This has emerged from discussion re the PoWeR game where DS have Ea, Rhu and Duns (and obviously the Free have Har and Cor).
Perhaps timing has a great deal to do with the relative efficacy of different neutrals - eg if Rhu sat back for 10 turns there would probably be little for either side to gain.
John Briggs (Rhu in G2) believes that economies are the deciding factor, hence why a Har/Cor duo is an unbalancing advantage for any allegiance, and arguably far more so for the Free who already have a comparable economic block in north and south gondor.
Dave Holt (Har in G2) acknowledges this but believes this economic advantage is counterbalanced by the currency of orders: more orders means a greater impact on the game as a whole.
I tend to believe that the currency of orders is valued respective to the economies involved. A case in point: in one game I’m in Rhudaur has been eliminated from the NW - he has an MT, a town and a camp. Even with the game in the latter stages (t25+) he does not have a full compliment of characters, no armies, etc - all mostly because he has no gold: none to name new characters, to place camps, to improve pops, etc. This means he is economically dependent on others and so the value of the orders his characters carry out is worth less than that of the DkLts who have a thriving economy, lots of multi-, high-skilled character, large armies, etc.
So, to get back on track, in 1650 what combination of neutrals do people think is the most balanced and why?
For my part I’d say that a Free Duns/Ea combo is perfect economically, militarily and is some measure to counter the agent advantage of the DS, whereas the economic advantages of Cor/Har counterbalance those of NG/SG whilst Rhudaur is needed just to give WK a fighting chance militarily.
Probably not a new discussion but it would be great to hear other points of view.
The majority of players will only agree that Co/Ha go the same way if they’re the only 2 to join their allegiance.
I personally prefer to join the same way as my regional neutral neighbour - I hate rendering my Neutral potential into a boring game of regional trench warfare vs a known and expected foe. If that means Co+Ha (as in my last Corsairs, game 90, Co/Ha and Dun vs Rhu and Easterlings), then so be it for the unfortunate allegiance who gets to call us names. Usually, in fact, I make Neutral allies first…THEN we decide what allegiance to join together.
As for a “perfect” balance? There’s never any knowing until post turn 10. Game 3 right now I’ve already seen 2 of my neighbouring allegiance nations change ownership - who’s to say that some games don’t Need 4+ neuts on the same side to be competitive…?
I respectfully disagree, but then you knew that An example:
In game 31 this past year, I was Duns. I went DS around T5. Rhu went FP. I got wiped down to the point of economic impotence as I chose to throw all of my forces against NG early, knowing it meant I’d be forced out of my homeland for a while. yet I rebuilt my economy (team play, ally xfers, emmies, etc) and helped the DS win the game, using my orders. Duns were never a force economically in that game. But we were an important force in the use of our orders.
In many games, I’ve seen Cors/Harad go the same allegiance. Sometime it matters and helps. Sometimes it doesn’t. Player skill/attitude matters as much or more than the individual nation’s static capabilities. Ho
Please remember that you project your “will” in this game 2 ways:
Military Might (economic might matters to support military action)
Character Action (economic might doesn’t help you if you don’t have the orders)
I guess I should add one more reason why a neutral nation matters: map view. That’s a whole lotta Scry/Recon/Scout orders that don’t have to be issued, or conversely, that are issued for free (at least you see the icons).
Easterlings is a big help to the FP.
Duns see a whole bunch that neither side sees
and DS would surely like one or the other of Cor/Harad (probably Harad)
Rhu would be a boon to FP to see the map…
In the ‘for-what-it-is-worth’ column: Several years ago a couple of guys in upstate New York reviewed over 100 GSI games regarding neutral declaration. Their conclusion was only a five to zero break was statistically significant. I never saw their math, just their conclusion.
Obviously, things may be different now since GSI’s and Harley’s policies are different.
No question about that. However, for the sake of argument you should assume a scenario where player skill is roughly equivalent.
It does bring up an interesting point, though, on the popularity of specific neutral nations. Are the Corsairs more likely to be guided by a veteran hand?
As I stated in the power thread "you win the south, you (4 times out of 5, stoopid enemies help for that 1 out of 5) win the game. The ability to operate unhindered in that “economically rich” environment is a huge advantage. The power that the combined might of Cors/Harad can project is next to impossible to counter as you are already dealing with the near equal power of the enemy. (You defeat your natural enemies only to have 4-8 thousand Corsair and Harad troops arrive via boat.) As a freep I would be quite happy to take on all 4 neutrals if Harad was free(Reliable teamates a requirement), Huge economy and big military (Mumaks rock!) to add to a already strong freep line up.
My most desired splits
DS Rhu,Easties, Harad (NW falls still but South goes DS to counter)
Freep Duns, Corsairs
Any split is a good split and fighting a good loosing battle can be a hell of a lot more fun than winning an easy crushing victory. (We are going to have so much fun in 02!)
I think the HA/CO duo flipping early is the strongest possible NT pairing. To keep a military and economic parity (not equality) the DU/RH/EA have to go to the opposite allegiance, and quickly. But I strongly concur in the statement that the corresponding superiority in gross executable orders is how the true balance comes back into the CO/HA vs DU/RH/EA split. And this edge is what is probably least likely to get utilized by the allegiance that gets the 3 NTs. Even with HA/CO going FP, the DS still have the ability to trade off MTs and Ts inside Mordor to make certain all DS nations survive.
But I suspect that 90% of all games that end before T15 are demonstrative of 1 thing only. The war around Gondor and the Mordor passes. The FP are running through one of the passes, or the DS have taken at least one of the EO/NG/SG nations out of the game.
Also I do agree with Herman, that uncontested control of the south is a game winner, at least when it is the DS that control the south. At game start the FP have no map to see what is going on, and the DS will always have some visibility of the south with the QA/BS/CL maps. The DS always have the maps of the “open” south to work on economic developement, and the FP allegiance only take some of this advantage away if/when the EA goes FP. At best I think it unrealistic to expect the FP to order recons/scouts/scrys on 55 unpopulated rough hexes that remain visible on the DS maps and are off of the FP/CO/HA maps. I have a similar belief about the NW. Meaning that should RH/DU flip FP early and knock the WK out of the game (not just the region) before T10, then the FP have a similarly protected and resource rich backfield that the DS cannot “see.” It is just a little more time concuming for the FP to get this advanatge, where as the DS start with theirs, but must “share” it with the EA.
The “best” NT split comes in the 12 v 12 games or the grudge matches. Neutrals do matter, and the timing of when they flip will almost always affect the game in some significant way. Players who do not enjoy this reality should request these variants more often, if they honestly want to avoid the risk of an “unequal” nuetral split in their games.
Herman, anytime you want to play the dark servants and take Harad, give me a call. I will remove the QA and Harad by turn 15, especially if my brother is running the military campaign. Granted Mordor won’t be touched. But when I put the Witch King, Rhuduar, Dragon Lord, QA and Harad all on life support, I will take that scenario.
And then ask Dave Holt how Mordor falls after being untouched for the first 15 turns.
I guess I side with Dave in thinking Harad needs to be on the free side and not the dark servant side.
As I said, you win the South, you win the game. Devote the resources to win the South, regardless of other theaters you usually will wind up on top.
As for countering CL agents, no freep nation has that ability. I know this as I am helping to give the German freeps a spanking in Grudge 82 as the CL. We own the South funny enough.
I agree with you, you win the south, you win the war.
Nasty Cloud lord agents. Unless of course I am playing the Cloud lord, when I have five 100+ agents fail on 8 of 10 k/a attempts against veteran army commanders.
It’s hard to compare, but the essence of the orders vs. economy in this specific instance is 8 MTs, 2 towns, 58 Warships, 36 transports, and only 1 enemy MT in range of you. Whereas you are in range, because of the naval part, of anything you want.
Would I trade that for 12 low level comms and emmies starting at 30, and no agents? 24 orders? Heck yeah, I would. Except for Duns, neutral characters stink. Harad has free hire, so that isn’t an issue. You can camp at will.
Economics is an issue, not to say it is always a defining issue, but you can’t deny it is (DS in winter?). Corsairs and Harad can camp at will in productive hexes, and land thousands of HC ST/ST anywhere without a blink of an eye to either their economic base, or to whether they need that to protect their homelands.
I understand the order argument, and it is a good one. This is a matter of opinion, and I’m cool with that. My opinion is that I would rather have the above, than the extra orders from crappy characters. I can agree to disagree, difference of opinon makes the world interesting.
As for a great split, 12 vs. 12 grudge with the forts on 4217 and 1910.
my point on the “order argument” is that DS already have the advantage in taking away orders from the FP (K/A). Add a big swing (14v11) in order advantage, and that’s an order advantage that only increases as the game progresses.
I agree that economics are also a big factor, and the timing of game 2 (going into winter) means that it would have been HUGE for the DS to score one of Harad/Corsairs. The game 2 argument is interesting in that both sides of the argument have valid rational and arguments. but it’s all moot now. to war!
RE: Herman’s preference for a DS Harad
Herman, is this when you’re DS? or FP? A DS Harad is toast in a 12v12. our experience in 12v12 is that Corsairs is the far better DS nation for balance. in a 10-10-5 game, it’s less difficult as likely SG sent their forces against 3024 at game-in, so Harad has a fighting chance of protecting itself. Thus your argument is stronger in the case we’re talking about in this thread, but I think I still believe a Corsairs DS is better.
Sometimes, if you dont like the question, just ignore it and give the answer that you want :-0)
I thought that the question was actually about an ideal split in a 12 v 12 grudge. Otherwise, you just cant answer because it depends so much on who jumps, when.
The REALLY interesting question is: what is best:
12v12, Duns & Cors FP, Rhu and Harad DS (i.e. W/Champ format)
12v12, Duns and Harad FP, Rhu and Cors DS
12v13: Harad and Cors FP, Rhu Dun and East DS.
I think 1. FP can win the south but only by diverting SG from Ithil. DS can win the south if they commit agents. So that is fun and balanced.
Harad will be mashed unless SG really really helps out for turns and turns. It weakens the FP too much. So really HArad is on a hiding to nothing. If Harad goes FP, he should have better than 5/8 characters with command skill
Would be interesting. Easterlings would get mashed, of course. So I guess the question would be: could DS make a breakthorough in Rhovannia quicker than FPs could break through into Mordor. I am guessing that the DS would just go bankrupt around t5 or have to abandon Easterlings to their fate. Could be fun though…
Well we are DS in a 12 V 12 vrs the Germans and have ousted the Corsairs from the South several turns ago. South Harad is untouched and owns most of Corsairs old territory, Nth Harad looks pretty messy but allies are starting to move in and help clean up. DS Harad rocks in a 12 V 12 as it is such a money spinner for the team (Even with the North section in tatters) With agent support Harad will always survive. The Corsairs can’t hope to repell firepower of that magnitude. (QA/Harad)
Dave. I’m with Herman, but we can’t give away all our secrets for our 1650 World Champs team. But we’ll take Harad DS any day of the week and twice on Sunday, unless the Redskins are playing (and hence losing, damn team can’t finish)
And as a result of Harad’s potential importance as a DS in the 12v12, my comrade and I targetted the place and eliminated it from Clint in game 80 come turn 7 or 8 or so. To do so, we sent the Cardy starting navy, and even the Dun cav on the Noldo navy, along with SG and Sinda AND NG’s navies right off the bat. Such a dedication of forces has shown it’s cost elsewhere, of course, as with any other strategic choice, but I’ve been on too many FP grudges watching the Corsairs rebuild at 1006 or wherever to not give it a go this time round…
I’d forward a motion that the “standard” 12v12 is simply a result of 2 or 3 people saying “let’s trade off the neutrals that are next to each other and get rid of the other one” and is now a “tradition” (hereby defined as something we continue to do without thought as to why it originated in the first place…) This is what I’d recommend: neutral draft amongst team captains that have agreed to field teams. Captains choose allegiance (10 known + 2 nations to be determined) and Clint flips a coin. 1st choice to Team A, then neutral choices 2 and 3 to Team B, Team A now picks it’s 2nd neutral of the remaining 2. Played that once, ended up FP Corsairs and Rhudaur vs DS Harad and Easterlings. Very interesting turn 1 planning…!
If you randomly pick the neutrals, i.e. one side picks 1/4 the other side gets 2/3, which nation would go first most of the time? I would think it would be the Corsairs, but some might advocate Harad instead.
I do like the Easterlings as a dark servant however. Not sure how it would play out on being able to get dragons however as the Witch King would be toast quickly with no neutral brethren to help.
Nice strategy Brad on taking out Harad, I have not seen the latest post on your game vs clint, but I have enjoyed following the game.
An example: