I’ve been doing a bit of corresponding with Clint and I wanted to gauge what interest there might be out there in a new game of 4th age played in the Gunboat style.
I have a good many nation ideas and would like to get two nations going on the map at once and, from what I’ve heard, very much like the style of play in Gunboat.
Any interest in getting a gunboat game going in the current filling (Game 146) or a 4th age game to come?
Greg
I would play in team GB game. You would need to work out the specifics but something along the line of NK/ally – SK/ally – 3 neutral team – 3 sets of DS and FP teams. I think this type of game should adhere to no diplomacy and that at least 1 neutral should be allowed to take +20 k/a. All neutrals would need to remain neutral (their relations adjusted) and be treated as a third allegiance. 7N, 9DS and 9FP without any communication outside of your 3 player teams would generate a nice fog of war in my view. Also, no recons for the Kingdoms.
I think you will have less drops in game like this and even if you do there is no advantage gained since the 3 player teams are working among themselves.
Tired to get a 2950 game like this up and running but not enough interest.
My 2 coppers
I very much like this idea and would be onboard if there is other interest. Running three nations or a kingdom/nation seems like it might be bit much but is certainly doable.
Several points:
*Are each player’s nations separated by geography, generally, in Gunboat? Obviously your nations won’t be bordering each other but is there a prerequisite in terms of space?
*Tagging the neutrals to remain neutral seems interesting but would remove diplomacy from the game entirely. And the Kingdoms are powerful but their geography is obviously set. A three side battle without question is intriguing, however.
*What communication is done between teams before setup? My concern is that what would start as a Gunboat game would become, in essence, a Grudge match. I’d prefer some automony in terms of play. Perhaps the players within teams could be restricted in their communication.
The more I mull this over the more I like the idea. We’d be looking at a total of what, 9 players? Let’s see what kind of response the thread gets.
Greg
Note the big problem with 3 nations per player is the cost. We’ve found with such a game that drop outs are a major consideration in how the game develops.
I think that if we went with this a deposit would have to be sent in - it’s the only way I can think of to keep the game vibrant as there’s an added incentive to play on. I’d consider a small discount (say 5-10%) for the game in that case as well.
Clint (GM)
I think was thinking more of one nation/one player. Less cost, which I think, would help curtail the number of drops. I think most people are less likely to drop a game where they have picked their own teammates. If someone did need to drop then one of the two other players could play 2 nations and there would still only be 3 nations that were coordinating against the others.
You would still need 25 people to play
I like this as a hybrid between a yahoo group with no secrets and a GB game where you cannot coordinate with anyone.
Note the big problem with 3 nations per player is the cost. We’ve found with such a game that drop outs are a major consideration in how the game develops.
I think that if we went with this a deposit would have to be sent in - it’s the only way I can think of to keep the game vibrant as there’s an added incentive to play on. I’d consider a small discount (say 5-10%) for the game in that case as well.
Clint (GM)
I’d be willing to put down a deposit, although I must say I’m not about to drop if i’ve committed to a game, large unforeseen circumstances excepted of course.
I’d also like the scenario rules well laid out beforehand, although I expect they would be.
Another, related but separate issue:
In the revised setup, given the starting gold for purchasing characters, it’s possible to have 4 characters of 50 rank and 4 at 40 rank at setup plus the addition of 1000 and 600 points for king and prince characters, respectively. These beginning characters seem substantially better than most nations in the standard 1650 and 2950 rules, minus artifacts, of course.
Shouldn’t 4th Age reflect a dimming of the times, in terms of strength of characters?
To put it bluntly I’d like to see a decrease in the skill ranks of beginning characters where, for instance, no more than 2 characters can begin with any rank over 40 and a decrease in the gold to purchase starting characters.
This would lend itself to a slower buildup of nations and characters and would particularly decrease the effectiveness of agent and emmisary squads, which have the potential to do serious damage from an early point in the game.
Just my 2cents.
Greg
In the revised setup, given the starting gold for purchasing characters, it’s possible to have 4 characters of 50 rank and 4 at 40 rank at setup plus the addition of 1000 and 600 points for king and prince characters, respectively. These beginning characters seem substantially better than most nations in the standard 1650 and 2950 rules, minus artifacts, of course.
It’s something that has been discussed. Not sure what is the “correct” levels but it’s something that will be looked at again for the next test.
Clint