1650 variant -- balanced neutrals

I’ve played tons of 1650 games and in general I’ve found that it takes playing 4-5 games to be in a good one. Most of them end by turn 10-12, and that is usually by a preponderance of neutrals joining one side or the other.

Would the players be interested in a new 1650 variant where it’s understood from the start that only 3 neutrals may join any one side, and that Harad and Corsairs must join opposing sides unless the other three neutrals all join the other side?

Jeremy

Do you want to play Harad/ Corsair, where you are forced to play FP/DS because the other nation commited earlier.

What if both Harad /Corsair declare at the same turn?

Apart from that a good idea.

Not sure I’d play it, but like the idea.

It puts a preasure on the neutrals who declare late :slight_smile:

Again, this means that Corsair/Harad knows they’ll be enemies, so why not just begin game by attacking each other?

Play a game with neutrals, and actually play the game (like, try to find them - it’s not their job to find you…) or play a game without neutrals. You can’t tell people what to do on your allegiance, who is going to sign up to be a neutral an be forced into a decision they don’t want???

The game is a socially dynamic one - there are “soft” skills necessary to get by in an environment where you’re thrown into a room with 10 strangers and told to work together. Similar skills are required for diplomacy. IT’s PART OF THE GAME. If you don’t like that part of the game, pick a reduced game variant (12v12 grudge, Gunboat, etc) where that part of the game is removed.

But I like the game! except for the built-in problem that causes most games to implode before they get off the ground. You’re saying, hey, if a certain aircraft has a high crash rate, fly another, even if the first one has better comfort and service. I just want to fix the problem so it doesn’t crash!

You mean the built in problem where the game is designed with neutrals, and you’re told that, and the rules talk about it, and millions of thread of discussion regarding neutrals exist, and the House Rules tell you how to communicate with them, but people don’t? People don’t take the time to figure out how to communicate with neutrals, or are too lazy and hope someone else does? Is this the problem of which you’re speaking?

Propose a NO Neutral game. But don’t expect someone else to pay the same $7.90 a turn and then after a few weeks advise them they don’t have a choice in what they do anymore because someone else beat them to it…

Note also, that games seem to take longer to fill nowadays. Maybe my mind playing tricks on me, who knows, but I suspect that yet another variant will simply add to that problem… Kind of a catch-22, IMO.

There are grudge games with 12v12 nations, no neutrals. There are Gunboat games designed the same way, these are exceptionally popular with aging players who no longer have either the time or patience to get along with ANY other people, Neutrals or Allies. Lots of attempts to find the final solution to the neutral question over the years. Alas, we retread this issue yet again, it seems, every 9 months or so because one side in one game realizes that after 4 or 5 turns, (between 10 players that’s 40 or 50 opportunities to follow 20 year old policies to communicate with neutrals…) none of them have actually played the game properly. Not sure where to point the finger when that happens, frankly - consider it’s not the plane, but the pilots…

No, I mean that the structure of the neutrals is such that it creates a problem in games getting of the ground, most of them are over before they being – as I’ve said before and I think I’ve been clear about it. I don’t want to do away with the neutrals, or have a 12v12, or have an all-neutral game. I simply want a variant where games don’t get cut short by a purely diplomatic victory. If you don’t like that, fine, but don’t take pot shots at it.

There is no such thing as diplomatic victory in this game. This isn’t Civilization. Victory comes in many ways in this game. Either we kill everyone on the other side, or we get the One Ring in the smoking pit, or the other side quits.

Why did Side A quit? Because the neutrals all joined Side B.
Why did the neutrals all join Side B? Because Side A never tried to contact the neutrals.

Explain to me where I have the "structure’ wrong. Consider the possibility that the best solution is a little education and training for Side A - not putting the neutrals in chains. That won’t work, as others, not just me, opine.

Does Side A know there are neutrals in the game?
Does Side A know how to get in touch with them?
Does Side A know when they should do this?
Does Side A know how often they should do this?
Does Side A know who should do this?

I know all the answers to these questions. I’d be happy to run the training program. Send me a confirmation of interest along with a credit card number and I’ll hold a $1000 deposit until such time as we have the numbers that merit me renting a conference centre here in Toronto. Dates and times to follow, transportation and accommodation is the responsibility of the participant…

Hi there Jeremy,
the problem isn’t new and I already posted several threats concerning Neutrals and their “neutrality”.

You’re pretty right that very often the Neutral-split redeploy the forces to one side and in this case the games haven’t lasted very long.

… but there’s not much you can do!

Play grudge-games with determined Neutrals and the problem is fixed for the game.

Have Fun!

Gixxx

For the record, I was in a game a couple years ago (86 rings a bell, but it might be wrong…) where my side got a bunch of neutrals and the other side bitched and screamed about quitting…but they didn’t… My side got tired of the drama and mostly checked out, waiting for it to end… When it finally did, it was MY team who quit. The other team had a couple drops, staunch gamers picked up those nations and carried on. Everyone who’s played knows that when the quitters leave early, the team only gets better, yes…??? And it’s never over on turn 5. That’s just childish, really. Anything can happen. I imagine the team that took 20 turns after their allies quit because “this game is over, there is no chance!” but won anyway felt pretty damn good about the results they produced…

I agree with Jeremy, and I am coming from the other perspective (DarkLts in g13) of being on a team with an huge neutral advantage. Personally I usually prefer underdog nations and fighting against the odds to triumph through skill and not just because my team vastly outnumbered the opposition.

VEO, although you say you know all the answers I think you presented it in a condescending and simplistic manner. Most neutrals are predisposed to one allegience because of location, friends on either the DS/FP or other cirsumstances. For example (speaking purely hypothetically of course :o) If 4 or 5 neutrals committ to one allegience by turn 5 I think its unfair to say the other team needs “re-education” and dont deserve any neutrals because they didnt communicate.

In my opinion Neutrals add a welcome unknown factor to games but the potential for 10 vs 15 games is a legitimate conern. If players arent self regulating balance and this is causing cames to implode early surely this should be topic for discussion?

I would be interested in a game where there was some sort of mechanism limiting or pre-alingning neutrals (but forcing 2 neutrals to declare after game start is not a good solution). Maybe a 1650 game (non-Gunboat) where some/all neutrals are pre-determined. I notice there is a poll “Choose the No Neutral Game You’d Sign Up For” so this is an issue Rob and Co. are conscious of. 40% of people voted for Dun/Ha FP, Cor/Rhu DS 12v12 I would be keen on such a setup too.

1 would make a difference. Just 1. And that 1 says “the FP didn’t even try to communicate with me. Why should I join a team that either doesn’t care to or doesn’t know how to?”

If the FP attend my training seminar and follow my simple instructions for Indie Game Diplomacy, this will never happen to their team in any indie game again. Period. It wouldn’t have happened in this game and it won’t happen in another game. It’s never happened to me. Never.

No, I’m not being simplistic. Just 1 noot, and they blew it out of laziness or ignorance, either way it’s NOT THE NEUTRAL’S FAULT.

No it’s not. It is not a legitimate concern, sorry.

I envy your over-inflated opinion of yourself, the black and white absolutes, and the never/always world you live in.

Now you insist on using emotion to make it personal. It’s not personal with me, so go ahead and attempt to insult me if it makes you feel better.

Free Speech is good, doesn’t meet everything everyone says is true or even a legitimate concern. Spouting off from emotions in the moment of anger and directing it outwards is a very common behaviour - but that doesn’t mean it’s noble or of any real merit - you roll your eyes and hope it doesn’t escalate into physical violence.

So you can take me as “condescending” or you can read the words, consider the ideas and information presented, and choose what to believe and what not to believe. Your choice. Some people find me annoying, others find me amusing. I can’t be both, so I must be neither - the people who choose their emotions must take responsbility for that. Just like they have to take responsibility for NOT sending diplo’s to the neutrals.

Hey I SAW HAIR PULLING!!! Cat fight! Cat fight! Hey maybe you can start a grudge match about who has the biggest opinion on neutrals - or alternatively the true composition of Ruggha’s ego :slight_smile: (BTW I know the correct answer to that - he’s just got bunchy knickers… too many knots :slight_smile:

He’s right in one thing though - so many neutrals trot out the excuse that their choice came down to one faction ignoring them (when in truth chances are they entered the game having a clear idea what they wanted to achieve - <gasp> and both allegiances ignored them equally and so felt no guilt about sticking it to who they always intended :smiley: I find it really hard to believe any wargamer could enter a neut position and not have an idea what they wanted to achieve in a game, or in effect, be considerably predisposed to a certain allegiance.

I also remember someone that sounds like Ruggha grizzling about a neutrals split recently (I’m just a hell of alot prettier so they really had little choice), when he wound up with the vast advantage there after a short additional wait :smiley: I guess the point is you could whine about how early our couple of neuts went DS and how it was fixed, or you could point to the excellent diplomacy we used to gather them in. You could drop at the early advantage or you could perservere and find that you wound up with a far stronger neuts split as they sought game balance (rather too vigorously). You could also drop when it becomes clear the enemy has the advantage or you can fight it out.

The arguments about neutrals are as regular as clockwork, is it about every 2 months Ruggha? The only real answer is if you don’t like them - play grudge. If you do want them in the game, you have to adopt quite a load of pragmatism to them. They’ll choose whatever they want, and may go heavily against you. You only need to work out whether you’re the type to hold the line and make them hurt, wear them down, and find victory in adversity, or are you the type to run to the next game and give some other team a turn 5 victory :smiley:

Some of the very points that make neutrals so dangerous are also their weakness. I have been in not a few games where I have been certain that neuts were tooling me around and going to the enemy, and have attacked them first. There’s nothing to say you have to paint bullseyes on your valuables, they’re not your allies til the icon changes to your liking.

Or I could just be bull*****ting you :smiley:

Winsten Wun Toof

Grumbling that you got a couple friends on Turn 0, yes. Shame that. Did we quit? Did we propose tying their hands behind their backs? No, we spouted off, as people are wont to do, and kept on playing. Things have been looking up. I propose that in Game 13, the FP keep playing until things work themselves out - either looking up or looking down.

Yes, it would be “nice” if neutrals took longer to decide. Yes, I “feel” that way. But we can’t make them do X or Y, and any “incentives” to change how the game works, how it was designed, will do greater damage than any perceived good (ie, adding “rewards” for declaring later, or for the side with fewer nations, etc…).

So we’re stuck with, alas yet again, a CHOICE. And after you make a choice and take actions, you have to take responsibility for the results that you produce. If you CHOOSE to join an Indie game, you CHOOSE to invest in an opportunity to play in a certain environment where there are things beyond your control. There are people on your team who will not do what you want them to do or what you believe is the best thing to do. You have to find a way to deal with that just like you do in the office.

Sometimes you can influence other people, sometimes you can’t. You have to accept that. Sometimes others influence you, sometimes they don’t. They have to accept that. If you don’t like it, don’t play Indie games, play Gunboat - that’s why Gunboat was invented for crissake…!

If you don’t like Neutrals, find 5 or 11 others who don’t like neutrals and challenge another team to a game without Neutrals. Even better, you get to pick the nation you play there without getting stuck with your 14th choice… The Circle of Wraith, or the Nomads, or the Praetorians, or someone else will answer your call for a game.

But once you’ve made a choice and taken action (signed up for an started a game) you can’t say that the world is all wrong - it isn’t, it’s simply the way it is. “Oh, you can send an email to MEGames and they’ll forward it to any nation you ask them to? You can say anything you want in that message? You can even pretend to be someone else? Cool~! I’ll do that next time~!” THAT is how you are supposed to respond when the last neutral goes against you and says it’s because “You never tried to contact me.” Lesson learned.

I think it always comes down to who can play as a better team. If outnumbered, but playing as a well drilled unit, I reckon you’ll beat a greater number of individuals any day. And that my angry friend is a great challenge :smiley: Neuts are great fun, and best when the balance is against you. The only really bad mix is when Corsairs/Harad go DS. There’s just no possibility of a viable game then with their fleet advantages and tying up the Gondors interminably. Otherwise, it’s all good.

Cheers

Winsten Wun Toof

I admit it was poor form of me to make personal comments.

However unless you are the forum moderator (I don’t think self appointed qualifies) I don’t see what right you have to declare discussions closed and your opinion as fact. As a fellow member of the DS team in g13, in which 4 neutrals have stated their intention to declare DS and one seems to be inactive, I dispute your assertions that these neutrals went DS solely because of your amazing diplomatic skills. Some came over t0-t1. Only they can say what their reasons were but I find it highly unlikely they all did so because of your self-proclaimed diplomatic powers and no amount of your “educating” the other team would have changed this.

Since you prefer absolutes:

FACT 14 vs 10 is not balanced. 1.4 is not equal to 1.0

Its spurious to state as fact that this imbalance exists because one team made zero effort and the other team made such a tremendous, skillful diplomatic campaign and that these purely impartial neutrals were won over through this and this alone. Thats bull****. Unless you read every correspondence received and sent by every neutral its false of you to make such claims.

Diplomacy may be an element of the game that requires some effort/reward. However, there is no other element in this game like neutral declations that can unbalance it so badly. No amount of skillful agent use or army movement or mage spells can make the game 14 vs 10 by t5. I dont consider such a diplomatic win of a game equal 40 turn game with nail biting battles, eagerly waiting for your turn to arrive to see if the kidnap order succeeded.

Your attempt to portray this imbalance as earned by your skillful use of one element of the game is also bull****. There are many other vagaries, decisions and circumstances which led to it. If these issues continue to plague games, no discussion is allowed as you say then the solution is not to play them, maybe I wont, but I would have thought it was in the best interests of all to attract players not turn them away.

I (and I am sure most others too) would prefer to play in games with a fair distribution and challenge. I say this coming from the side that is 14 vs 10, I don’t find rolling over opposition by sheer numbers enjoyable. I doubt the ones been outnumbered feel any better.

There’s only one real commercial answer to modified game requests (we seem to have run head first into this issue, bashed brains and fell over twice I think in recent months - maybe third time lucky and we’ll kill ourselves :smiley:

The commercial answer is that ME will run any variant if you get the numbers to play it. However it should be noted that it will be a variant and not the basic random startup game. That remains a basic template. When no one signs up for it any more, the flexibility will be stripped away and an alternative found I’m sure. Greater flexibility is an admirable goal because the customers will whinge when restrictions go on.

Until then, neutrals will continue to impact on the game. Allegiances will continue to either cheer or tear at their hair about the nasty neutrals, but life will go on :slight_smile:

Unless you’re advertising a variant (which you may well be - and Ruggha does regularly) then there wont be much luck to changing ME’s business plan. But if you are offering a variant - good luck with the numbers.

Cheers

Winsten Wun Toof