Winn Keathley
2nd February 2008, 11:36 AM
>I'd keep the neutrals, but I think the game would be better if they
>started off a lot weaker. These are the nations which are not ready for
>war, they should have 2950 type set ups. There should be no opportunity
>for them to launch an assault on T1. It should be possible for an
>aggressive neighbour to go squish them, and this would make it necessary
>for those playing neutrals to do some of the running in the diplomacy
>game: "Please don't kill me, I expect to join your side, and make a
>contribution." "If you bring an army to my capital, to protect me
>against the dastardly xxxxxx, then I'll probably join your side when
>I've built up my nation."
Mmmm. Yes, and no. Some of the neutrals are too strong. Corsairs (both
games) and Harad probably head that list. They have the ability to wait as
long as they want before joining, and can significantly alter the war
outcomes. Otoh, Rhun, Khand and Easterlings are all so weak as to have
virtually no ability to oppose their nearby neighbors, and are therefore
often pushed into alliances by default. Rhudaur of course is at the bottom
of the win lists with bad characters, inadequate economy to support starting
troops and a horrible position. With the solitary exception of the Duns
(both games) neutrals in general sit near the bottom of the lists on
characters and artifacts, and a lot of them have some pretty shaky SNAs to
boot.
If you weaken their starting pop center/military base, some will become so
shaky that it won't be worth the time of either alliance to recruit them. A
neutral SHOULD be able to request some concessions from the team that he is
joining, and not have people laugh at him. Personally, I use the offers from
different teams to measure their desire to have me as a player. I don't
think I have ever collected more than small pieces of my "bribe" because
after a neutral joins, everyone (including the neutral if he is worth
anything) cares more about winning the war than spending orders to pacify a
player.
Finally, there is a MASSIVE difference in the role of a neutral in a 25
person open game and a 10 vs. 10 team game. You are right, in a grudge game
where both sides have experienced, communicative players, neutrals can be
unbalancing in the impact that they have on the war. But in an individual
game, neutrals are a balancing force. In one game I'm in, the player of the
Sindar elves and Rohirrim never communicated with any other player. He sat
back and did nothing, and when the DrLd came to burn down the Sindar
capital, his teammates could do nothing, because we couldn't transfer a new
capital to him without him talking to us, and we didn't even know if he had
developed a backup or if he might be able to win the battle. He made no
effort to shift characters to his allies on the eve of his doom. He then
dropped out as the Riders (Thank goodness!!!)
Now, the other players on the team were not responsible. We have been in
good communication with each other sharing knowledge, resources, etc. But in
effect, we were an 8 nation team, fighting a 10 nation team, with the
rohirrim showing up about 5 turns late (after the drop). In this case,
neutral alliances are the only factor which can keep us in the game (we
hope, gulp!)!
We have all seen games where NG or Northmen or Eothraim or some other
important border state is played by a new player and drops when he sees this
swarm of DS armies/agents. In a game like this, if the Duns or Corsairs
realize that one team is in trouble, and want to actually get a war out of
their position, they can immediately shift to the weaker alliance and keep
the game alive. If you cripple them, they will no longer be able to serve
this function.
Winn
>started off a lot weaker. These are the nations which are not ready for
>war, they should have 2950 type set ups. There should be no opportunity
>for them to launch an assault on T1. It should be possible for an
>aggressive neighbour to go squish them, and this would make it necessary
>for those playing neutrals to do some of the running in the diplomacy
>game: "Please don't kill me, I expect to join your side, and make a
>contribution." "If you bring an army to my capital, to protect me
>against the dastardly xxxxxx, then I'll probably join your side when
>I've built up my nation."
Mmmm. Yes, and no. Some of the neutrals are too strong. Corsairs (both
games) and Harad probably head that list. They have the ability to wait as
long as they want before joining, and can significantly alter the war
outcomes. Otoh, Rhun, Khand and Easterlings are all so weak as to have
virtually no ability to oppose their nearby neighbors, and are therefore
often pushed into alliances by default. Rhudaur of course is at the bottom
of the win lists with bad characters, inadequate economy to support starting
troops and a horrible position. With the solitary exception of the Duns
(both games) neutrals in general sit near the bottom of the lists on
characters and artifacts, and a lot of them have some pretty shaky SNAs to
boot.
If you weaken their starting pop center/military base, some will become so
shaky that it won't be worth the time of either alliance to recruit them. A
neutral SHOULD be able to request some concessions from the team that he is
joining, and not have people laugh at him. Personally, I use the offers from
different teams to measure their desire to have me as a player. I don't
think I have ever collected more than small pieces of my "bribe" because
after a neutral joins, everyone (including the neutral if he is worth
anything) cares more about winning the war than spending orders to pacify a
player.
Finally, there is a MASSIVE difference in the role of a neutral in a 25
person open game and a 10 vs. 10 team game. You are right, in a grudge game
where both sides have experienced, communicative players, neutrals can be
unbalancing in the impact that they have on the war. But in an individual
game, neutrals are a balancing force. In one game I'm in, the player of the
Sindar elves and Rohirrim never communicated with any other player. He sat
back and did nothing, and when the DrLd came to burn down the Sindar
capital, his teammates could do nothing, because we couldn't transfer a new
capital to him without him talking to us, and we didn't even know if he had
developed a backup or if he might be able to win the battle. He made no
effort to shift characters to his allies on the eve of his doom. He then
dropped out as the Riders (Thank goodness!!!)
Now, the other players on the team were not responsible. We have been in
good communication with each other sharing knowledge, resources, etc. But in
effect, we were an 8 nation team, fighting a 10 nation team, with the
rohirrim showing up about 5 turns late (after the drop). In this case,
neutral alliances are the only factor which can keep us in the game (we
hope, gulp!)!
We have all seen games where NG or Northmen or Eothraim or some other
important border state is played by a new player and drops when he sees this
swarm of DS armies/agents. In a game like this, if the Duns or Corsairs
realize that one team is in trouble, and want to actually get a war out of
their position, they can immediately shift to the weaker alliance and keep
the game alive. If you cripple them, they will no longer be able to serve
this function.
Winn