's a fascinating game and very pertinent to this discussion. But until then I feel that I can't easily comment further without giving specific examples of what I feel defends my arguments (and other games that I'm presently playing in).

One other thought: One other solution is split the dropped nation amongst your team. Thoughts on that welcome?

At present I feel that if we can get a pool of players, with some financial incentive to play as offered, pick up dropped nations that would be the best route. But, I feel that players are not very likely to go for this in any depth. No -drop format doesn't guarantee that no-drops occur (and some drop due to desiring to help others in the game - that's occurred at least twice). Maybe that can be addressed in discussion?

There is no quick fix, hopefully discussion will help, especially where it's unbiased commentary (not on your own specific situation within a game but generically that which is best for the game).

Clint (GM)

[SmokeYou]

I have the answer for Gunboat after thinking long on the subject.

***Each game the players must decide on all the rules:
1. What special fortification/pop center add on’s (already in place)

2. What are the combo’s of the teams (already in place)

3. Is this a “no drop” game? If yes, than there has to be a ME
policy on what happens if a player drops. Maybe just as simple as
he/she can no longer be in “no drop” games but can in other Gunboat games. So over time, “no drop” players will have games where everyone plays out both kingdoms until they die.

3. What happens when a kingdom(s) is(are) dropped, which will happen?
a. There can be no 3 kingdom teams ever. The point of Gunboat is the different style you have to play to make sure you live. Maybe you need more focus on economy early on ect… (see agreed upon rules below for adding 3 kingdom teams - I like the pairing restrictions)
b. If a double or single group drops, than:
Discussion pt #1:----Ask outside game players if they want the duos. If yes, than they do get all prior turns.
Discussion pt #2:----If no one outside of game wants dropped nations, than ask any “teams” (i.e. I play GB with a friend as lets say NG/Duns). So I could split off of the team NG/Duns and play the dropped nation(s), lets say SG. I would only get the last 2 turns and of course all discussion with my friend must stop ASAP as we are now playing different nations in GB. No characters of SG or NG/Duns can move onto the others for 2 turns (this will be on the honor system as ME can not be asked to do this). No financial aid of gold or goods can be shipped between the nations (NG/Duns to SG or SG to NG/Duns) for 2 turns.
----If no one from the above 2 discussion points want the kingdoms, then depending on what was agreed to at beginning of game will come into effect. My thoughts on this would be:
***If agreed to make 3 nation teams, than no prior turns would be passed on and all sides are notified of nation changes “before” any further turns are run.
***If agreed to drop nations if no pickup per the above 2 discussion points, than the side that has the dropped nation(s) should be notified and can react accordingly (trying to take pops and recruit their characters) but you would not tell the other side for 2 turns. (this also can be changed as long as it is agreed to at beginning of game). The point here is I think everyone wants to have a good battle and a loss of 2 nations on a side makes for a very uphill battle.

John

[DaveHolt]

Heh. Well, Clint, you know that I already in this thread expressed my dislike of people "dropping to help their side". So that's my belief completely independent of specific game situations.

All that said, I understand your point and Tim's point that it's very hard to ascertain in an objective fashion, whether this is occurring or not.

That's why I put forward the simple proposal that nation drops can't be picked up by players already in the game. It's simple. I'd volunteer to be in a "pickup pool" if it would help get rid of this problem of people gaming the system in GB. GB is such a cool format, that it totally sucks when people abuse the system (and their names will be published for the "no-drop" games).

Also, I think the "end-game" clarification proposal that I made some time ago can help as well. Maybe people are quitting because they think their side has lost but can't get the vote required? My suggestion was to include dead nations as "votes to quit" in the voting scheme already in place.

thanks,
Dave

[thuiatt]

I think names should be published for all dropped positions in Gunboat, not just the no drop game. If I am going to get into a no drop gunboat game (I doubt I would do it) I do not want to play with someone that just dropped his previous gunboat game on turn five because he did not like his turn results.

You can always publish my position at the end of a game. I will take whatever criticism any of my teammates wants to send my way.

tim

[happymadcat]

GB is like life; we are constantly discussing how to improve the model till
we get to the utopia model. This guys will never happen, the best ME
can achieve is that near perfect model. In this round of rule 'refinements'
we agree on

1) CL or NE not being part of 3 nations teams.
2) CL or NE never being teamed with double scouting nations.
3) A player pickup pool is a good way to stop 3 nation resentment IF players
sign up for it. 4-5 players have already offered but we need more to
make a pickup pool work. But its a good start.. Dropped nations will be
offered first to the pickup pool

Let's keep the rule changes to these three rules at this stage of GB and
playtest the changes.

Many have complained about the 3 nation team problem, we as players
can do something about it by joining the pickup pool. The power is in
our own hands to improve GB. Ok, sometimes we will pickup no
hope individual nations but remember; next GB you're in you will be
thankfull that another pickup pool player has just picked up that
enemy nation. What goes around; comes around.. KARMA

[SmokeYou]

Pickup pools are good but need more players? There are currently 2 GB games that need players......takers anyone? :-). If games last for 10 more turns, that is 5 mths. I think you see the point of more active players in pools but adding your name to the pool must mean you are willing to pickup at least 1 game that is dropped and not be picky about which nations they are.

Both sides have to know of nation combo changes at the same time. This rule can be added easily also and I think everyone agrees.

[Overworked1977]

I agree with Guy's most recent post. It is agreed that changes need to be made. There is a danger in attempting to change too much. Let's get these implemented. They might even address some other issues that people have...*shrug*

And I do agree with Smoke's statement as well. For the record, I will be putting my name in the hat to pick up dropped GB positions after at least one of my games ends. Two active GB games, 1 FA, 2 1650 (plus a pick-up), puts me right at my max...*grin*

Wade

[SmokeYou]

On another note, in a GB86 game that is finished I played DrgL/Cor. The DrkL came available as WK was knocked out. I took it on. The DrkL almost bankrupt the very first turn (I begged ME to let me do last turns natsells but the, rightfully, said no) as their last turn was serviced. I took every agent I had and went to steal gold and it took me about 3 turns of 100% focus on all 3 nations on economy (Cors not hiring troops, DrkL and DrgL stealing gold / pop transfers) to make sure DrkL and DrgL did not bankrupt. Evils won!

If anyone not in the game took DrkL it would have been out the very next turn, nothing you could have done. Evils would have lost without a doubt as both North and Ithil Pass was gone entirely. I than sent my entire agents (DrkL/DrgL) to the passes plus 1 curse squad (WK/DrkL/DrgL Mages used) (within 2 turns of taking DrkL) and a second curse squad within 5 turns. I was able to take out about 15-20k good troops over about 5 turns in the North Pass. Than setup defense of the gates, built back up the passes with towers, my team attacked outside of Mordor via emmys ect... ect,, ect....

The point here is it was a great comeback and a ton of fun for me and the evils I hope. I would be really interested to see the goods point of view on this as I think they where winning before I got the DrkL. I tried to get everyones xml's to see the whole war but no one really responded to my emails to trade all turns. I would still love to trade turns if any GB86 players are out there.

John
johnmfolz@aol.com

[Kitirat]

On another note, in a GB86 game that is finished I played DrgL/Cor. The DrkL came available as WK was knocked out. I took it on. The DrkL almost bankrupt the very first turn (I begged ME to let me do last turns natsells but the, rightfully, said no) as their last turn was serviced. I took every agent I had and went to steal gold and it took me about 3 turns of 100% focus on all 3 nations on economy (Cors not hiring troops, DrkL and DrgL stealing gold / pop transfers) to make sure DrkL and DrgL did not bankrupt. Evils won!

If anyone not in the game took DrkL it would have been out the very next turn, nothing you could have done. Evils would have lost without a doubt as both North and Ithil Pass was gone entirely. I than sent my entire agents (DrkL/DrgL) to the passes plus 1 curse squad (WK/DrkL/DrgL Mages used) (within 2 turns of taking DrkL) and a second curse squad within 5 turns. I was able to take out about 15-20k good troops over about 5 turns in the North Pass. Than setup defense of the gates, built back up the passes with towers, my team attacked outside of Mordor via emmys ect... ect,, ect....

The point here is it was a great comeback and a ton of fun for me and the evils I hope. I would be really interested to see the goods point of view on this as I think they where winning before I got the DrkL. I tried to get everyones xml's to see the whole war but no one really responded to my emails to trade all turns. I would still love to trade turns if any GB86 players are out there.

John
johnmfolz@aol.com

This is a perfect example as to why 3 nation teams should not be allowed. The free pushed an effective strategy, were winning in multiple areas and once they succeeded in wiping out a nation the other side gets a huge boon and can revitalize an almost lost nation and gains access to the tools to make curse squads and the whole game turns on the fact that because the free did well, a three nation team for the other side was formed unbalancing the game in the favor of the side which was losing.

I'm all for compotent play and challenging opponents, but the game should not flip around because ME hands a team a 3 player grouping, especially since it punishes the team which was winning.

See ya,
Ken

[DaveHolt]

John (& GB94 partner),

I agree with Ken. You just gave a GREAT example of why ME Games should NOT give losing nations to another nation pair. The FP had that game stolen away from them by a player gaming the system. The player that gamed the system wasn't you. It was the DkL player that quit so that his nation could be taken over and supported by a strong nation pair. This is just plain wrong.

Dave

[Drukarzun]

I don't know anything about dropping to "help your side" as who's to say that's the deal? I realize I've only played one GB game to the end, as my second one is ongoing (and no comment about that one at all). In my first game, I picked up a nation which was very weak in every measurable way, popcenters, characters, economics. I nearly bankrupted one of my starting nations to save the third one. As it turned out, I did save them all, but the third nation picked up was a huge drain on the resources of both my starting nations, both of which were relatively strong beforehand. Maybe I just haven't seen enough GB games, but to me, I don't see what the big deal is on trios -- other than the aforementioned pairing of CL/Noldo with double scouters.

Drew

[Clint]

Dave, you're mis-representing or misunderstanding the situation here. The player did not drop so that someone could pick it up, he dropped as he no longer wanted to play. I have very specific information here.

As to whether or not 3 nations should be allowed - that's a different point and one worthy of discussion, but please stick to the facts of the situation. I don't think there's one blanket answer.

Whether or not that was the deciding factor is interesting. By the end of the game the DS had 3 3 nations and the FP 2. The reason why I think the game ended in benefit of the FP was that the Harad and Woodmen were out of the game before game end and the DS just outplayed the FP.

Clint (GM)

[Kitirat]

Dave, you're mis-representing or misunderstanding the situation here. The player did not drop so that someone could pick it up, he dropped as he no longer wanted to play. I have very specific information here.

As to whether or not 3 nations should be allowed - that's a different point and one worthy of discussion, but please stick to the facts of the situation. I don't think there's one blanket answer.

Whether or not that was the deciding factor is interesting. By the end of the game the DS had 3 3 nations and the FP 2. The reason why I think the game ended in benefit of the FP was that the Harad and Woodmen were out of the game before game end and the DS just outplayed the FP.

Clint (GM)

I am not looking at intent but effect. The free were winning at a point then the 3 team set-up occured and it turned the game about (and if it did not, the point is it likely has and will in the future).

The rules set-up you listed above are fine, but I would love to see a no 3 nation rule (I think it should be instantly instituted in Gunboat 1000 BTW as I can see it being utterly unfair in many situations. I'd like to hear if that is something you could imagine instituing Clint?) and would like some sort of delay before a 3 nation team can occur in a game if it is allowed(as mentioned) or perhaps a penalty to the dropped player which is tangible (like a dollar fine agreed too pre-game) to help both minimize the ability to cheat or unintentionally change the course of the game by dropping.

See ya,
Ken

[Overworked1977]

I'm forced to admit that I find the whole "Death to the 3-nation combos!" a little laughable. I've the utmost respect for many of the people that have made the argument, I really do. I also can understand their frustration at the defeat of one of their offensives.

The reason why I have trouble swallowing it is that I've seen the same people agree to shadow orders, or drops, or the pick-up of other nations in regular 1650 games. Why is it a crime to watch an offensive unfold pefectly, only to see it crushed by a changing opposition? Haven't we all dealt with this in other circumstances? Having picked up a drop in G95 (non-gunboat), I can tell you from experience that it is really hard to support a weak position and get it turned around without help from the team. I've had very little (by my own request), but it is still difficult. Beating up players for picking up a third nation and making all three of them viable seems petty...

As far as I can see, the only real crime here is that the nation dropps and the pick-ups aren't posted effectively on the front-page of the turn sheets. The nation information is supposed to update every three turns, and that doesn't always happen. My big thing that I would like to see ME do is update the dropps and the pickups every turn, so that I might be able to change my plans accordingly.

All the other rule changes and the player pool are fine with me. Like I said, I can understand the point behind them. But waving a flag about how frustrating it is to have offensives countered or characters kidnapped is not the best way to defend the position. A clear definition of an unfair advantage is IMO the only reason to make any changes.

Sorry for the length of the post.

Wade

[Kitirat]

I'm forced to admit that I find the whole "Death to the 3-nation combos!" a little laughable. I've the utmost respect for many of the people that have made the argument, I really do. I also can understand their frustration at the defeat of one of their offensives.

The reason why I have trouble swallowing it is that I've seen the same people agree to shadow orders, or drops, or the pick-up of other nations in regular 1650 games. Why is it a crime to watch an offensive unfold pefectly, only to see it crushed by a changing opposition? Haven't we all dealt with this in other circumstances? Having picked up a drop in G95 (non-gunboat), I can tell you from experience that it is really hard to support a weak position and get it turned around without help from the team. I've had very little (by my own request), but it is still difficult. Beating up players for picking up a third nation and making all three of them viable seems petty...

As far as I can see, the only real crime here is that the nation dropps and the pick-ups aren't posted effectively on the front-page of the turn sheets. The nation information is supposed to update every three turns, and that doesn't always happen. My big thing that I would like to see ME do is update the dropps and the pickups every turn, so that I might be able to change my plans accordingly.

All the other rule changes and the player pool are fine with me. Like I said, I can understand the point behind them. But waving a flag about how frustrating it is to have offensives countered or characters kidnapped is not the best way to defend the position. A clear definition of an unfair advantage is IMO the only reason to make any changes.

Sorry for the length of the post.

Wade


Quick clarification, I am not begetting people for taking up 3rd positions. I do it myself. What I am saying is unlike normal games, in gunboat people have limited resources. When a set of nations is split up, where as before you were facing two nations of opponent, you are now often facing 6 nations, many of which would not have the resources to or ability to interact with your nation in an intimate way and now all the sudden do. It is not simply a turned around offensive so much as a triple of the resources against you to which you often can not effectively respond (yes there are always ways to "survive").

But I agree that the listed changes by Clint will at least minimize the issues for 1650 and likely 2950. I'm just arguing the 3 nation point because I do feel it can corrupt games. For 1000 I think a bit more might be needed, but there is like 1-2 gunboat 1000 a year, so it likely not a big deal.

See ya,
Ken

[Clint]

The free were winning at a point then the 3 team set-up occured and it turned the game about (and if it did not, the point is it likely has and will in the future).

Not sure if that was the cause here. That was my point. I'm not saying it impacted on the game, it clearly did, but I think the strongest impact in the game was the overall play of one team over another (effectively one team had a small advantage due to one extra nation on their side being tripled up 2:3 but had the disadvantage of around 6 missed turns and nations in need of dire help similarly imipacting).

As for no-3nation I'll certainly consider it but at present I'm not convinced that it would make for a very good game (for reasons already given). Feel free to play such a game as a variant if you guys can get the players - but say someone drops on one side I think the game would quickly become uncompetitive if we're unable to find a replacement (outside the game).

Note: We don't change rules mid-game without a very good reason.

Someone asked that GMs step in and pick up nations - we're stretched as it is and it's your game - why would you want GMs to do that? At some point I can see that we can do some sort of AI - we did a simple test algorythm (not used in games I might add) and I can see how we could make that more complex as time goes on but that's for the future. (If you guys want to design and code that that would be cool with me btw and sounds like a lot of fun).

Clint

[kim]

Hi,

Here s my view on the 3-nation play.

There are various reasons why people drop out. It could be time, money or interest. But I think the largest reason why people usually drops out, is a result of a deep into human nature. People lose interest in spending energy on a case they think is lost. If there is no hope there is no reason to fight, and to spend money and time which you can spend elsewhere.

I think deciding whether and how a dropout should be replaced, should be much more determined on the health status on that nation. What ruins games is having a fully healthy nation collapse, because the player lost interest or did not have the time anymore. Of course giving a fully healthy nation as a third nation, also disrupt the game the other way around.

However if a nation has taken a real beaten and the player has no aid or secondary nation to support, then the first feeling for most humans would be to drop out and let it go. In such a case it can be discussed on whether such a nation should be picked up or be considered a result of nation elimination of the other side. Personally I think that such a nation could be given to other allied, if it follows certain rules of transfer. Because NO single person would pick up, spend money and time and play a beaten GB nation without any support what so ever. That is just masochistic. So such a nation would either need to be a third nation or be eliminated.

I think Harlequin should examine why people drops out and lay a strategy for each co-incident.

Also one proposal would be to ensure that there are single nations split ups (two persons playing one nation each of a pair) on each side in each game, so that these players (only playing one nation anyway) could be given any such dropouts if interested. That way any single player would still only max play two nations each.


KA

[thuiatt]

Any chance we can set up a dropped position player that can pick up the position and play it until someone will step in to pick up the postion and that player does not have to pay for the position. Maybe Harlequin sets up a four turn provision to have the nation pair picked up and covered by someone in the pickup pool. As a gunboat player, if I know i have a temporarily ran position on my side or on the other side it would insent me to ask for someone to pick up the position. Harelquin could publish a position is open, not state which position or side it is on and then players can scramble to get a replacement.

The biggest problem I have with dropped positions is the shape they will most likely be in, which is poor. I am not a big fan of paying for a position that is in really bad shape.

Harlequin did ask Tony and I to pick up a position prior to turn one being ran as the player had already dropped. Although it was one game above what we wanted to play, we did pick it up and carried the game through 30 turns. It was fun, but frustrating to have to pick up a third position around turn 15 and that position was still in good if not great shape.

I would be willing to do something like this nature. If I could turn the position around in four turns then I might even be willing to keep the position and pay for it after the free time.

This would cost Harlequin some money, so I am not sure if it is viable. But it might cost less then just watching the position go by the wayside.

Another possible solution and thought.

I think anyone that drops a gunboat position (regardless of no drop or not) should be banned from gunboat. This would include purposely bankrupting your nation. I do not feel that if you transfer your position you should be banned.

I realize some people drop because the game is no longer any fun to you and you feel your team can not win. My only solution is to allow the limited diplomacy. Maybe bring in once every ten turns 20 words.

It would be nice to be able to say Down to five characters and three pop centers. Need money to stay alive capital 2703.

tim

[thuiatt]

Gunboat really gets messed up when you have drops in the first ten turns. I would also be a fan of paying for ten turns in advance. I realize this might not be financially viable as it looks like a $200 us dollar upfront outlay for some players but it would give you an incentive to not bankrupt your nation in the first ten turns (I guess this means Clint isn't allowed to play Rhuduar).

Alternatively, we can require a two turn in advance payment for a nation where the money is non refundable. To play Gunboat you deposit $40 to $50 us dollars to Harlequin and then pay for the turns as you go. If you drop, the money is not refunded and then could pay for a standby to cover your position for two or three turns until a replacement can be found.

Again, just trying to think out of the box.

tim

[Clint]

Not sure if I understood correctly but we can't afford to subsidise a nation for 4 turns in advance I'm afraid.

Clint (GM)

[Iatronas]

I prefer to play 2950 and FA Gunboat games. But some of the changes decided upon here might migrate over to the 2950/FA games, so I'd like to throw in my two cents.

1) I've picked up third Nations before while playing the game as a duo, but have only received the current turn. However, I think it's very appropriate for pick-up people OUTSIDE the game to receive all the turns. Information is very pivotal in GB games.

2) For Nations that are not filled, I like Guy's suggestion of sending the last turn's PDF to the allies of that Nation - so the team is not as crippled by the demise of one Nation.

3) I dislike the diplos in GB games, I think they are unbalancing, since the DS side can much more effectively coordinate than the FP side, especially in the very early stages. It also ruins the fog-of-war concept essential to the GB games - if one side uses diplos, but the other doesn't ... guess who has the advantage? The communication becomes required.

4) I have no problem in 2950 games with no limitations in pairings, as long as both sides know exactly which pair has picked up which Nations every turn. As far as I have seen, the moderators do a good job of this. I disagree with posting exactly when Nations die - there needs to be a time that the second / recovering Nation can recruit the most important characters / PCs / artifacts of the dead Nation, before everyone else. Also, when attacking a Nation, there should be some question if you've won - as it is now, you know immediately when a foe is dead, allowing you to focus on the next target.

5) In the fourth age game, I think that picking up a third Nation is unbalancing. The biggest issue with FA games is lack of information gathering. The problem was illustrated earlier - a pair of Nations you've never met now has a map / character names to allow them to target you, when you have no idea where their forces are.

6) I think it is important to allow positions to be filled, either by outside players (preferably), or by splitting the pair - otherwise the game quickly degenerates due to the loss of several nations (and thus is no fun), and I know that is not ME's desire. Challenging games are more enjoyable than a quick romp.

Proposals:
a) In-game players only get the current turn of the dropped Nation, outside pick-ups get all the PDFs. If a Nation is unclaimed (but not eliminated), all Nations of that particular allegiance get the final PDF.

b) Updated pairings will be broadcast in the initial E-Mail message each turn, but dead Nations are updated only every 5 turns.

c) No limit to who can be paired, ME tries in good faith to limit the pick-up of Nation pairs based on SNA synergy. Another option to consider - no double scout Nation can be picked-up by an in-game player (downside - it makes those Nations obvious targets).

d) No three Nation teams for the GB fourth age games. Outside players and in-game solo Nations can pick them up.

e) No same-allegiance diplos. Ever. Gloating after the game is over is fine. Taunting diplos only sent to the opposing side would be fun.

f) Could we have some other pairing for the poor Rohan / Rhun? :eek:

Mark Farrior

[thuiatt]

Not sure if I understood correctly but we can't afford to subsidise a nation for 4 turns in advance I'm afraid.

Clint (GM)


Clint, what I was suggesting is all players that sign up for Gunboat post a $50US deposit which you refund at the end of the game. If they drop, or get eliminated they lose the money and you as a company get to keep it. Now if a player drops, someone can pick up the nation and run it for four turns free of charge as you can take it from the upfront deposit.

Probably not a high desire for players, but it does insent you not to drop and give a pickup player a chance to rebuild a nation at no monetary cost to the player picking up the nation for the first four turns.

Just another suggestion that I would be willing to do to try and keep the game flowing.

tim

[Alain]

Guys,

I dropped into this conversation a little late and first of all let me state that I basically agree with Clint's suggestion in post nr. 47 in this tread.

I have played around 6 or 7 gunboat games now and really love the format with the fog of war effects, it really makes for a different game.

Second I really think ALL dropped position should be taken up one way or another, though I see a difference between paired nations dropped and single nations dropped.
Paired nationsif they are dropped they are often quite viable still and it can really destroy a game for the side they are on if they are not picked up. It is in nobody's interest to have a game spoiled that way, but it is true I may well give an unfair advantage if they are split over the remaining nations, I have been on the receiving end of this in game 91 that just ended. Therefore in the interest of better gaming I would suggest that all you gunboat lovers out there make an effort to pick up dropped nation pairs if finances and time allow. I just had one of my two gunboat games end and I volunteered to pick up a dropped nation duo to ME games. Rob just gave me a pair and I know there is another pair waiting to be picked up that was dropped because of "external" reasons.
Single nations: they are often dropped in despair after loosing the other nation. I would encourage everyone to hang in there for the sake of the team but not everyone is willing to play a position which looks like it has no future. Should these positions be given to the rest of the team? I would say by all means because when it happens the opposing team already has the advantage of having knocked out one of the two nations. If the nation is not allowed to be passed on it may have a snowball effect and the game will just end quicker with less and less opposition, I for one do not think that makes for an interesting game.

ON the FP side I would say: If a nation is down to one nation then it can pick up any other nation except Noldo and Sinda can’t pick up Woodmen or Dunlendings.

ON the DS side I would say: If a nation is down to one nation then it can pick up any other nation except Cloud Lord and IK can’t pick up Quiet Avenger or Dragon Lord. Cloud Lord can’t be part of a 3 nation team.

Diplo's: In my experience diplo's don't give a specific advantage to FP or the DS, they give an advantage to the side that knows how to make best use of them. If you don't like them, play a game that says NO diplo's, and if you play a game that allows them you better figure out the best way to use them :) . I for one will play either.

Alain

[Clint]

Diplo's: In my experience diplo's don't give a specific advantage to FP or the DS, they give an advantage to the side that knows how to make best use of them

Yep, I'd agree with that. Either side can make very good use of them I'd say.

I'd be interested to see what goes in such diplos; I've seen one post on it.

Clint (GM)

[rsvenkerud]

Another factor is the game cost. In the U.S. it's over 8.50 dollar's a turn. That's 17.00 a month. Customer's can't afford it for too long. Plus their are games that give more bang for the buck. In some cases for less cost.
To help counter this is the following. 1 ) Advertise. Dragon is one of the most read game magazine's in the U.S. Dragon advertises other game's all the time. 2 ) Advertiseing at gameing convention's is less expensive. But not as good. 3 ) Better character artwork. I've seen maybe 6 new character pict's since 1992. Some of these character pict's are just not worth useing. 4 ) Offer package deal's. Like the compition does.
I am sure you have already tried these idea's. But, if not. I hope this help's.

[Clint]

$7.90 for AMeow players - that's my advice to use it for many reasons. Also you do get a discount for GB games - not a biggy but there is one.

Dragon has been tried - it's the wrong market. If you're saying bring in new players we do and strongly advise them not to play Gunboat. All our games are affordable by anyone who has a desire to play them (I know from my own experience of playing when I was young and also unemployed).

Artwork - totally agree - we need artists though. :D Any volunteers?

Word of mouth is the best way to get others involved. ;)

Clint

[VEO]

ON the FP side I would say: If a nation is down to one nation then it can pick up any other nation except Noldo and Sinda can’t pick up Woodmen or Dunlendings.

Wouldn't Noldo and Sinda together create a mage monster also..?

Brad

[Kitirat]

$7.90 for AMeow players - that's my advice to use it for many reasons. Also you do get a discount for GB games - not a biggy but there is one.

Dragon has been tried - it's the wrong market. If you're saying bring in new players we do and strongly advise them not to play Gunboat. All our games are affordable by anyone who has a desire to play them (I know from my own experience of playing when I was young and also unemployed).

Artwork - totally agree - we need artists though. :D Any volunteers?

Word of mouth is the best way to get others involved. ;)

Clint

Working the game publishing business myself, would you like contact of excellent black and white artists? in genral picutres range in price from 50-200 dollars depending on the artist and size (these are quater pages so I would guess you could probably work out a deal with most of the guys.

See ya,
Ken

[Clint]

in genral picutres range in price from 50-200 dollars depending on the artist and size (these are quater pages so I would guess you could probably work out a deal with most of the guys.

Way, way, way out of our price range. Several hundred pieces of artwork later and we're bankrupt... ;)

We'd looking for cheap or free artwork, preferably colour.

Clint (GM)

[Clint]

or not... I think we're in broad agreement on the other bits and pieces. I haven't got a player base for Drops at present to pick up any dropped nations, and No-drop games only discourages players - not stop them - from dropping. (Payment up front might mitigate that but I doubt it will stop it).

Clint (GM)

[DaveHolt]

I concur with John 100%.

In GB after GB, we see the same thing happen. A nation is eliminated and its nation-pair partner is then targeted and weakened. The player then drops. (maybe he drops to "help" his team. maybe he "just doesn't want to play anymore." It doesn't matter why.) The nation that should now die is given to another nation or nation pair that prop it up and get it running again. That is wrong. let the nation stand on its own two feet. My side, the other side - it's all the same. Nation pairs shoudl remain as nation pairs. There should be no consolidation. If a nation or nation pair is dropped, it should only be available to be taken up by a player not in the game already. It's a simple solution.

I'll sign up to be in the player pool for such pickups if we can fix GB.

Dave

[DaveHolt]

No-drop games only discourages players - not stop them - from dropping.

Clint (GM)

Sadly, even this doesn't seem to be true. 94 & 96 are both "no-drop" games. Unfortunately, they seem to have almost as many drops, or maybe even the same number of drops as regular GB. Sad. Pathetic even...

Dave

[Clint]

No-drop games have less drops. I'm in the process of compiling all the game data (it's big so will take me a while) and will publish that later. Both are on-going so I can't comment more (were I know it - Rob's on the ball at present and we'll chat after game 94 ends).

I've given my reasons why I feel that nation pick ups are essential for a good game. I agree that 3 nations is not a perfect solution though and am presently looking for alternatives.

One is a player pool ready to pick up. I've not got enough players want to do that. But see below:

I quite like Tim's idea: all players that sign up for Gunboat post a $50US deposit which you refund at the end of the game. If they drop, or get eliminated they lose the money and you as a company get to keep it. Now if a player drops, someone can pick up the nation and run it for four turns free of charge as you can take it from the upfront deposit. Not that for the reasons that we'd get the money but rather because it means that the pick-ups get a bunch of free turns to play the nation. We'd offer 2 free turns as well. That gives 4 free turns per nation picked up. Wed' stagger it so that one nation gets payed for the other doesn't for 8 turns (or something similar - basically the pick-up player would pay half).

I don't agree with Dave's comment about single nations not picking up a dropped nation to become a duo again. I think that most of these ideas will sort out most of the problems of dropped nations (it won't drive it from the game but it will certainly help).

I've suggested splitting the nation up - physically. Ie transfer pcs to other nations, characters to others, gold split, . But had no real response there. There would be a charge for that though - fixed fee, one off of say $20 (that's a lot of work, and basically each nation would get a lot of stuff for nowt).

Thoughts on this (note the posting about nation splits for 3 nations allowed etc).
Clint (GM)

[Clint]

Thanks so far, I think we're really getting somewhere here so I appreciate all the posts, especially the ones that I don't agree with - they make me think the most for why I don't agree. Much appreciated all your efforts and passion for the game. Keep 'em coming.

Clint (GM)

[DaveHolt]

I don't agree with Dave's comment about single nations not picking up a dropped nation to become a duo again. ...

I've suggested splitting the nation up - physically. Ie transfer pcs to other nations, characters to others, gold split, . But had no real response there.
Clint (GM)

I think splitting up dropped nations is a non-starter. no one has responded because it just seems like a burdensome, subjective,and inherantly unfair practice - that'd be my guess.

as to you not agreeing with me... LOL. of course you don't. It all stems from my disdane for mages & weakness squads and your love-affair with them... LOL :-) :-) :-)

Seriously, though, propping up weak nations by combining them with strong ones is wrong. The goal is NOT to keep the game going. The goal is to provide a balanced and fair game environment. If one side is winning, kudos to them. let them win. We just heard the DS players from GB 91 say how it helped them turn around a lost game into a winning game. That is wrong. ME Games should not combine nations in a game in a way to allow a team that is losing to change the course of the game and win on the power of the new nation combinations. That is wrong. So we can continue to disagree Clint. Sorry. I'll stick up for you when I think you're right. But I'll be vocal when I think you're wrong.

Dave

[Clint]

Fair enough - we'll agree to differ here - any other thoughts on the subject.

(Note as a player I use many different types of tactics and play, including weakness squads and the like). As far as I'm concerned this is not my personal bias as to style of game though - it's not got anything to do with that. Our aim as always been to provide the best game possible, within our resources. Then let that game provide income - rather than attempting to keep games going. A fair and equitable challenge for both sides in the game and I think that nation pick-ups allow for that.

Clint

[Alain]

Seriously, though, propping up weak nations by combining them with strong ones is wrong. The goal is NOT to keep the game going. The goal is to provide a balanced and fair game environment. If one side is winning, kudos to them. let them win. We just heard the DS players from GB 91 say how it helped them turn around a lost game into a winning game. That is wrong. ME Games should not combine nations in a game in a way to allow a team that is losing to change the course of the game and win on the power of the new nation combinations. That is wrong. So we can continue to disagree Clint. Sorry. I'll stick up for you when I think you're right. But I'll be vocal when I think you're wrong.

Dave

Dave, I was playing on the winning side of game 91 and what you are saying is totally wrong, we did NOT win that game because a weak nation was transferred and that turn around the game. I think you are reading in there what you want to see.
What happened was that very early in the game the FP player that played Duns/NG dropped a perfectly vialable position. The resulting split up whereby Arth/Woodmen got Duns on top ran Rhudaur into to ground much faster then it should have been with only Arth/Woodmen.
As a matter of fact on turn 24 it looked like this:
FP: 1/4/23, , 5/6/9, 7/10/22
DS: 11/20, 12, 13/15 , 16/19, 18, 14/24
I then picked up the dropped FK position on turn 25 only, which was after two turns of special service and totally decimated in characters. I managed to pull the nation back up with help of the allies but before I could do anything with it the game stopped because the FP had thrown in the towel.
So I would dare say we won that game through better play and good use of the diplo's DESPITE the FP having had the combination advantage for at least a good 15 turns.

As I said above, I do not have a problem if a single remaining nation gets transferred because I am convinced that it cannot turn around the game totally as one nation is already out in that case and it makes for a better fight. Splitting up two viable nations over the others is a complete different story.

Alain

[bernout]

So I would dare say we won that game through better play and good use of the diplo's DESPITE the FP having had the combination advantage for at least a good 15 turns.

As an FP player in game 91, I'll second this. ;) The DS didn't get the 3 nation split going until very late in the game. It was a couple of the FP players who dropped and good use of diplos which made the big difference. Alain might still complain about the FP split (and me having AR/WM/Duns in particular) but the fact is we lost some key nations in order for that to happen and the DS enjoyed a 2 nation advantage for a good part of the game.

Bernout

[DaveHolt]

Alain & Bernout, my apologies. You are correct that I made a mistake. I mis-rememebered an earlier post. GB86 is the one I refer to as being thrown to the DS by the re-combination of nations. Note post #82 in this thread by John Folz. Sorry for the confusion.
Dave

[happymadcat]

GB86 is the one I refer to as being thrown to the DS by the re-combination of nations.
Dave

Such a pleasant feeling, compares with stepping on a rusty 3 inch nail in a
salt mine and transported back to medical attention on a wheelbarrow with
2 coca chewing Hombres pushing. Been thrown the wolves has a positive aspect, you can attack, even if you don't win they will limp to 2 eternity
and beyond..