General Gunboat Discussion

[Mormegil]

Hi all!

I started a thread about allowing diplomacy in Gunboat games, and it somewhat developed into a general discussion about game balance etc. I propose we leave the old thread for the diplomacy thing (last proposal was 20 words diplo to all allies every 5 turns - I support that, finding 100 words too much) and use this one for the other issues.
Let me sum up what has been said so far:

- Mordor nearly unbreakable
Agree on that, the Gondors have a hard time fending off the DS in normal game already, the DS all see the crucial places on their maps while SG and Eo know nothing about Osgiliath etc. Maybe pairing Eo/NG would help. I consider Nol/Eo too strong anyway, Nol/Dun would be better.

- Nation balance is considered a little off
Agree on that, too. Rhudaur cannot be saved, each player who survives beyond turn 10 has to be awarded a special price. So it should be paired with a stronger nation than Dklts. Makes no sense giving him a backup anyway - what for, the chars? lol
But should be more fun playing on with one nation, then. So I propose a Rhudaur/Corsairs team, leaving Drl&Dklts. I consider Cor&DrL too strong anyway, with all the MTs, DrL can savely survive being expelled from Mirkwood, operate his excellent chars from the south and still get the map!
Don't agree that WK/BlS is too weak. WK can do allright with some financial support and recruting dragons, and hold out long enough to build some secret backups with his excellent emis. When finally expelled from Angmar, he should have some nice foothold elsewhere.
IMO next critical nation after Rhudaur is Harad. No chance vs Cor and QA, who outrecruit him easily, plus Art can do nothing to help and the crappy Har chars are not worth saving anyway. Har should be paired with a stronger char nation to provide little more defense.

What do you think about the nation combos?

Regards,

[klub]

Here is the full list of nation pairings for 1650 gunboat:

4+22 Arthedain +Harad
6+23 N Gondor +Duns
7+1 S Gondor +Wood
8+2 Dwarves+North
9+5 Sinda+Cardolan
10+3 Noldo+Eothraim.

18+14 Fire King+Cloud Lord
20+24 D.Lieut+Rhudaur
16+19 Ice King+ L.Rider
11+15 Blind + Witch K
17+13 QA+Dog Lord
12+21 DragonL +Corsair

[Munchausen]

Why must nations be paired up in Gunboat anyways?

Is it because some nations like Rhudaur are considered not viable without diplomacy?

Combos seem to me a bit unnatural. They modify the game from the original. The examples given my Mormegil seem to prove this point.

[if all it comes down to is controlled diplomacy, then this can be arranged as suggested on other thread]

[klub]

Ok firstly I have not played gunboat, so my opinion is based on speculation rather than experience, however I think that the FP pairings are quite balanced, the 3 economically weakest and most vulnerable nations have powerful partners as follows:

7+1 S Gondor +Wood
8+2 Dwarves+North
10+3 Noldo+Eothraim.

I would not agree the 4+22 Arthedain +Harad partnership is a weak one. North Gondor has the support of Dunland (pop centers should be exchanged to get them recruiting closer to Mordor) so South Gondor should help Harad against the QA and Corsairs and it would be foolish of them to attack the Ithil Pass only.

The pairing's character combination is pretty crappy as you say, but since there are less than 6 good character nations in the FP team, there is bound to be one bum character pairing.

With regard to the DS pairings I agree Rhudaur should be paired with one of the most powerful DS nations, the Cloud Lord or Corsairs. I would prefer the Cloud Lord as it would bring the agents to the north west and could possibly prolong the conflict there.

This would change the following DS pairings if it were a straight swap:

24+14 Rhudaur+Cloud Lord
20+18 D.Lieut+Fire King

The 20+18 D.Lieut+Fire King pair may not be ideal as it has basically one map, though it would help the Fire King plug the pass in the early game. It it would take considerable changes to accommodate an alternate partner for either the Fire King or Dark Lieut. and as I like the other partnerships, it would be tempted not to try.

Paul

[Mormegil]

You are right, IF SG WOULD help Harad, there might be a chance. On the other hand, the only chance to breach Mordor would be a combined attack of both Gondors at Ithil in the early game, when the Duns have crap troops which are far away. A swap of pop centres, or rather a donation from NG, is not likely to happen before t 5.

I like your idea of Rhu/CL - that would be a real challenge for experienced players! It might not finally save Rhu, but would surely make the game in the north more interesting. And playing on with CL alone still is fun enough. Plus, this would relieve NG a little from the agent threat, under which it will suffer heavily with the current setup.

Still, I think the DrL/Cor combo too mighty.

[Fletch]

Why must nations be paired up in Gunboat anyways?

Without the communication it is really impossible for some nations to be viable. Rhudaur is a good example of this, you face five nations with only the WK to back you up. Most likely, he will sit back and watch you soak up everyones attacks before doing anything himself. I guess it could be fun if you wanted to play for only 5-7 turns!!

[Fletch]

I think the benefit of the CL/Fk arrangement is that it can help thwart the NG assault into the pass. With the Cl agents there it takes alot of pressure off the FK armies to stop the assault. NG/Duns can easily outrecruit the FK

I dont think Rhu/DrkLt's is all that handy, its tough to find someone to pair nicely with Rhu....

[klub]

Why must nations be paired up in Gunboat anyways?
Is it because some nations like Rhudaur are considered not viable without diplomacy?


Yes there is absolutely no doubt a DS Rhudaur and several nations on either side would not be viable without a ‘sponsor’ nation. In a single nation game gold could be shipped from richer to poorer nations every few turns, but wouldn’t it be annoying if the receiving pop center was captured by the enemy?

In addition considering the additional cost of a set-up in a gunboat game, who would start a nation that was likely to be eliminated well before turn 10?

Paul

[kba]

Originally posted by klub
With regard to the DS pairings I agree Rhudaur should be paired with one of the most powerful DS nations, the Cloud Lord or Corsairs. I would prefer the Cloud Lord as it would bring the agents to the north west and could possibly prolong the conflict there.

This would change the following DS pairings if it were a straight swap:

24+14 Rhudaur+Cloud Lord
20+18 D.Lieut+Fire King

The 20+18 D.Lieut+Fire King pair may not be ideal as it has basically one map, though it would help the Fire King plug the pass in the early game. It it would take considerable changes to accommodate an alternate partner for either the Fire King or Dark Lieut. and as I like the other partnerships, it would be tempted not to try.

Paul [/B]

I dont like the Rhd/CL pairing as CL will not be able to help poor Rhd anyway. By the time CL's agents are good enogh for assassinating armycoms, Rhudaur will allready have been leveled with the ground. If not CL's agent capacity is used to help defend Mordor, NG/Duns/SG will break through the Ithril pass in a matter of time, if FK/DkL/IK are the only nations defending it.

WK/Rhd could also be an interesting pairing, letting that player coordinate WK/Rhd military actions in an attemth to save Rhd. The downside is of course neither nation can support each other economicly, as both will be in severe need of gold. But hopefully his allied will be aware of this as well, and send them gold.

[klub]

I dont like the Rhd/CL pairing as CL will not be able to help poor Rhd anyway. By the time CL's agents are good enogh for assassinating armycoms, Rhudaur will allready have been leveled with the ground. If not CL's agent capacity is used to help defend Mordor, NG/Duns/SG will break through the Ithril pass in a matter of time, if FK/DkL/IK are the only nations defending it.
The CL agents would be more successful in their assassination / kidnap of the relatively low ranked Arthedain / Cardolan commanders compared to their Gondor counterparts, especially after a couple of steals on the way to the north-west.

Surely by your reasoning they would also not be able to stop the Gondors from ploughing through the Ithil pass in the early game either, presuming SGo abandons Harad?

It comes down to balance, concentrating on one target to the exclusion of everything else can be risky.

Paul

[kba]

Originally posted by klub
The CL agents would be more successful in their assassination / kidnap of the relatively low ranked Arthedain / Cardolan commanders compared to their Gondor counterparts, especially after a couple of steals on the way to the north-west.

Surely by your reasoning they would also not be able to stop the Gondors from ploughing through the Ithil pass in the early game either, presuming SGo abandons Harad?

It comes down to balance, concentrating on one target to the exclusion of everything else can be risky.

Paul

My experiences with CL assassins still tells me that Armycoms are damn hard to take out in the early stages of the game. And the initial CL agents have to train for MANY turns before they should begin taget armycoms, with a reasonable successrate. But I agree that its of course still easier to take out a 40 arth than a 50 SG armycom.

In a uncoordinated game like GB, the initial DS forces inside Mordor should be able to deal with the Gondors the first 5-6 turns without any CL agent aid. But when NG/SG/Duns first gets the recruiting mashine rolling, and the initial DS forces are used up, Mordor WILL require CL agents or get slaughtered.

[klub]

Totally agree with you about army commanders, they are tough to take out in the early game without artifact boosts.

I hope me-games get a gunboat game together soon, so I can experience it first hand!

Paul

[Clint]

Quite a few duo of nations in dropped games available - all in excellent condition.

Clint

[Woody]

Clint

Picking up a standby in GB has the additional problem of not only being a little ramshackle when you pick them up but you also have no-one to talk to. You don't know who all those strange PC's on your map belong to. What has happened to starting PC's not on your map and no longer on your pdf. Why is your main army hexes from home with no enemy in sight. Who is active, who isn't, it does take a few turns to get a grip.

It may be an idea to send a brief synopsis with at least the basic information as to what has happened. A new ruler should at least know that.

[Mormegil]

@ Woody

generally, this problem can be amended by contacting the former player. If he does not reply, though, like in my case, you are pretty screwed, since Harly normally does not save the pdfs.

In normal games, drop outs are often taken over by the rest of the team, at least until a replacement is found. This is not possible in GB, so I propose an improved SS-system, meaning the GMs have to do the turns until a standby takes overs. If a position is vacant for more than two turns, it is mostly wrecked beyond repair and hardly anyone would take over

[Clint]

This is not possible in GB, so I propose an improved SS-system, meaning the GMs have to do the turns until a standby takes overs. If a position is vacant for more than two turns, it is mostly wrecked beyond repair and hardly anyone would take over

The positions are fine - as with many such positions if they aren't being attacked they are fine. Having us do the turns - well we haven't got the time - it can take a few hours to do a turn properly - would we be aggressive/defensive? Camp build up chars, etc.

It may be an idea to send a brief synopsis with at least the basic information as to what has happened. A new ruler should at least know that.

Hard to arrange. I can see if we can organise a better system of keeping the turns though for Gunboat games.

Clint

[Mormegil]

c'mon Clint, doing a turn will cost you 20 minutes at most ;o)
and I think we both hope that vacant GB positions should not pile up that much to keep you hours...

enhanced SS would be defensive and self-preserving of course. Improving economy, training chars, keeping armies that can be afforded and defend if attacked. It should not include any actions that are off the map.

[Mahrc]

I picked up my only game of GB, and it is still going strong. The original player was willing and able to provide me with the previous 10 turns of pdfs.

Mahrc

[smuller]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mormegil


- Mordor nearly unbreakable

somewhere this became a false gospel... n gondor can crack the ithil pass by turn 5, turn 7 at worst, ALONE. i have now done it twice.
1650 is an excellent game, but way too many guys are doing the same moves time and again, using the same game plan. n gondor throws his best troops piece meal into 3124.( 900 hv cav into the mountains?) the dwarf attacks 2409, ignoring 2715 (which is a greater threat, and closer to mordor). the witch king / rhudar have to play only defense ( why?). morannon is unassailable.( the eothraim can assemble 6000 hi in three turns, send him the money and let him try).
yes, the dragon lord in 1650 and the rhun easterlings in 2950 are the two most difficult positions to surive. but, at some point we took certain things, made them constants, and stopped thinking.

sm
still wandering around, awaiting a turn

[Mormegil]

you are right, in 1650 new strategies are rarely tried - and this is mostly because they are not succesful, I would think

New ways are only to be found in team games with great cooperation. In GB, players will rather not tend to a strategy where they do not know if supported by others, that is why they hang to the obvious things.
You say NG can breach Ithil alone, but that can only happen if the DS play crap. Strong fortifications are even stronger when you have to take them out on your own, that is why Mordor is harder to take in GB.

[smuller]

[You say NG can breach Ithil alone, but that can only happen if the DS play crap. Strong fortifications are even stronger when you have to take them out on your own, that is why Mordor is harder to take in GB. [/B][/QUOTE]

ahhhhhrrrgggghhhh.
that was my grudge teammates having a stroke, but i prefer defeat in a well played game, to victory over cannonfodder.

on turn one, at best, the fire king, ice king and dk lts can add 1600 hi in total. at JUST 3024, 3124 and his twin cities, the n gondor player can add 1800 hi. and he has how many pop centers within range of mordor.

to quote the french, ( inventors of surrender the capitol ) whats the rush to war? think about it..the answers right there.

sm owner of 3224 in uk 67...

[Mormegil]

want me to go into details?

if you have a look at your turn 0, you will notice that there ís no NG army at 3124, and if the DS don't act like fools, you will never hire troops there, but they will.
NG can bring the equivalent of about 6500 hi to 3124 in turn one while IK, FK and DkL can manage 9300, so the outcome should be obvious. Subtract 400 hiring potential from NG and add 300 to DS, plus a smart IK will hire at 3123, that makes 2200 for DS and 1400 for NG, as long as he keeps 3024, which won't be for long. He could hire at 2421, but that is not even forcmar distance.
That was just maths, not considering the logistical problems. Six of eight NG chars are occupied as armycoms - you want to hire new comms, emis, agents, raise taxes, dnstnat, sell, hire new armies in how many places?

Too many questions, don't you think?

[DDACT]

How about offering a Gunboat game where you play one nation per person BUT you are allowed to have communications ONLY to the nation you're normally teamed with. IE: the Northmen and Dwarves can communicate with each other, but no one else?

Just a thought.

Go ahead, flame me. I'm wearing my flame-proof suit.

[Fletch]

My Diatribe:

I've seen NG crack the pass single handed a few times. I cant say whether the DS were experienced or not. However, dont forget that there is always the ability to drop those bridges. One of the better Ng coms can do this (Tarandor comes to mind, but probably Telumehtar as well). So, you always have the defensive option with them. The DS dont have any such roadblock.Plus, with the Dun pairing you can send their forces to the pass as well. Something that you usually dont have in a regular game. There really isnt any need to send the Duns to Rhudaur as far as I am concerned.

But, back to nation setup, I think they are about as balanced as they can be. I think in the original article, the proposition was to attempt to balance some of the weaker nations with a "stronger" brother. Hence, Cors/DrgL. On the plus side, since you know who is working together, you also know who to target. For example, lets say you are trying to quash the DrgL. Once you do damage to him in Mirkwood you could send some characters down to Corsair land and hunt for his backups or hit the Corsairs with agents and emmis. If your nation cant handle doing that then you have to hope that someone on your team will. In the meantime, move onto a different target, eventually it will balance out I think

I've played in a few Gunboat games so far and I've found that even with the lack of communication some people will cooperate. I've sent and recieved gold and artis from teammates, granted its unexpected and not always useful at the moment. (But, its awfully generous to do so rather than just sit there and hoard everything.) For example, the commander of your capitol seed army suddenly ends up with a +40A artis!! :> Thats great, but not always useful at the moment!! (By the way, that didnt happen, its just an example....not trying to discuss in game info here!)

Fletch

[Clint]

If he does not reply, though, like in my case, you are pretty screwed, since Harly normally does not save the pdfs

We do now - so you can ask for past turns like this when you take it up. (We've got a couple of GB nations available - most in fine state just the player unable to play on).

Note we're taking set-ups for the next 1650 Gunboat game (limited diplomacy - your duo of nations get to send out a diplo to all your team every 6 turns, 20 words long - and you receive the diplos from your team-mates for the other 5 turns.)

We need 2 more player for that.

As for us doing orders for people - 20 minutes per turn x10 = 200 minutes per day. Ouch. GB players are supposed to be committed players to the game - so don't miss turns please.

Clint

[Rommel88]

Having just won as the DS in the first Gunboats I will put my two penneth worth in:

1. I did not feel that the QA/FK pairing was weak; in fact each nation is complements the other.
2. New weak players should NOT be allowed to play Gunboats. In me95 this upset game balance. This should be administered by Harlequins more rigorously IMHO; some inept play by certain FP nations did help us, as the DS secure victory.

Regarding point 2 above, I had thought this was suppose to be the case with GB and was surprised otherwise. Non-experienced players spoil the game. Okay, so we all make mistakes, sure, but not turn after turn.

Well done to some spirited fighting though from the other FP - especially Dwarves/Sinda/Northmen/.

Nuff said.

me95QA/FK

[Clint]

. New weak players should NOT be allowed to play Gunboats. In me95 this upset game balance. This should be administered by Harlequins more rigorously IMHO; some inept play by certain FP nations did help us, as the DS secure victory.

Note we make sure that the game is pretty balanced. So in the same way that players in normal games might be new or experienced I make that balance I do with GB.

What I am generally looking for is committed players in Gunboat. Some of the earlier GB games suffered from non-committed players and that had an impact - but we've organised it so that it's easier for players to pick up nations now (ie copies of all the old turns).

Clint

[Rommel88]

Clint,

I would prefer it if certain GB games were open only to experienced players, if not all GB games.

Newbies are introduced in normal team games with experienced players because they learn the ropes from the other players. In GB games they cannot do this. Abeit, if both sides contain an equal number of newbies the teams are inherently equal, but, if played poorly, the opposition will notice and target specific nations, especially frontline nations. This can easily have the effect of unbalancing the game.

The enjoyment factor of GB games is the unknown, but also deduction. Making sense of reports you receive of the enemy and that of your allies makes the game interesting, especially if your allies are trying to communicate to you 'via the map' and as a player of GB I would assume that my allies know and understand most of the intricacies of the game. They have gained this through experience. Therefore when an ally icon appears at xxyy coordinates YOU have a pretty good idea why they are there or what their intentions might be or what threat they know about. A newbie will may not move his army to xxyy; as an ally a newbie may not interpret this in the same way and that is the difference. It makes the game less enjoyable for the majority.

I therefore think that the original premise put forward - that GB games should be limited to experienced players only should stick.