As there is much discussion of late about neutrals and the effect of neutrals on the game, I thought to open a thread with one neutrals apology.
I have played FP, DS, and Neuts, and have had fun playing all 3.
The game was originally designed with with these factors in mind. Neutrals have as much right to the game as either alliance.
The neutral factor, and human factor makes for an interesting combination which makes Middle Earth PBM so exciting.
What I have seen usually is the lack of patience in the players of either DS or FP, with the use of diplomacy. The allegience nations many times resort to hostile threats and intimidation.
The human factor gets involved then…
What happens when someone tries to force YOU to do something thru threats?
Once again the game veers away from rules and numbers, but rather treads into the unknown variables of human behavior. It becomes a choice of which side treats me better, which side is more pleasant to deal with.
If decisions based on such merit is wrong or somehow defeats all fun in the game then, for this one who has played a neutral, you have my apology.
apology accepted 
seriously, I don’t have a problems with neuts anymore because I tend to stay away from them and stick to 12 vs 12 grudge. Why? For the simple reason I want a good hard battle and the BEST way IMO to get that is to have as much of a level playing field between the 2 sides as can be managed. Personally I find that in 12 vs 12 grudge.
There has been some discussion lately about the changing nature of the game and how we are playing chess these days. I don’t mind, I like chess - alot bloody harder than ME too btw if not as interesting - just imagine how chess would be if 6 of pieces were neutral and could decide which side - black or white - they played for!
I know I didn’t make my point here - the point is the game won’t be as balanced as if you had split the pieces down the middle (not that you can make chess more interesting).
The neutral decision to play with the team that they determine will be the more fun group to play with is never wrong. And if that ruins the game, as mentioned on the previous thread, it’s the “fault” of the less-fun group. Mind you, I’d prefer it’s all a learning experience to broaden the understanding and appreciation for “diplomacy”, than a petty blame game. My criteria to join a team is very simple and along these types of lines. The poorer diplomats to the Neutrals are more likely than not the poorer intra-team diplomats also - these factors I have to weigh before making a decision. Let the opinions fly, you pay to play as much as they.
How about…
Neutral A decides to join team A after turn 10 because team A is winning the game and Neutral A has fun winning. Neutral A probably knows if he joins team A, team B will quit.
I honestly can’t see what’s fun in this example. Gone are the days where you weren’t sure what was going on in the rest of the map. Now people realise the ramifications of decisions made on the overall game balance. If Duns and Rhu go dark and kill Cardy and save WK, it aint a good idea for the game if the corsairs/harad also choose to go dark - alot of players will see the writing on the wall (because everyone on the team knows what’s going on). Result - game ruined for the majority…
So the FP have to convince the Southern DS to at least run a split. Offer them scouting, palantirs, and agent support for their navies to take a run at the traitorous Duns, whatever it takes…
Very rarely will the better, more friendly group of diplomats lose 4-5 neutrals. If you’re on a team that appears to lose more neutrals than you get, learn from the situation. Talk with the neut and ask him “Why?”. Notice what you/your team does that doesn’t work and make changes. Sheesh, this isn’t rocket science, it’s how you get through life already (isn’t it…?).
Sure, someone will dither and bugger around for 10 turns and then jump on the down-hill sled. The game next door, the last neut does the complete opposite. I’ve joined teams as a last-hope gasp AND I’ve joined teams to, effectively, euthanize the opposition. Again, it boils down to the Team enrolling me in the possibility of enjoying the game on their side.
Brad
Consider the possibility that the writing on the wall isn’t being read properly, or is a downright lie, but you’ll never get to prove it if you wander off to another Turn 0. I’ve played in enough games where it would’ve been more fair 15-7…for the 15 that is…
Brad
In short:
I agree with Brad.
Now, here comes the long.
The neutrals are part of what make Middle Earth what it is. If you do not like that, you have your options, both 12:12 games and gunboat games. If that is what you like, then play what you like.
The gunboat game does not appeal to me, so I have not played it.
I am in a 12:12 game. It looked like my only likely chance to get into a War of the Ring game, so I took it.
I like games with five neutrals.
I am not the silver tongued diplomat. Many can attest to that. I have sometimes chosen positions to avoid a need to engage in diplomacy, although that has not always worked out as planned.
I have gamed neutral with a hope of going Free. I have gamed neutral with a hope of going Dark. I have gamed neutral just to see how things go. I have been crushed, and I have won. Most of all, I have had fun, and usually more fun than as part of a starting allegiance.
I have gamed neutral where both sides irked me, and I gamed neutral until the end. Just because I can be ornery.
Diplomacy is part of the game. Middle Earth demands co-operation and diplomacy.
Verisimilitude.
With e-mail contact, and sharing of turns, the former has become easy.
The latter remains as hard as ever.
One needs to persuade some out of five.
It is not easy.
A 10:10:5 game of Middle Earth is not a game for girlie-men.
Have you ever wondered why “diplomacy” so often fails in the real world?
Look at how it fares in a fantasy world.
Steve Allen
Hi,
I know alot of players who wouldn’t accept a threat from one side then they
probably will go to the other side I would for sure, but on the other hand that could be the plan from the side who threats you.
About the writing on the wall:
I found it sad that players just quit when they think they are losing and dosn’t go for the real challenge here, I have played a couple of game where my side where up against 14 nation yes I have lost but also won.
For me thats a real challenge to see how long your side can survive or perhaps even win at least those game goes beyond turn 20+.
Cheers,
Ben
Greetings Ben,
in the case you’ve won a game against a complete team and 4 Neutral, you’re great ( or they weren’t able to play this game ).
I agree with Stags, 12 vs. 12 grudges are the best game variant available at the moment.
You don’t have to waste much time for diplomacy and in the most cases your enemies are skilled enough to survive 20 turns.
But I’ll try a “normal” game once again in the nearer future, sometimes this captain-job in a grudge is draining your life-blood.
Have Fun !
Gixxxer
I agree neutrals are a necessary evil in the game. If there were no neutrals it would take some of the strategy from the game as part of the strategy is always thinking what if neutral a (being the one on your border) decides to join the other side. I agree that the need to talk to neutrals is necessary and something everyone should engage in at least say hello. This is why playing NG is so fun, the neutral threat to the south and west.
On the other side though I hate this attitude of the neutrals where they basically threaten each side and say whichever side gives me the most toys, pop centers or money is the side I will join. These kinds of neutrals can take a hike in my book. Don’t need ya, don’t wantcha! As for neutrals that join the side that is the most communicative and sounds like the most fun those are the ones I want, bc those are the ones most likely to play for the team and not themselves.
I also think that the Harads and corsairs that go to one side as a team are a little wrong as that changes the game dynamics so drastically. Although there are a few cases where this can be necessary most of the time it marks those neutrals in my book ( yes I have a book it is black and bad players are marked so I remeber them) as bad players.
As for playing neutral myself the only one that sounds remotely fun is Rhudar and basically bc he has to get in the war right away or there is no war for him to fight since the WK will die without his help (most of the time). As for the Rhudars who go good, you WUSSES!
Just my two cents!
How about…
Neutral A decides to join team A after turn 10 because team A is winning the game and Neutral A has fun winning. Neutral A probably knows if he joins team A, team B will quit
How about…
Said side decides that said neut isn’t forwith enough and blitz them by turn 6/7?.
Can’t say a word about 1650 as I never played this period, but as far as 2950 goes, the second scenario outweight the first one by a ration of 3 to 1. FA is different as neutrals can win as a side.
In all my games so far I never played a 2950 sided (FP/DS) at start until recently. I was dismayed to learn that the vision one advocated against a neut was to “put the fear on them so he’ll do as we say” vision. If this is the way sided played consider neut, then it’s no surprise loves runs both way with the same depth :). Now this may sound as little extreme, and likely be, yet on many occasions overt or covert pressure seems the norm. It’s the way of things. Some groups/players just don’t click together, so feelings sours and words get heated.
What is very disheartening is the way the losing side takes it’s failure. I’ve seen the quote above, as a way to points fingers and avoid blame, more times than Madonna’s knickers. No further thought is needed, it’s all the neut’ fault. While, during GSI, the free turns for the winners gave some credence to the above, that this still persist during Harley’s tenure for no reason is baffling. The latest brand of “ground” for this line of reasoning is balance. Should one side get said neut, then the other have to get said other, otherwise the game would be unbalanced, hence ruined!. Hogwash. If one side isn’t working at diplomacy properly, why should they be rewarded?.
The problem is often sided powers mix up diplomacy and pageant contest or wooing. Offers trinkets (read artefacts) where they should bring up information as how well their plans are proceeding. In diplomacy, the offers should appeal to reason, pointing out advantages and glossing out problems, lies are irrelevant. It’s part of the game. In wooing one side want to screw the other in the most pleasant fashion possible. Not exactly the same thing :).
This is a game, where all are supposed to enjoy themselves, winning or losing. More than not it’s an arena where blaming other is needed to salve one’s wounded ego, sadly.
From my point of view, sided powers are a necessary evil.
Didier
Nice ending DLP.
Yes, people don’t always fully appreciate their options. Funny how our supposedly free-choice society has no clue how to choose and only spews hatred when others do…
Brad
I honestly do not understand why so many people post here complaining about the Neutrals and having to deal with them. The neutral nations were put into the game to make it less predictable so that there would be more varied outcomes. 12 on 12 which so many seem to think is the perfect solution takes that variable out of the game. It is also to my thinking the lazy approach to the game. Exercise the mind try to get a read on that neutral find out what is motivating him or her and work on that.
Gerhard you guys got Rhudaur, the Easterlings and both Harad and the Corsairs and still lost to the team that would eventually become team Simpson. Not because you couldn’t play the game but because team Simpson eventually out thought and better coordinated the attacks. So I think that the unbalanced split while surely making a game more of a challenge does not mean the game is automatically lost.
Get off it neutral bashers and play the game as it was intended.
And, now, I must agree with another Brad.
The neutrals exist to make the game unpredictable. To provide variety. To make the allegiances work for dominance. To make it HARD.
Without the neutrals, the game might as well be a disguised/variant chess.
Again, I admit, as an allegiance player, I find it hard to deal with neutrals. And this is after several years of employer-employee negotiation experience (both sides), so one might think I ought to be good at negotiations. I hope I am not, because of how difficult I find such negotiations.
Learning how to negotiate is hard. I do not pretend to have learned well.
The neutrals are more than a necessary evil. They are a necessary component if the spirit of Middle Earth is to be retained – the ultimate need for making a choice, hard though it may be. The allegiance positions do not face this choice – it is made for them. Theoden cannot choose between Sauron, or holding to the alliance with Gondor. How, but not between. The neutrals, such as the Dunlendings, have this choice.
Of course, for reasons well discussed, the choice is made for reasons other than the defined “good” or “evil”, because the allegiances create their own “good” and “evil”, from the perspectives of the neutrals.
Vanya – I am biased, but the best neutral for an experienced player is Rhudaur. [And, I think, only an experienced player ought to take Rhudaur]. And one ought to play Rhudaur at least three times. Once each with the desire or intent to go Dark or Free. It can be an interesting experience trying to persuade the Free that you want to work with them. And at least once without a pre-disposition. That can be very interesting, and is well worth more than one try. It can also be very intense. I highly recommend a truly neutral Rhudaur for an experienced player who is significantly less than over-committed in gaming time, because that will take much of your gaming time.
I do not mean to short the other neutral positions. But if one wants to learn quickly the neutral perspective, and learn the pains of neutrality, Rhudaur is a quick teacher. I have heard that the Rhûn Easterlings can play the same role, but I have not yet had that experience.
I have played other neutral positions, and have enjoyed doing so. However, should one want to get a good perspective of what the neutrals face, a quick three or four games as Rhudaur, often thoroughly trounced, can provide that perspective, from all sides, in short order, at low cost.
No matter the neutral position, once is not enough to understand the perspective. But it helps.
Steve Allen
Hmm interesting Caradoc as usual you always do have a diffrent point of view than mine…
But I have to disagree I think that Rhudar is the one nation that does not teach you how to be neutral. If you join the side of the free as Rhudar you have basically killed the WK outright unless two things happen you have an extremely good WK (there are maybe one or two people I would put in this category) or the Noldo, Cardolan and Arthedain are very poor players. Rhudar because of where he is and his abilities should go evil…a Rhudar that doesn’t is just handing the North over to the free. Perhaps you can call it narrowminded shrug but in the games I have played in and watched (people in my house play the game too) this is what I have seen.
I will admit to you that I have yet to play a Northern nation, NG is just way too much fun. I will though soon. Just so I can have more experience in the north so I can feel more confident in discussions on these forums. So I guess take what I say with a grain of salt.
I think the Easterlings and perhaps the Dun are more the diplomatic nations to play and the ones that give you more experience with the weighing of your decision although the nations are basically weak at the start they are both in a position where both sides would want them on their side thus they would be sunject to the adsurd offers some people are willing to make. Hell, I have seen one side give Tinculin and the Ring of Curifin to a neutral… (bizarre)
As for my saying they are a necessary evil, I think that I said the same thig you did Caradoc…the only reason I call them evil is because of what the players have made them, demanding, whining and basically pitb’s. I admit not all neutrals are this way the game we are presently playing we have a pretty good set of neutrals. But this to me seems to be a rarity.
As for Batka I am sorry I have honestly never had the experience that you are referring to …if my side loses I blame myself…I did not fight hard enough, I did not use my resources correctly, I was lazy when I sent my turns in and so on…the only thing I do not blame on myself directly is if the other side was a better team…In most of the games I have played the neutrals join to late to have much effect. (exception 2950).
Hi Gixxer,
Sorry I havn’t replied before.
in the case you’ve won a game against a complete team and 4 Neutral, you’re great ( or they weren’t able to play this game ).
I was just lucky to be a part of a great team and mayby some lack of play from our opponets side.
But I’ll try a “normal” game once again in the nearer future, sometimes this captain-job in a grudge is draining your life-blood.
“normal” game can also take your time, but probably not as much if your are team captain in a grudge game.
Have Fun !
Thanks you to,
Cheers,
Ben
Rhudaur’s a good neutral. The DS have to convince him to join them, and do so early. It’s a difficult job downgrading with 5 or more (been attacked by the Sinda for pete’s sake as Rhudaur…) and attacking before going bankrupt with 6500 troops hanging around. I’ve eliminated the Easterlings militarily as a FP Rhudaur also, it’s an excellent nation to go FP as long as the FP team is willing to consider interesting courses of action. Rhudaur should go to the most imaginative team.
The Duns suck, frankly. There’s no pressure on them early but they’re affected by Rhudaur’s move a great deal. Rhudaur goes FP and the (smart) Free are already prepared to take out the Dun if he doesn’t cooperate. Going DS at this point is quite difficult as it almost guarantees you’ll end up (shortly) a character nation at the mercy of DS charity. Rhudaur goes DS and the FP are occupied such that Dun has some extra choice at least. Although the FP should REALLY focus their attention on the Dun - he’s got agent SNA’s and 2 50pt mages that the FP mage deficit Really Really needs.
Brad
Been a while since I read this. Thanks for all the feedback.
I think terms used for neutrals just serve to prove my point. Many just see them as bad. Seems to influence even change in rules.
They are neutrals, not evils. :mad:
I am mostly 4thAge for the variables involved. I agree the statement that w/o neutrals it is only a varient of chess…yawn.
I also like to see the mindset and attitudes of players. Teaches me about human nature more than rulebook stats. This game is more than rules and numbers. It is attitudes and mindsets. Usually closed but I am occasionally pleasantly surprised by some.
When you speak of neutral A joining team B because they are likely to win means nothing to me. Where is the challenge in that? Yawn…
Who cares who wins as long as we keep values? I may be different than most in this, but oh well.
I say Get Out Of The Box People!
Play 4th age and test your mettle! Put away the numbers and the rules and play with your intuition. Play a neutral and understand for yourself how it feels to be called a needed evil, a problem, a blip in the matrix, a cancer on an otherwise well ordered game, a threat for simply existing.
If you want order then study geometry.
But if you want true variables, if you want excitement outside of formulas and rules, then design a nation and play a neutral.
Come DS, come Freeps, come forth from thy box and be free!
This one neutral is drawing the line and daring all to challenge your own thoughts.
Set your mind free. Enter the 4th Age, enter the Age of Man as intended by JRR, not some math formulas, and biased closed minded opinion.
And if you don’t like what I say, tough! I challenge you to come get some! But you can only get a piece of me in the 4th Age. Anyone for 147? Have you got the guts to play something different?
See you in the next game, if you dare break those molds that is… 
My opinion is that Neutrals ought to be activley persued by both sides and really ought to get the attention they deserve. Both teams need the Neutrals in order to win and lets face it that’s what it’s all about in the end.
I realise that “having fun” is of course a large part of the game but there is no obligation for the 5 Neutrals to split evenly across the map.
I am in a team which has been together for some years now and we always play 12 vs 12 grudge ( despite the rip off start up ), which I actually don’t enjoy but that is compensated for by the team spirit. If I want an individual game in addition, I usually go for a Neutral position and wait to see what works out best for my Nation.
I have also started games as Neutrals almost convinced of my declaration in so much as I have wanted to play the “opposite side” to last time, I regard this as my decision although in every game I’ve done this I must admit that I have avoided joining a crap team.
I am also a believer in the theory that once a declaration is made a former Neutral becomes just another team member and loses his “special” status although a good team should avoid having a former Neutral as a “cash cow” as happened to me as a Free Dunland.
I would wager that more often than not, the neutral chooses sides based on who is in the game. For this reason, I would like to play with total anonymity.