I'd keep the neutrals, but I think the game would be better if they
started off a lot weaker. These are the nations which are not ready for
war, they should have 2950 type set ups. There should be no opportunity
for them to launch an assault on T1. It should be possible for an
aggressive neighbour to go squish them, and this would make it necessary
for those playing neutrals to do some of the running in the diplomacy
game: "Please don't kill me, I expect to join your side, and make a
contribution." "If you bring an army to my capital, to protect me
against the dastardly xxxxxx, then I'll probably join your side when
I've built up my nation."
Mmmm. Yes, and no. Some of the neutrals are too strong. Corsairs (both games) and Harad probably head that list. They have the ability to wait as long as they want before joining, and can significantly alter the war outcomes. Otoh, Rhun, Khand and Easterlings are all so weak as to have virtually no ability to oppose their nearby neighbors, and are therefore often pushed into alliances by default. Rhudaur of course is at the bottom of the win lists with bad characters, inadequate economy to support starting troops and a horrible position. With the solitary exception of the Duns (both games) neutrals in general sit near the bottom of the lists on characters and artifacts, and a lot of them have some pretty shaky SNAs to boot.
If you weaken their starting pop center/military base, some will become so shaky that it won't be worth the time of either alliance to recruit them. A neutral SHOULD be able to request some concessions from the team that he is joining, and not have people laugh at him. Personally, I use the offers from different teams to measure their desire to have me as a player. I don't think I have ever collected more than small pieces of my "bribe" because after a neutral joins, everyone (including the neutral if he is worth anything) cares more about winning the war than spending orders to pacify a player.
Finally, there is a MASSIVE difference in the role of a neutral in a 25 person open game and a 10 vs. 10 team game. You are right, in a grudge game where both sides have experienced, communicative players, neutrals can be unbalancing in the impact that they have on the war. But in an individual game, neutrals are a balancing force. In one game I'm in, the player of the Sindar elves and Rohirrim never communicated with any other player. He sat back and did nothing, and when the DrLd came to burn down the Sindar capital, his teammates could do nothing, because we couldn't transfer a new capital to him without him talking to us, and we didn't even know if he had developed a backup or if he might be able to win the battle. He made no effort to shift characters to his allies on the eve of his doom. He then dropped out as the Riders (Thank goodness!!!)
Now, the other players on the team were not responsible. We have been in good communication with each other sharing knowledge, resources, etc. But in effect, we were an 8 nation team, fighting a 10 nation team, with the rohirrim showing up about 5 turns late (after the drop). In this case, neutral alliances are the only factor which can keep us in the game (we hope, gulp!)!
We have all seen games where NG or Northmen or Eothraim or some other important border state is played by a new player and drops when he sees this swarm of DS armies/agents. In a game like this, if the Duns or Corsairs realize that one team is in trouble, and want to actually get a war out of their position, they can immediately shift to the weaker alliance and keep the game alive. If you cripple them, they will no longer be able to serve this function.
Winn
ยทยทยท
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com