23 nations, all neutrals. 1 each DS and FP kept “out of it” in order to maintain the existence of the necessary “allegiances” for programming purposes. Northmen and QA nominated. 1 nation per player and Go Nuts!
100% so far what a reaction. Brad I think we are the only ones up, but shortly you will be the only one up. In any case I would love to see the horrid imbalances play out in stark un-realism as Mordor becomes the “blood bowl.”
great… imagine all the options…
one thing i’d like to see as condition, though:
nations are allocated per random. so we make sure that no one can complain about the odds - it’s just luck. and we make sure that no two or more buddies huddle up together to form alliances before the game has begun.
what fun that will be…
Yep count me in would be very interesting to see what factions and allies are formed,
Terry.
Got to be interested in this, especially after kicking it all off.
Agree that Nations are allocated at random, not oo bothered which are left “out of it”.
Hehe good point they need to be randomized. So, uh, can we start when we get 25 affirmatives.
NG anyone? wow imagine playing NG in that. Expecially if SG is evil or vice versa. I think I have enemies everywhere now. :eek:
Vanya
NG? Talk about embarassment of riches- imagine Woodmen!
Okay as there seems to be a lot of interest in this can we define more exactly what the game is and some points need to be considered. How do you win it for example?
I’d suggest top 3 players after X turns. VCs count (so that encourages certain attacks etc).
What about diplomacy. Only on this forum? Or anyway? We can give out the contact details for everyone on Turn 0 and then remove them for example.
I expect that there will be a lot of drop outs but what system should we use for replacing them? None, (ie no replacements) is simplest and possibly most effective. Or something else?
I quite like the random element, but would suggest that you can list 5 nations that you don’t want to play - that gives 18 random choice.
I’d like this to have the +20 points available to spend on characters (we tried it in the FTF game and it was cool). You can spend that 20 Points on one character or split 10,10 for two characters (or 10,10 on one character if you want). No stat above 40, no stealth changes, if Mage rank then you don’t get an extra spell.
Thoughts on this and the rest suggested above? Any other considerations?
Clint
Given the horrible imbalances that will result and the huge disadvantage that some individual nations will have I say that it not be individual winners based on VC’s because this means woodmen etc have 0 chance of winning. Alliances wouldn’t help you because there could be no mutual victory.
Perhaps stick with “normal” victory conditions - so everyone will eventually have to side up with either “Free (northmen?)” or “Dark (quiet avenger?).” This confers some advantage to those players so maybe make it the least viable Free and Dark nations. Or for something very weird the winning team would be the team with the highest total VC’s - so the oddball victory conditions would count but it wouldn’t totally cut out the small time nations.
Diplomacy should be open in my opinion- though obviously at that point the game would start to revolve far more on alliances than on individual play. As a fan of the game Diplomacy, I am all about that, but others might disagree.
The +20 idea sounds like a fine one- especially considering that it makes nations more flexible from the start to deal with what may be very trying circumstances.
I like the +20 points for characters. I can think of all kinds of useful places to put those across the various nations.
I agree that a pure “highest VC” victory criteria is unfair to a bunch of the nations that are weaker/poorer/more-vulnerable. As an alternative, if the goal of this is to bring back the old-west free-for-all while still allowing communication, then a different metric could be established for each of the 23 nations as to what is considered a winning VC score. Then VC performance vs. that metric (%) would determine the final rankings. That would make all nations viable as independents and would make staying neutral a viable strategy. I could also go with the idea that the winning team must be DS or FP and that total VCs of each team on turn X (30?) be the determination of victory for the teams.
I can go with either completely random nation selection (seems easier for GMs), or random from 18 nations (5 exclusions). I don’t think it would be fair or easy to fill the game if you allow folks to pick their nation.
If you go with a team-victory, I like the idea that a neutral nation dropping is final, but an aligned nation may be picked up by another player of that alignment. If you decide to go with individual nation winning criteria, then I think any drop must be final.
Finally, I don’t believe you should allow more than 2-person groups of buddies to join. This game will be long & fun if it stays relatively balanced. If it unbalances early, it’ll end early.
Finally, are starting artifacts going to remain the same? If so, many traditionally aligned nations have strong incentive to go to their traditional alignment… what do people think about this?
A choice of “I’m thinking about it… depends on the final rules chosen” would have been a nice addition… doesn’t have to be exactly those words, but something along the lines of maybe… depends… let’s see the details would have been good.
Still 17 votes in favour already… this is almost a filled game…
Well, I’ve voted yes… but really I’m a maybe with yes tendencies…
I’m not in favour of huge additional changes though, since there will be huge diffences already in the form of a free-for-all, 5 veto nations (I like this bit alot) and +20 skill points.
Clint, does this mean that the 2 nations randomly picked to be DS and FP don’t get to be played (and could be an original neutral)… almost like Eas in 12 v 12 where you leave 1 pop centre standing.
Does this also mean that everyone remains neutral but can “ally” with whoever you want.
Does this also mean that since you can’t verify your allies, you can (without external retribution) double cross at the point of, say, army combat. No-one can scream cheat or against the spirit etc…
Oooh, I’m getting excited, my maybe is wavering into the yes camp… but not yet… now… how do I randomly get the nation I reeeeaaaaally think would be awesome to start with… maybe we should have a poll on this too 
I think what the alliance system proposed means is that in the start of the game there is a Free side (consisting of the Northmen alone let’s say), a Dark side (consisting of the Quiet Avenger let’s say) and every other nation is Neutral just like Rhudaur, Corsairs, etc in 1650 are. Prior to declaring allegiance as Dark or Free all these 23 neutral nations are free to do as they will- just like neutrals can attack each other in 1650 right from the start.
You can “ally” with whomever you want, but its only really “binding” once you mutually declare for the same allegiance. Its similar to Harad and Corsairs “allying” in 1650 but not yet declaring for either dark or free. In that case the relationship could still turn south and they could still fight with each other if one betrayed the other.
Guys
This sounds cool
I would suggest that nations not playing include:
- Noldo (too powerful and isolated)
- Dwarves (too powerful and inaccessible)
- Blind Sorceror (too vulnerable)
I’d also suggest that once an allegiance has more than 5 nations, further joiners be limited somehow. It could work like this: Clint invites different 3 uncommitted nations each turn to declare for allegiance X. The first to accept is allowed to issue the order. Noone else that turn is allowed to try to join allegiance X.
Lets make this a max 20 turn game. If after t18 there is a 75% vote for continuing to t30 then that would be cool. But this could just turn out to be a frantic mess - which makes for more short term fun that long term satisfaction!
Cheers
Mike
I’m up for it.
If you want feedback on your suggestions Clint I’d prefer no replacing of dropped nations.
Unrestricted diplomacy, its the only way the weaker nations are going to be able to hang in there.
It’s your idea guys but some more suggestions. Do you agree with these questions? (I don’t necessarily need a consensus on everything as 23 players are not going to agree on everything but as long as you are happy to have the questions put forward and we go with a consensus it will work fine).
-
Turn limit - none (don’t see why there should be one). Or 20 turn limit and a vote of active players. I’d suggest 66% for carrying on (75% is an awful lot of players).
-
Neutral throughout for everyone. Iems non-Neutral won’t be usable by Neutral nations so that’s the one reason I can see for allowing changes of allegiances which seems fine to me. Encounters are another reason - so as a DS you could get more Dragons…
and so on. -
Nations to be removed - Noldo and Dwarves. I’ll make the Dwarves DS and then we have the other 23 nations as Neutral. Yes/no other suggestions? I’d also suggest that we agree what nations are not in play. (I don’t see that BS needs to be removed IMO - vulnerable - well there are lots that are vulnerable in many ways).
-
Defining Win: We use the Istari rating for the 10th position as the mean for that nation. You get your Victory points (with VCs included) divided by that 10th position for a rating value. 3 winners in the game. Opinions? Note allegiance is not relevant to this so 5 DS, 4 Neutrals and 3 FPs could split who wins at the end of the game with Northmen (DS) on 1500 Vps (modified as suggested), Cloud Lord (Neutral) on 1400 Vps and Harad (FP) on 1300 Vps.
-
Note this is new and untested. I’m reasonably sure (to very sure) that it will work, but not 100%. We’d possibly need to fix things mid game. Anyone joining would have to play with that understanding.
-
Replacing of dropped nations. None?
-
Random determination of nation? Or random with a list of 5 nations you don’t want?
-
20 Points allocated to one or two characters as suggested?
What I need: The easiest way for me to organise this is to get players to actually sign up and then I send out a question list and we go with the majority decision. To make sure then I need questions you want answered SOON.
Thanks
Clint
VEO started the thread. VEO - take the lead. Make decisions re: Clint’s questions. You define the context of the game and then we should sign up (or not).
Dave
Whoa tiger i think johnstrac is responsible for all this , see the new scenerio thread.
Terry.
I think this would be quite interesting and a good challenge. Count me in.
-Corbin Nash