The Fungi from Yuggot in Harlindon are interested in receiving any diplomatic messages at dcarey9203@charter.net
Dan Carey
The Eothraim (the neutral in Harondor) has recently requested that I post here on his behalf, as he hasn’t been able to post on the Forum.
His name is Thom Burnett, and you can contact him at thom.burnett@gmail.com.
Now that I’ve heard from him, the only neutral that I’ve had no contact with is the North Kingdom. If anyone needs any specific E-mail addresses, feel free to ask me,
Mike
Greg,
With the exception of the existing teams I have heard no mention of neutral alliances.
At the current rate will be lucky to get full head count of who’s who by turn 12 much less have a finely tuned war machine.
I understand why a team member could look at the numbers and say, wow…watch out for the neuts. But from a neutral point of view the idea of getting so many individual people on the same page, much less pointed in the same direction, or keeping them steadfast and commited until turn 12 does not look like a promising endeavor. Just because we are neutrals does not means we are on tea and crumpets terms with each other if you catch my drift. 
Too many times have I been left holding the bag while neutrals jump ship last minute. :stab:
Too many times have I been ganged up on 9:1, or 18:1 :bash:
I have no desire to repeat history. 
Just want to put that on the table because I have paid the cost more than once when teams become ‘convinced’ the neuts are in cahoots. :rolleyes:
So unless some charismatic cult figure rises up out of Arnor, what you speak of are only phantoms.
I hear you, and to plan and implement a neutral alliance would undoubtedly be difficult, based on the nature of neutral nations and sometimes of the players who play them. I’m sure there are disagreements within the neutral subset itself, probably marked disagreements, as to planning, leanings, etc.
We as Free and DS nations do need to be aware that and alliance can happen, however, and would be foolish not to keep an eye that direction. No one I think is convinced the neutrals are ‘in cahoots’, but speaking for the Free at least we are aware that it can and has happened in past games.
GB
Indeed, and will again I am sure. 
But what of diplomacy?
I have heard little from either team.
Our gates are open to all emissaries.
I agree very little diplomacy this game.
Game has been rather boring actually.
Hopefully that will change sometime soon.
Jeff
Blackroot Raiders
Greetings all,
I think everyone has been playing a low key wait and see game thus far which has delayed any action yet I think it was prudent move. I do think, however, that the dawgs of war will soon be unleashed. Most nations have been taking care of house keeping matters. The Gwynned Aynwynn are most interested in speaking with all Neutral nations and we wish our Dark opponents good tidings in an honerable and fair game. Hail and well meet!!
Almost feels like turn 1; let the game begin!
Adam
KoG
Diplomacy is a 2-way street. Neutrals can initiate contact, as well.
With that said, what kinds of diplomacy can there be in a game in which there is nothing happening and there is nothing to talk about?
I’ve tried to negotiate an even split among the neutrals, to make this game not suck, but many of them would prefer to join an allegiance that they like 1000th of a percent more than the other than end up making this a good game.
I certainly have not yet seen a huge difference between the two allegiances in this game. If someone else does, I’m curious as to why they do. Both allegiances have had at least a few players that I’ve talked to every turn.
I was a bit disappointed when a neutral alliance failed, as I’ve teamed with Dan, Jeff, Fred, Thom, Randy, and Didier before, and I thought if we could all get on board, we’d have a very strong third alliance. In fact, choosing sides rewards the allegiances for their paranoia about a neutral alliance and for their lack of diplomacy.
Without a major difference between the two allegiances, isn’t making this a decent game better than just all jumping on a bandwagon? Good games are few and far between in 4th Age, and we have an opportunity to turn this into one. Why is there so much resistance for this when it’s almost impossible to determine which allegiance is stronger?
I’m definitely willing to discuss any creative neutral splits that anyone can come up with to make this game not suck. While everyone has a strong preference for joining with their neighbors, if anyone has a creative idea for a split, I’d consider any option that makes this game a good one.
What can we do to make this a good game?
Mike
P.S., I’m considering boycotting games in the future until they make 12 v 12 or 12 v 13 a standard “fill in with teams of up to 5 players option,” without expecting players to find enough teammates to fill entire grudge games, and without doubling the cost in the rare instances when they do. Neutrals just about always ruin games, and I’m seeing that as being likely even in this game (as a neutral, as well), so why not demand a superior product?
There is no need to boycott any game. The game had potential for an interesting start with tons of diplomacy. Instead everyone chose to coast and see what happens. We now saw what happened.
The game is what we make it!
The outcome of a game and the level of fun is only dependant on the players that play said game.
I have the freeps thinking I am already DS and the DS are now barely starting to acknowledge my nation.
It would be a shame to lose a potential ally due to altered perceptions due to lack of communication.
You can contact the Axis Mundi nation at hermetictruth@yahoo.com anytime at your leisure.
:hug:
I’ve been suggesting possible options on how to balance this game.
We can easily have a balanced game, but there seems to be apathy or resistance for that to happen.
I just don’t think it’s too much to ask that a 5th consecutive game that I’m playing in not last beyond turn 15,
Mike
We played an excellent variant sometime back (forget the game#) where there was a 3-way split at game start w/ no change in allegiences. Lasted until the high 20s if I remember and all, even those on the losing side, spoke highly of it. Standard 4th Age can be a bit of a drag though, I agree, as the games do tend to end fairly quickly.
GB
Gwathren Golodrim
My last three standard 4th Age Games all had one dysfunctional allegiance (mine once, and our opponents twice). In games like that, I suggest getting the game over with as quickly as possible, any way possible, as they’ll never be very interesting.
In this game there is no evidence of that happening, and both allegiances seem to be reasonable. Therefore, this is one of the rare games that lends itself to being a good, balanced game. Unfortunately, there are just too many neutrals (and too many who don’t care about having a decent game) for this to be likely.
Isn’t a game in which the result isn’t a forgone conclusion more fun that one in which it is? We have the rare opportunity to play such a game this time.
I generally think that the reason that 4th Age games don’t fill is primarily because they tend to be so unstable. The reason that I prefer 4th Age over the other formats is that they’re not nearly as predictable, and that they at least usually start out interesting. I definitely think 4th Age games would fill quicker if the following were standard options (without huge additional cost):
-
12 v. 12, filling up with single players and teams of 2-5. Sure, I’d be happy to pay a little more to offset the cost of not starting with a 25th player, but I don’t see a reason to double the cost. Yes, the program isn’t set up for this, but you’d think that a template for such a game could be saved to reduce the set-up labor involved in this type of game.
-
3-way game, filled in with singles and teams, but all neutrals are part of teams of 3 or more, so they can’t declare for a side. As the neutrals would have none of the advantages that independent neutrals do, allow them to build PCs in the mountains and to have a +20 K/A nation, as well.
Anyway, in this game, I’ve been trying to present options for balanced scenarios to undeclared neutrals, but thus far, my suggestions are falling on deaf ears,
Mike
I don’t think our ears are deaf so much as stubborn.
Some are so set on not revealing their grand plan that they allow their plan to become obvious. :rolleyes:
Some make a habit of feigning neutrality whilst their plans were set early game.
Some design & build their nations to become the team brute come turn 12. 
Some wait to catch the bandwagon.
Some are doing all these.
Others wait too long and are not allowed on board. :eek:
Some have history…others don’t.
It is easier to build up in cool forested halls while others bleed their coffers in war only to join late and dominate the victory points and win a victory upon the labor of others. :stab: Much easier than sitting down and speaking openly man to man about ones plan for the game. :o
Not that I am saying this is the case here but I fear that Mike is being idealistic.
Some simply have not decided yet, others never were neutral.
In all this smoke and mirrors you are asking to sit down and honestly discuss game balance in an atmosphere of open discourse in order to find a balanced and well challenged game?
Perhaps that spirit of play does not agree with others agendas and point hunting.
Perhaps they are accustomed to one way of play. Perhaps they are in a predictable rut.
I’ll join any side or make a third if it means an awesome game rather than a default.
I would be willing to discuss honestly for the sake of a good game.
What say you? 
Unstable in their makeup even BEFORE the players are included. Give everyone at least 1 60 point emis and hit the camp limit on turn 4 to start 525’ing away “enemy” pops on turn 5. :rolleyes: This scenario is unpopular because, well, it’s unpopular…
4th Age Games have some mystery and unpredictability that 1650 and 2950 don’t have. After playing about 4 games of 1650, I think I’ve seen pretty much everything. I’ve only played one game of 2950, and I’m not there yet, but it probably wouldn’t take many games.
I really don’t mind starting with decent characters, as everyone else does, too, and it’s balanced, overall.
I really think that 12 v. 12 filled in with singles and teams of up to 5 and 3-way with the neutrals filled with teams of 3-5 that cannot declare (perhaps taking the recons of the kingdoms away, but allowing neutrals to build into mountains and to have a +20 k/a nation) would make for interesting and balanced games and should be standard options, rather than have all of the burden fall on the players to fill the games. With the rate that the standard games are filling, I’d imagine that better options would fill games more quickly, but it is nearly impossible for a group of 24-25 players to fill such a game themselves. Filling such games in the normal way would help and likely lead to some games filling more quickly,
Mike
Agreed, FA would be somewhat the way to go, but a few tweeks here and there are in order, not just in the Filling process, but in the game-play itself. Unforseen is what it’s turned into - much like the supposedly unforseen Single Nation Banker issue creating whacked markets.
Cheers,
Brad
Sorry I’m not playing in this game but as the comments have tended towards the 4th Age Scenario in general I thought I’d join in.
So far 4th Age is my favourite scenario for all the reasons previously given. The problem is that there is a very limited player pool for it as a number of players don’t like it for the reasons given above. Therefore a 4th Age game fills very slowly, but then quickly fills up when an existing 4th Age game finishes or is just about finishing.
However not to be a doomsayer but I predict it will get less popular in the future. The reason … Kin Strife. First of all KS will attract alot of people to try it out initially and secondly as I think it is an excellent scenario. I can’t comment too much on it at present but its a good mix between the strategic 1650 and varied 4th Age - plus it only needs 14 players to get going with only 2 neutrals.
I still like 4th Age and think that perhaps after all their other projects ME games should look at some further enhancements to the game, but I’m not sure the suggestions of a standard 12 v 12 or 3 way scenario will necessarily attract people to the game.
Gavin
Perhaps a 12x12 or 3 way wouldn’t necessarily attract more people but having a good deal of experience in various 4th age formats I find both to be more enjoyable formats.
Too often the bane of 4th Age is that the game ends too quickly upon becoming unbalanced. Prearranged alliances (especially in 3 way, which is a blast, in my opinion) go a long way toward alleviating this problem.
Greg
Guys,
FA GB 48 just ended. It was one of the most enjoyable games I’ve played in a long time. Talk about Fog-of-War!!! The game is ending on turn 39 and a ton of the map has never been scouted/scry’d/etc by either of my nations. If anyone is interested in starting up another FA GB, sign me up!!!
We had 1 aligned Kingdom + 5 pairs of aligned nations for FP & for DS.
What you know at game start is:
a. what you see on your maps (kingdoms don’t get the standard capital daisies)
b. who your allies are and where they’re located (general regions)
c. who your enemies are and where they’re located (general regions)
What you don’t know is:
a. pop center names, locations, etc
b. character names, nations, etc
c. artifact numbers
mages are much more important in this game than in any MEPBM game i’ve ever played. very cool. tons of effort has to go into intel gathering each turn. much more than normal because there’s no information sharing and the huge fog-of-war thing really makes a difference.
camp limit wasn’t reached on turn 4. You can’t be so lopsided toward just emmies. My very successful winning nation is relatively evenly split between emmies, comms, mages, and agents.
Dave-Bob says “check it out!” (FA GB)