Penalize Neutrals...? When and/or Why Not?

[pbmnoot]

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Gavin Wynford-Jones <gavinwj@c...> wrote:

> You and Brad seem to have forgotten what neutral means... And
> you want to penalise those who do know.

> I sometimes think I'm the only ME player who plays neutrals
> as neutrals. A neutral who stays neutral throughout the game,
> for whatever reason, has actually met his nation's obligations.
> It is up to the Free or the Dark Servants to convince a neutral
> to change at some point. There is no time limit, nor should there
> be one.
>
> Gavin

The only mention of a nation's "obligations" that I'm aware
of are 1) expansion of power (nation descriptions detail all
nation's desire to become bigger, faster, stronger, etc) and
2) Victory Conditions. Where does it say that all neutrals
should remain so? Are you proposing penalizing neutrals who
DO change allegiance, as it appears you're implying they don't
know how to play..? Seems the only literature I've read that
may be accepted as quasi-official makes mention of neutrals
deciding which allegiance to join.

And, as was pointed out earlier, in FA, there IS a time limit.

With a proposal to "penalize" (or reduce the bonus of...)
late-declaring neutrals, one must presume arguments would
run along the lines of "how late is late" with one of many
possible individual opinions being "Never". If you'd like
to show why you seem to consider this the answer with more
details besides the fact that you know it to be true, please
do so, as I truly don't know what you mean.

Brad

[marc_pinsonneault]

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Gavin Wynford-Jones <gavinwj@c...> wrote:
> > With a proposal to "penalize" (or reduce the bonus of...)
> > late-declaring neutrals, one must presume arguments would
> > run along the lines of "how late is late" with one of many
> > possible individual opinions being "Never". If you'd like
> > to show why you seem to consider this the answer with more
> > details besides the fact that you know it to be true, please
> > do so, as I truly don't know what you mean.
>
> And you feel that I insult you with my replies...
>
> Maybe if GSI had called them "unaligned", we wouldn't be having
> this discussion.
>
> My real-world view of neutrality comes from living close
> to Switzerland and being involved with various UN agncies.
>
> My ME view of neutrals has been expressed before. I have yet to
> see anyone play them as anything other than "merchants", out to
> get artifacts etc as early as possible. (Maybe I've been unlucky.)
> A neutral can also act as a block or no-go area for both
> sides, forcing them to work around his territory. (Think, again,
> of Switzerland in WW2.) I've yet to see ME players respect
> this stance, either: it's usually taken as a signal to attack
> the neutral on the basis that he "might switch".
>
> Gavin

From a pragmatic point of view, an unaligned and powerful nation is a
threat. The presence of a nation with large armies and powerful
characters forces an alliance to hold back armies that could be
attacking their opponents and devote intelligence assets to monitoring
a potential danger. This can provoke real resentment and hostility.
I have seen team discussions about attacking neutrals who play that
way, although I don't think that I've ever actually been part of a
team that carried them out. The usual strategy is to remember the
name of the nuisance and to avoid ever playing in a game with them
again - or to actively court the other neutrals in a game that they're
involved in and to provoke them into jumping onto the opposing team
where you can tap dance all over them.

Although a Switzerland stance may be good roleplaying, it isn't a wise
gameplaying strategy. Most folks enjoy interacting with others in a
game setting like ME PBM - there are much better and cheaper solitare
alternatives. Reputations carry from game to game. Being a nuisance
to team efforts is not a positive reputation to have...

Marc

[fletcherhbrown]

Time to toss in my spare change!

For background, lets look at the LOTR trilogy, which is what MEPBM is
based on afterall. In that sense, there arent any neutrals. The
Corsairs, after conquering the Haradrim, attack the Pelagir. Why?
ancient rivalry (or maybe Pelagir was one of their VC?) The Duns
sided with Saruman, who in turn sided with Sauron, why? artifacts and
power (Maybe owning the One Ring was a VC for Saruman, Hornburg for
the Duns?, Rhudaur sided with the WK and was wiped out whilst wiping
our the remnants of Arnor! And finally, the Easterlings were just
land hungry!

So, in that respect, from a purist point of view, if you will, there
arent any neutrals. But, the ancient designers of said game decided
to make it more interesting and allow you to plot your own course. To
be swayed by Sauron or to "do the right thing" and help fight off the
evil in Middle Earth. So, in this respect, I believe that a neutral
should choose sides at some point. That is why they are there, sure
they can be used and manipulated by the alliances (i.e. Duns
manipulated by Saruman) and it is up to the individual player to
determine if he will be swayed by silvery words!

In respects to forcing a declaration and points deducations for late
newts. Why not combine them. Basically, if a newt declares after turn
12, then he would recieve some sort of deduction? This way, you arent
forced to decide on joining an alliance, but you will pay a penalty
for jumping aboard on the last turn before the FP/DS decide to drop
en masse. I think most games are usually in a grove by turn 12 and
if, as a newt you havent made arrangements to declare by then, you
probably arent going to (or you are going to drop!)

Fletcher Brown



--- In mepbmlist@y..., "pbmnoot" <pbmnoot@y...> wrote:
> --- In mepbmlist@y..., Gavin Wynford-Jones <gavinwj@c...> wrote:
>
> > You and Brad seem to have forgotten what neutral means... And
> > you want to penalise those who do know.
>
> > I sometimes think I'm the only ME player who plays neutrals
> > as neutrals. A neutral who stays neutral throughout the game,
> > for whatever reason, has actually met his nation's obligations.
> > It is up to the Free or the Dark Servants to convince a neutral
> > to change at some point. There is no time limit, nor should there
> > be one.
> >
> > Gavin
>
> The only mention of a nation's "obligations" that I'm aware
> of are 1) expansion of power (nation descriptions detail all
> nation's desire to become bigger, faster, stronger, etc) and
> 2) Victory Conditions. Where does it say that all neutrals
> should remain so? Are you proposing penalizing neutrals who
> DO change allegiance, as it appears you're implying they don't
> know how to play..? Seems the only literature I've read that
> may be accepted as quasi-official makes mention of neutrals
> deciding which allegiance to join.
>
> And, as was pointed out earlier, in FA, there IS a time limit.
>
> With a proposal to "penalize" (or reduce the bonus of...)
> late-declaring neutrals, one must presume arguments would
> run along the lines of "how late is late" with one of many
> possible individual opinions being "Never". If you'd like
> to show why you seem to consider this the answer with more
> details besides the fact that you know it to be true, please
> do so, as I truly don't know what you mean.
>
> Brad

[Richard Farrer]

Looking back at the books, the spirits from the Paths of the Dead (can't remember the name of the nation) agreed to help the Free but then stood aside in the actual battle. They only finally honoured their oath after Aragorn called on them. If that isn't a late declaration then I don't know what is. OK, I agree that they were pretty heavily penalised for not declaring earlier but at least they had the choice.

Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: fletcherhbrown
To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:58 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Penalize Neutrals...? When and/or Why Not?

Time to toss in my spare change!

For background, lets look at the LOTR trilogy, which is what MEPBM is
based on afterall. In that sense, there arent any neutrals. The
Corsairs, after conquering the Haradrim, attack the Pelagir. Why?
ancient rivalry (or maybe Pelagir was one of their VC?) The Duns
sided with Saruman, who in turn sided with Sauron, why? artifacts and
power (Maybe owning the One Ring was a VC for Saruman, Hornburg for
the Duns?, Rhudaur sided with the WK and was wiped out whilst wiping
our the remnants of Arnor! And finally, the Easterlings were just
land hungry!

So, in that respect, from a purist point of view, if you will, there
arent any neutrals. But, the ancient designers of said game decided
to make it more interesting and allow you to plot your own course. To
be swayed by Sauron or to "do the right thing" and help fight off the
evil in Middle Earth. So, in this respect, I believe that a neutral
should choose sides at some point. That is why they are there, sure
they can be used and manipulated by the alliances (i.e. Duns
manipulated by Saruman) and it is up to the individual player to
determine if he will be swayed by silvery words!

In respects to forcing a declaration and points deducations for late
newts. Why not combine them. Basically, if a newt declares after turn
12, then he would recieve some sort of deduction? This way, you arent
forced to decide on joining an alliance, but you will pay a penalty
for jumping aboard on the last turn before the FP/DS decide to drop
en masse. I think most games are usually in a grove by turn 12 and
if, as a newt you havent made arrangements to declare by then, you
probably arent going to (or you are going to drop!)

Fletcher Brown




--- In mepbmlist@y..., "pbmnoot" <pbmnoot@y...> wrote:
> --- In mepbmlist@y..., Gavin Wynford-Jones <gavinwj@c...> wrote:
>
> > You and Brad seem to have forgotten what neutral means... And
> > you want to penalise those who do know.
>
> > I sometimes think I'm the only ME player who plays neutrals
> > as neutrals. A neutral who stays neutral throughout the game,
> > for whatever reason, has actually met his nation's obligations.
> > It is up to the Free or the Dark Servants to convince a neutral
> > to change at some point. There is no time limit, nor should there
> > be one.
> >
> > Gavin
>
> The only mention of a nation's "obligations" that I'm aware
> of are 1) expansion of power (nation descriptions detail all
> nation's desire to become bigger, faster, stronger, etc) and
> 2) Victory Conditions. Where does it say that all neutrals
> should remain so? Are you proposing penalizing neutrals who
> DO change allegiance, as it appears you're implying they don't
> know how to play..? Seems the only literature I've read that
> may be accepted as quasi-official makes mention of neutrals
> deciding which allegiance to join.
>
> And, as was pointed out earlier, in FA, there IS a time limit.
>
> With a proposal to "penalize" (or reduce the bonus of...)
> late-declaring neutrals, one must presume arguments would
> run along the lines of "how late is late" with one of many
> possible individual opinions being "Never". If you'd like
> to show why you seem to consider this the answer with more
> details besides the fact that you know it to be true, please
> do so, as I truly don't know what you mean.
>
> Brad


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]