1650-game without neutrals, grudge-style

[Gixxer]

Greetings Warlords,
is someone interested in a 1650-game with determined neutrals?

Very often the neutral-split is killing the "indie"-games, so why not playing it without neutrals?

We could use the grudge-split!

Have Fun!

Gixxx

[Blue Knight]

Funny you mentioned this -- was talking to some others about just the way you mentioned or even a 10 vs 10 vs 5 -- meaning a free for all -- hell I would even play a neutral as would be freeps against everyone , evils agains everyone and neutrals against everyone !!

But I would be interested in the grudge split as you mentioned -- one week turnarounds??

[Gixxer]

Funny you mentioned this -- was talking to some others about just the way you mentioned or even a 10 vs 10 vs 5 -- meaning a free for all -- hell I would even play a neutral as would be freeps against everyone , evils agains everyone and neutrals against everyone !!

But I would be interested in the grudge split as you mentioned -- one week turnarounds??

Hi there Mike,
we've tried with 4 neutrals to win a game, wasn't allowed!

... but if the game will have the right setup ...

Clint?

Personally I would prefer the WC-rules used for grudges.

I would prefer 2 wweks, cause I'm playing some other games and one as a captain.

Have Fun!

Gixxx

[JDScherrey]

I would like to get in on a determined neutral game even as a neutral. Especially 1 week turn around...but hey I'm ADD,

-Christopher

[Blue Knight]

Hi there Mike,
we've tried with 4 neutrals to win a game, wasn't allowed!

... but if the game will have the right setup ...

Clint?

Gixxx

I am sure Clint and Company can set it up on the 10 vs 10 vs 5 -- when you tried with 4 neutrals -- was it a regular game -- that is reason why , but am almost sure they can do a set-u the way you want !!

[fax]

Have to be a 1 week game. The 2 week is less than 1/2 filled after 2.5 months and if this 1 week ends..AND it's all the Neutrals fault...well....

[Gixxer]

I am sure Clint and Company can set it up on the 10 vs 10 vs 5 -- when you tried with 4 neutrals -- was it a regular game -- that is reason why , but am almost sure they can do a set-u the way you want !!

It was a regular game!

10 vs 10 vs 5, there's the possibility of playing two parties against one and that's the thing I would like prevent!

Have Fun!

Gixxx

[Gixxer]

Have to be a 1 week game. The 2 week is less than 1/2 filled after 2.5 months and if this 1 week ends..AND it's all the Neutrals fault...well....

In the most cases you're right Brad and I'm pretty sure this time too!

Have Fun!

Gixxx

[American-Iron]

So are we to have a game 10 v 10 v 5. Does this mean the Neutrals will be a third team? Clint can we do this? The bean counters need to see if that is plausable. The neutrals are very strong and could they stand as an alliance? That would really be an interesting game. Well count me in as to whatever you crazy buggers come up with. I would prefer a one week game. Althought they have collasped quickly lately I enjoy the hectic pace and it seems to keep the blood pumping. I only hate it when you have poor players in the mix as it isn't for the faint at heart and that seems to be one of the problems.

[Clint]

Hi there Mike,
we've tried with 4 neutrals to win a game, wasn't allowed!

... but if the game will have the right setup ...

It's been brought up before. I've been asked to do this "secretly", letting in 5 neutrals into a game. Like when this was raised in 1000 my opinion here is that such a game is fun for the 5 neutrals, dire for the other 20 players and would cause a LOT of resentment.

However, if players wanted to and can get 25 players for a 10v10v5 (I assume you mean 1650) that would be okay with us. We'd have to hand-moderate the victory elements but that would be okay with us. So get together, get 12 or so players (I'd suggest allowing 2 nations per player as this is a variant and you might find it hard to get 25 players together).

Clint

[American-Iron]

I would be up for this. So just so Understand now, There would be three alliances instead of two? Explain this in detail for us fence sitters.

[Gixxer]

Hi there Mike,
we've tried with 4 neutrals to win a game, wasn't allowed!

... but if the game will have the right setup ...

It's been brought up before. I've been asked to do this "secretly", letting in 5 neutrals into a game. Like when this was raised in 1000 my opinion here is that such a game is fun for the 5 neutrals, dire for the other 20 players and would cause a LOT of resentment.

However, if players wanted to and can get 25 players for a 10v10v5 (I assume you mean 1650) that would be okay with us. We'd have to hand-moderate the victory elements but that would be okay with us. So get together, get 12 or so players (I'd suggest allowing 2 nations per player as this is a variant and you might find it hard to get 25 players together).

Clint

Hi there Clint,
the main reason for posting this stuff was to get a more outbalanced game.

I fully agree that a 5 players neutral-part won't help!

You'll always have the possibility that one party will play with one of the others.

... and the split will much uglier than in game 87!

I would like to suggest that we use the WC-split for grudges!

So what do you think?

Have Fun!

Gixxx

[Blue Knight]

I would be up for this. So just so Understand now, There would be three alliances instead of two? Explain this in detail for us fence sitters.

Would mainly be the freeps against the evils and neutrals , the neutrals against the evils and freeps and the evils against the freeps and neutrals , seen someone said something about having one side work with another -- well can add a clause like the Gunboats games -- and make it no contact with another side but your own , so this takes two sides working against the other out !!

[Landru]

Since 1650 is well known, for something new and perhaps better balanced, what about redistributing nations? Have a 12-on-12 game and have each side choose 12 nations (the 25th is discarded). Some potential ways:

a) Choose team captains and they have a draft - snake order so either 1, 2-3, 4, 5... or 1, 2-3, 4-5, 6-7...

b) Have each side submit a list in order of preference. If a team cannot decide, worst case would be to have each player submit a list and compile the order based on votes.

c) Assign each player a number (alternating by side, again can snake order) and nation is chosen when the number comes up. This would work best if everyone has two nations, therefore 1st would also pick 24th while 12th would pick 13th. This would somewhat balance things, as players in the middle could choose symbiotic nations.

I would also suggest that artifact numbers be randomized - there are pros and cons of this.

Would people be interested in such a game?

[Clint]

12v12 format is one that definitely works, is very balanced and lots of fun without the elements of having neutrals. If you guys want one of those I can do it. But I've tried before, I probably need to have it that you can start with upto 2 nations each side I suspect. Do you want me do to that?

Draft game - we did one of these before. It worked okay and there was some play to it. The biggest problem is picking 2 captains.

As with any variant game, ideas are great and usually get implemented in one form or another, but ideally I'm looking for players who want to play that variant format.

Clint

[Landru]

12v12 format is one that definitely works, is very balanced and lots of fun without the elements of having neutrals. If you guys want one of those I can do it. But I've tried before, I probably need to have it that you can start with upto 2 nations each side I suspect. Do you want me do to that?

Draft game - we did one of these before. It worked okay and there was some play to it. The biggest problem is picking 2 captains.

As with any variant game, ideas are great and usually get implemented in one form or another, but ideally I'm looking for players who want to play that variant format.

Clint

Clint,

The way I would suggest doing the draft is as follows (6 on 6, 2 nations per person, can be 1 week or 2):

First, choose a captain for each side. Can be random among qualified people, or you can pick them based on experience and communicativeness. Both captains submit a ranked 25 nation list.

Players are randomly assigned a draft order, which snakes (e.g. 1 and 24, 2 and 23, etc.).

When a players pick comes up, the player is notified by email and a post on the message board - there is a list of the picks so far - they have 24 hours to submit a pick.

If the player does not submit a pick by the deadline, the captain chooses for him (players are free to notify the captain of their preferences prior, in case they are traveling, whatever).

If the captain does not submit a pick, then a pick is taken from the list of 25 that the captain has submitted (hopefully never used, but a fallback in case the captain flakes as well).

Final unpicked nation is unused. Something must be done about dragons (removed, significantly reduced in frequency or recruiting randomized... whatever can be done to balance this aspect of the game).

If you run it, I'll sign up... would need 11 more. :)

[Dwalon]

Why not just use the pairings of the Gunboat games which is setup as 12 vs 12? Someone (Clint maybe?) has already gone through them and made a decent decision of which nations as a pairing are reasonable. Why go through picking captains and then slowly choosing who wants what?

For instance, the Dragon Lord has a steady source of income from the Corsair and plenty of potential backup capitals to choose from. You really want the Noldo? Then deal with Harad and its unfortified towns with enemies at the gate.

The only difference is in not giving Rhudaur and Northmen the added defenses and the Cloud Lord a variance in pop centers. Those should not be needed in a communicative team game.

[fax]

Point 1 - Standard 12v12 the Corsairs are FP.

Point 2 - there will be no changes to the code, ie dragon encounters, randomized artifacts. Those are in the long standing wish list basket that simply won't happen.

If you're looking for a 2 nation/player game then it's 2 captains and 10 draftee's. Clint and the Captains make the teams then the 6 man teams simply have 2 weeks before turn 1 to sort out all the rest of the business necessary - picking nations through to submitting orders.

[herman]

The other option for a 12 V 12 is the neutral pick off. Toss a coin to see who picks what nneutral first, then the other team picks a neutral, and so on discarding the nation not picked............ now there's a nutty idea. All nations start neutral. Captians pick one nation each round, discard the unpicked have at each other. Cloud Lord supporting North Gondor against South Gondor And The Eothrain with the Ice King lending support.......... Arthy and Cardy bashing away at each other my my the hours of thought just to make the next nation selection........

Herman

[herman]

Ahh crud just seen the other post........someone beat me to the idea...... kind of.

Herman

[Landru]

Why not just use the pairings of the Gunboat games which is setup as 12 vs 12? Someone (Clint maybe?) has already gone through them and made a decent decision of which nations as a pairing are reasonable. Why go through picking captains and then slowly choosing who wants what?

For instance, the Dragon Lord has a steady source of income from the Corsair and plenty of potential backup capitals to choose from. You really want the Noldo? Then deal with Harad and its unfortified towns with enemies at the gate.

The only difference is in not giving Rhudaur and Northmen the added defenses and the Cloud Lord a variance in pop centers. Those should not be needed in a communicative team game.

The idea of a draft is to completely change the dynamic of the game - what is it like to be the DrL if, perhaps, the WM are you allies - suddenly it might be the Sinda who are hunted.

How good is the CL if the DkL and FK are enemies? Imagine the knife fighting in Mordor.

There are a lot of different ways to evaluate a nation and a lot of preconceived notions will go out the window. That is why I think the idea is interesting.

2950 would be less bloody to start; could be a possibility. If dragons cannot be removed or limited, then 2950 would be better - the Freeps would be at a disadvantage, but 1650 would be just awful if the nations were fully balanced.

[Landru]

Point 1 - Standard 12v12 the Corsairs are FP.

Point 2 - there will be no changes to the code, ie dragon encounters, randomized artifacts. Those are in the long standing wish list basket that simply won't happen.

If you're looking for a 2 nation/player game then it's 2 captains and 10 draftee's. Clint and the Captains make the teams then the 6 man teams simply have 2 weeks before turn 1 to sort out all the rest of the business necessary - picking nations through to submitting orders.

If this were grudge, or people were willing to have strong captains, the draft would be very easy to resolve.

If there is no way to limit or remove dragons, that is a game-breaker. Maybe 2950 would be possible (let the Freeps pick first, or give them something else to somewhat compensate).

It would be interesting to see the WK and DrL rampaging, as opposed to getting piled on (not to say that those nations aren't very interesting in a normal game - there is no greater joy in MEPBM than playing a DrL who hangs on in Mirkwood - although that only happens with a perfect mix of good gameplay, daring, luck and enemy mistakes).

The draft strategy would be a fascinating thing - if you actually think about the draft order, where you would rank nations, a lot of different factors and scenarios pop into mind.

[fax]

Why a game breaker?

Consider the implications of Alignment on both Dragons and Artifacts. Alignment there can't be changed - so if the nations have them, they can interact with those aspects of the program where Alignment matters. Make all the nations Neutral and you've now removed all the Good or Evil aligned issues from the game *AND* removed the ability to get nations to Hated or Friendly. Of course, it would be nice to not have to issue any 185's, but now no multinational companies.

Thus, the flexibility of the program is the problem here.

Mind you, still don't see why you hate dragon so much - go kill them...

[Gixxer]

Since 1650 is well known, for something new and perhaps better balanced, what about redistributing nations? Have a 12-on-12 game and have each side choose 12 nations (the 25th is discarded). Some potential ways:

a) Choose team captains and they have a draft - snake order so either 1, 2-3, 4, 5... or 1, 2-3, 4-5, 6-7...

b) Have each side submit a list in order of preference. If a team cannot decide, worst case would be to have each player submit a list and compile the order based on votes.

c) Assign each player a number (alternating by side, again can snake order) and nation is chosen when the number comes up. This would work best if everyone has two nations, therefore 1st would also pick 24th while 12th would pick 13th. This would somewhat balance things, as players in the middle could choose symbiotic nations.

I would also suggest that artifact numbers be randomized - there are pros and cons of this.

Would people be interested in such a game?

... and the confusion is planned too?

Have Fun!

Gixxx

[American-Iron]

Interesting how predetermined nuetrals turned into a whole new game. What is better then the open exchange of ideas?

[Gixxer]

Interesting how predetermined nuetrals turned into a whole new game. What is better then the open exchange of ideas?

Hi there Doug,
I think some of the suggested things aren't possible with the ME-program.-

... but you're so damned right with this pre-aligned neutrals.

I've left a game (and gave him my position too cause a Rhu has wanted to join us on turn 0!)

That's not my idea of a neutral.

Have Fun!

Gixxx

[Banal]

I recently returned to MEPBM after a decade away and so far in the two games I have played, one DS and one FP, a neutral joined the other side on turn 0.

I'm definitely planning to play a grudge game with pre-determined neutrals for my next game.

[Dwalon]

Point 1 - Standard 12v12 the Corsairs are FP.

If you're looking for a 2 nation/player game then it's 2 captains and 10 draftee's. Clint and the Captains make the teams then the 6 man teams simply have 2 weeks before turn 1 to sort out all the rest of the business necessary - picking nations through to submitting orders.

I won't be playing in the proposed game, but just offered my suggestion.

Point 1 - The posters all want a different sort of game, so why limit to having the standard Corsairs as a FP in a 12v12 game?

Point 2 - Clint further stated that the biggest problem was in picking two captains. Having established pairings eliminates that difficulty. All Clint then needs to do is set up who ends up where, just like in any other Gunboat game. Because there is communication, it is not exactly like a Gunboat game which further alludes to having a different sort of game never yet played.

In the end, I don't really care; just suggesting an option.

[fax]

I know other players with counting issues...Banal must be American like them... :) But as a returning player, then the internet dynamic must be a shock to you - the game is different now. It's like going home again, only to find the old lane is a 4 lane road and the old field where you'd climb trees and start fires sometimes is now a 37 storey condominium...there is no going home again, RW or ME.

[Clint]

Right now I don't have any players signed up or express a preference to me that they would like to play either of these formats. (Draft or 12v12 with normal WC nations: Cor/Dun FP, Har/Rh DS)

So I can't allocate captains for the draft... ;)

Clint

[American-Iron]

Excuse me sire but didn't you get my email about the one week game? Wasn't it for this or some crazy junta like this. I is confused:confused:

[Banal]

Fax, despite the early neutral declarations, I am enjoying the game more now than I did in GSI days (not sure what the miscounting quip was about). I certainly don't want to go back to the slow paced game of that day, but turn 0 neutrals is definitely causing me to rethink my approach. It seems that the best policy against Rhudaur for the FP is to just attack on turn 1 and get it over with.

[fax]

Turn 0 is the source... 90% of what people believe to be true is therefore the truth (by definition of the word believe...) but total hogwash. (extrapolate that outside ME at your leisure). Any neutral that makes a move before turn 5 is castigated as a Turn 0/game start ringer and, as per the above, it's 90% of the time total BS. So I tend to respectfully request (American bashing aside, it's all Canadians are good at when the ice melts) people refrain from throwing out such accusations. The more recent games I've been a part of, the one's who've come out bitching and whining about the neutrals (1 of 3 games I was Neut) and accusing them of Turn 0 ringers, etc, were the people who hadn't said a thing to the neutrals until that point. (Oh, and of those games, Rhudaur went Free all 3 times, for the record.). Perception vs Reality. Really, neutrals are just people too~!

[MorgulHammer]

Well I am in the game gixxx was talking about w/ rhudaur going dark immediately...I am the duns. And I certainly wasn't about to "join" a side until I felt I had a good handle on what the flow would be like either way...and really after 6 turns now I can honestly say (neutrals can be honest) that I could still go either way...more about which side I chose and why on the appropriate thread.

But overall, I took a neutral to see what the hubbub was about...and let me tell ya after years of only aligned play; being neutral is all about info and feeling like you connect w/ a team than about x's and o's...if neither team is overly communicative then you kinda just want to do whatever hits you...it's not about balance, for me, anyway. It seems to be more about which group of guys you think you stand a better chance with...

Maybe my sample size is too small to make that observation...

But 4th age neutrals face a similar mistrust...more than a couple neutral nations in a 4th age game and the "alliance" is on...and what's funny about that is the aligned nations immediately jump on them...like there is a two party system in 4th age (American politics)...and any thought to the contrary is bull...lol...

4th age was designed to allow nations to work together even if they weren't "aligned" the same way...but 1650 mentality took over...aligned is the only way to go...

just my two cents, and the five dollars I found on the floor for good measure...

I'll shut it now,

jz

[Banal]

Fax, in the two games I am referring to, we absolutely did communicate with the two neutrals in question. They absolutely did reject positive overtures from us and they both began aggressive moves with their first orders. For whatever that's worth. I'm sure what you describe is true in some cases, but not in these two examples.

[Clint]

Excuse me sire but didn't you get my email about the one week game? Wasn't it for this or some crazy junta like this. I is confused

Me too, I don't know who you are... :D I've not received anything, that I recall, but regardless of that I don't have enough to start taking set-ups for a 1wk game. 2wk game, is fine, or if there's enough players for a variant then that would be interesting.

Clint

[Gixxer]

Excuse me sire but didn't you get my email about the one week game? Wasn't it for this or some crazy junta like this. I is confused

Me too, I don't know who you are... :D I've not received anything, that I recall, but regardless of that I don't have enough to start taking set-ups for a 1wk game. 2wk game, is fine, or if there's enough players for a variant then that would be interesting.

Clint

Clint,
looking on the current one week game, we've decided to play further on.

Perhaps that's one reason why nobody signed for this new game.

Have Fun!

Gixxx