LOL - Tiger! A new name. I like it… Wonder if I can get millions for promoting golf goodies and breakfast cereals 
ok. whoever - Johnstrac or VEO - someone needs to own this and make the proposal. Design by committee is going to take forever. And Clint is trying his best to organize thoughts but not impose anything.
I agree design by committee would be a nightmare
I think all are agreed that vetoing 5 nations is fine
I think all like the idea of an initial turn limit
I think all will be happy to try the add to character points
Other stuff can I just ask 2 questions:
Clint are you proposing in your 2nd point that everyone stays neutral throughout the game? I didnt really understand that bit. Is Iems a typo or a new ackronym (you mean emmies, right?) I do think we need some kind of way of limiting people all joining 1 allegiance as per my earlier post.
CHeers
Mike
First off, with respect, saying, even connoting “we all agree” amongst people is absurd. I’ll withdraw from “we” then, thanks.
To address Clint’s points:
Turn limit - I guess it’d end up with a couple guys wandering aimlessly forever (Ed? Brad? 
) so this would be required. Make it 26 turns, 1 complete calendar year.
Neutral throughout for everyone. That’s pretty self-explainatory. That’s the point, in fact. Encounters? Dragons? Artifacts? Bah, Neutral all around, no 175. Kill or Die.
Nations to be removed - Why in heavens name remove the Noldo??? The Northmen and QA were nominated because they were voted “least noticeable” at the last Middle Earth UN convention. Least noticeable and least missed. Keep the Good Nations! My lord… The whine goes “But it’s not Fair! The Noldo are Sooooo powerful!” Well, THAT player get’s his first choice, and if it isn’t Arthedain he doesn’t get to play.
“Win” - the only fair way to “win” such a game (unless it were simply last nation standing, which more likely than not won’t happen, pity…) is whatever solution Clint is talking about. If he means the Woodmen are fighting everyone and counting score against Woodmen only, then it’s as “fair” as possible.
Mid Game Fixes likely - if you don’t agree, don’t sign up.
No replacing dropped nations. If I can’t kill you but instead send you crying for momma from the field of battle, I turn my attention to the next foe.
Random allocation with list of 5 Definite No’s.
Extra bonus skill points - 20 points total, no additions to total over 40.
And I’ll add my own regarding a previous Clint concern: Diplomacy. Who said send all players everyone elses contact info with the Turn 0 and then never again? That’s the one. Communicate however you like after that!
Now, what we need, to satisfy the EmCee who doesn’t want to offend the (co)Leaders of this game idea, is for johnstrac to reply. In fact, since I beat him here, he can email me using the forum feature, we’ll confer and announce to Clint who will put the game up for sign-ups.
Good?
Brad Brunet
Ha! Just looked at who voted for what… Is Scott M going to want to play all 23 by himself…?
Brad - Was this first bit a response to my earlier post? I gotta say I dont understand what you mean. But I did notice that your position seems to fit the consensus that I said I thought existed.
I understand the bit about all nations staying neutral now. Obviously Clint was talking about items of neutral alignment being the only ones that would be useable.
My suggestion that Noldo and Dwarves dont play was because they are so bloody hard to attack. I thought the point was to make a chaotic game with lots of brand new diplomacy and alot less geographic security. Noldo & Dwarves just didnt seem to fit so well in that context. But I am not trying to muscle in on a great idea that started out as someone elses (your?) suggestion. Its just an idea
Noldo and Dwarves, are admittedly hard to attack (at least the individual pop centers are) but they are also hella spread out which could be a major disadvantage since any single neighbor is well positioned to take out the pop centers. Quite frankly I suspect it wil be very random who wins the most in this game because alliances can take pretty much anyone out of the game when there isn’t necessarily anyone to back you up.
CJ agrees with me… Although the Dwarves are a little better without the Northmen threat to the Iron Hills (catch that? the “Northmen Threat to the Dwarves”…I like this game already, and it doesn’t even exist yet!). I can’t imagine at least one of Cardolan/Arthedain NOT attacking Noldo homeland - everyone starts at Imladris, it’d take them a bit to return/regroup.
And I certainly agree with you CJ, Mordor would be Very interesting…
MB - I was mostly irked at the concept of dropping 5 nations, nothing of a personal nature, but then, I’m philosophical about words like “all”, “always”, “never”, etc…
Brad
The only other suggestion that might make things interesting is either to remove all starting artifacts and force players to locate them, or perhaps just give every nation 1 or 2 starting artifacts. This makes some nations like the Noldo a little less powerful, and could potentially help make nations like the WM and Northmen more desireable.
Just a thought,
Frightfultales
Note, as far as I can read, there’s no intention of dropping 5 nations. 2 nations have to not play (one FP and one DS) or the game will automatically end. It’s debatable which ones and I need some feedback on that asap.
The list of 5 nations I’ve suggested is so that you don’t play one of those 5 nations and I randomly allocate you a nation amongst the other 18 nations available. Does that clarify things?
Clint
Y that is what I understood
Cheers
Mike
Here are some suggestions for ways of sorting this out.
Wait for everyone’s list of 5 nations… and hope there are 2… 1DS and 1FP that everyone hates.
You randomly pick a DS and FP… use a D10 and away you go.
Ask for a poll vote once we have 23 players… or 2 polls… 1 for a DS and 1 for a FP.
Hope this helps
I think you should impose a turn limit with the chance for 66% vote to continue, but there must be a minimum no. of active players… you’re probably best placed to work out this number.
Are you saying that people can choose to change alliegance… won’t we get most players going DS just to get dragons… why not have everyone remain neutral… sort of removes some of the biggest artifacts from the game and makes dragons just character killers…
No… See my other post for potential ways of picking nations… I doubt either of these nations would be in my top5 not to play list… QA seems a better choice being sandwiched between 2 giants… I agree with you that BlS has some attractive things going for it in a 23 neutral game…
Can’t we use the real VPs that the game has built into it… they actually make real sense for this 23 player all against all game… Do I have to learn/understand the player rating system. I thougt everyone would remain neutral.
Sounds fine to me… will you give 1/2 turns notice of potential fixes.
Good
Random with a list of 5 vetos
Sounds good… do we wait to know which nation we get and then send you in our extra allocation of points?
Cheers
Sc0rp10
Okay I’ve got enough information and will contact everyone this week to get confirmations. If anyone else wants to join this game get in touch off list preferably for speed and ease.
Thanks
Clint
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint
4) 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.
Can’t we use the real VPs that the game has built into it… they actually make real sense for this 23 player all against all game… Do I have to learn/understand the player rating system. I thougt everyone would remain neutral
*** Okay this needs to be sorted out. The Istari ratings are pretty easy and for this purpose is just a record of the VPs scored for a nation without VCs being counted so is a useful starting point. You don’t need to understand or learn them - I’ll create the list when I send it out. Then you can list the 5 nations you don’t want (using that list if you want). OR we can just have nations and let them score VPS.
I also need more feedback on what 2 nations are NOT being played by players. So far Noldo and Dwarves are the two picked.
Clint
Noldo and Dwarves…? I recall when this was written, but how has it survived so long? The thread was started as Northmen and QA being the Allegiance Constants. Frankly, I would expect that’s what all the votes are for. This was a Poll, not a discussion thread.
The poll question was apparently not detailed enough in regards to game length, adding 20 points, assignment of player positions, and how to win. So fine, give it a time limit, add the points, allow for a “I don’t want to play” list, and come up with a formula, most of which is incidental and arguably against the spirit of the game in itself.
Why make it more difficult than necessary? Simple poll, overwhelming response.
Brad
Not read this for a few days, glad the idea has mushroomed and created so much interest.
Just to clarify, I want to play but I’m not really bothered about setting stuff up, that’s what I pay my turn fee for.
Talking of which, how much can Clint see this costing us ?
“Why make it more difficult than necessary? Simple poll, overwhelming response.”
I’ve attempted to answer all the points that have been raised and brought up some that I think you guys should consider. Otherwise some time into the game you’re very likely to come up against something and then complain “why wasn’t this dealt with earlier”. Can’t win them all I guess…
Cost will be standard variant cost.
Clint
I nominate the Woodmen and the Quiet Avenger for sitting out because they seem to me to be respectively the two weakest powers for their traditional alliances. Also, I will reiterate my support for keeping Dwarves and Noldo because I think they will be balanced in power because they are so spread out. It only takes one wizard traipsing about revealing pop centers to bring a hidden pop center power into line - they cant defend their outlying districts well.
The email has gone out to the mepbmlist asking for “votes” on set up information and a committment. I’ve replied and have “voted” for the NMen/QA. CJ, I considered the Woodmen but determined the Northmen were a better draw due to the potentially useful Woodmen SNA’s, AND their Hidden Pop.
You bring up a useful point also in support of Keeping the Noldo - while he can only hide 1 pop at a time, he also has guys who’ll give extra odds that the evil Sinda pops get Revealed… Without all those Mordor allies giving him Support, the Dragon Lord can’t do it all by himself, and it’s likely Murazor won’t ever get that far. No Mordor mage will make it either, so a savvy Noldo with allies (say, the Woodmen or Dragon Lord) might make the trek over. Come to think of it, the Noldo and the Dragon Lord make an excellent alliance potential in this type of game…
Brad
Difficult call which 2 nations to remove, however I’d suggest that the DS nation may be should be one of the Mordor nations, it’s likely to be a bloodbath even with 6 involved and the QA could add some thought to Harad and Corsairs, even if only temporary and minor. The IK would certainly look to have a good chance of being removed on T2. The remaining 6 would still have an extremely difficult time surviving the first 10 turns.
The FP is a harder call between the WM and NM for me it would be which nation’s loss imbalances the game more does no WM make the Sinda overly dominant whereas no NM opens up the game for the Eoth, East, LR.
So I’d suggest IK and NM, whatever the choice its a bit of an experiment of an intriguing variant which I’m just keen to start asap.