Player
2nd February 2008, 12:07 PM
--- "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@...> wrote: >
At 15:16 14/10/2002, Steve wrote:
> >Unless you are of the opinion that the neutrals should benefit
> monetarily
> >from a
> >war while not participating, like the U.S. during the first years of
> WW
> >I. If a
> >neutral trades with one or both sides in a conflict they are not
> really
> >neutral, they have entered the conflict to gain from the human
> misery of
> >their neighbors. I know this is OFF TOPIC, Sorry!!!
>
> But you're not off topic. If this can happen in RL, why not in a war
>
> game? Let the neutrals have the opportunity to benefit from the
> "human
> misery" of the aligned players. It's what makes playing a neutral
> fun -
> it's also what makes the aligned players come and "kick your a***" if
> you
> misjudge things and they rumble your devious plan. The neutrals can
> (in a
> good game) add an enjoyable "third dimension" to the conflict, and
> they
> should not be penalised by the ratings system for playing as (the
> various
> kinds of) neutrals - isolationist, profiteering, undecided, mercenary
> etc.
>
> If the late declaring neutrals annoy you, then attack them in the mid
> game,
> or threaten to. That will of course distract some of your effort
> from your
> prime enemy - but that's part of the story line. The annoying
> neutrals are
> there "to give us moral choices" not to mention strategic ones.
>
>
> Laurence G. Tilley
>
> http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
Excellent points. But they don't counter the main problem:
Why should a late-declaring neutral (for whatever reason)
reap the same rewards as starting players for the hard
fought victory they did not participate in?
That's the key here, in regards to a PRS that promotes
the Team win. That's one of Darrell Shimels main points
also. (although Darrell, win% would still include these
victory jumpers too, eh?)
Brad
At 15:16 14/10/2002, Steve wrote:
> >Unless you are of the opinion that the neutrals should benefit
> monetarily
> >from a
> >war while not participating, like the U.S. during the first years of
> WW
> >I. If a
> >neutral trades with one or both sides in a conflict they are not
> really
> >neutral, they have entered the conflict to gain from the human
> misery of
> >their neighbors. I know this is OFF TOPIC, Sorry!!!
>
> But you're not off topic. If this can happen in RL, why not in a war
>
> game? Let the neutrals have the opportunity to benefit from the
> "human
> misery" of the aligned players. It's what makes playing a neutral
> fun -
> it's also what makes the aligned players come and "kick your a***" if
> you
> misjudge things and they rumble your devious plan. The neutrals can
> (in a
> good game) add an enjoyable "third dimension" to the conflict, and
> they
> should not be penalised by the ratings system for playing as (the
> various
> kinds of) neutrals - isolationist, profiteering, undecided, mercenary
> etc.
>
> If the late declaring neutrals annoy you, then attack them in the mid
> game,
> or threaten to. That will of course distract some of your effort
> from your
> prime enemy - but that's part of the story line. The annoying
> neutrals are
> there "to give us moral choices" not to mention strategic ones.
>
>
> Laurence G. Tilley
>
> http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
Excellent points. But they don't counter the main problem:
Why should a late-declaring neutral (for whatever reason)
reap the same rewards as starting players for the hard
fought victory they did not participate in?
That's the key here, in regards to a PRS that promotes
the Team win. That's one of Darrell Shimels main points
also. (although Darrell, win% would still include these
victory jumpers too, eh?)
Brad