You could randomize the numbers assigned to them. This preserves flavoring and draws out the artifact race and thereby, perhaps, the game.
I’m not sure randomising numbers will work - this will really disadvantage the DS, especially in 1650 where they are already up against it from a co-ordinated freep team. Sure the freep won’t know what the numbers are either but it hurts the DS more as they tend to rely on the artys more.
I’ve often wondered what a card game might be like - this would be a throwback before email and the phone - similar to gunboat - but in this one you could send messages to the GM to forward on to your teammates (or enemies!) - they would always be a turn behind, no co-ordinating on the actual turn itself plus you wouldn’t know if the message from the Eothraim telling you to send armies to 3120 was actually from the Eothraim or not!
I agree it would be a penalty primarily for the Dark Servants, but it would be an easy thematically appropriate way to do it. As a potential Dark Servant I would want some crippling done to the Free, too.
As for card games (or a delay imposing communication system), I think it would add the thematically appropriate delay. Hmm, come to think of it you could set up an email server that would delay the emails and randomly drop them or send them to your enemies. We could call it AOL! It would simulate, you know, capturing or killing horse (warg) messengers. Such IT/server prowess is beyond my currently skillz, but it doesn’t sound too hard for a relevent (trustworthy) professional to setup.
Ah, those were the good old days. Many a false message sent enemy armies in the wrong direction. Characters challenged characters that did not exist, etc. That is just for starters. Nowadays you would be accused of a violation of British fairplay.
Consider the genius of the game’s developer. You can play this game for years, enjoying every minute, and not realize the building had a basement.
And this why I’m enjoying both my gunboat games so much, because I have no idea what’s going on with my teammates or opponents and have to use all my resources to get any sort of clue.
- Ben
Gunboat 229, 237
i have played on and off since game 12, thats 1991 for you data collectors. and yes, i have hard copy turns to prove it.
perhaps a little perspective on the game we enjoy. its basic design hasn’t changed in 14 years, and despite the fact the code the program was written in antique, the game is very playable.
i am involved in 1 gunboat game, i like the concept, alot. simple changes that can be made to the game i think are randomizing the artifacts, dragon responses, and maybe even pop center locations for hidden pop centers (why not code in sinda armies on a hidden sinda pop center are cloaked. thats off the wall, but ya never know)
my olde enemy and game nemesis stags ( color me green with envy you aussie convict) makes a fair point. randomizing the artifacts does hurt the evils, but in a non grudge game, the evils win more then 60% of the time. a bit of randomizing isnt abad thing, if it evens the game out.
another fair point was on the neutrals going 15-10, or 14-11. thats an easy one. drop en masse if the game is that unbalanced. if you think thats unfun, imagine the neutral whos build up for 10 turns, then hasn’t any playmates cause nobody wants to be slapped around in a one side match.
anyway, the meter is up on this soapbox, and i have to go kick frank redmond around.
i was walking through the boards, and this looked like a nice spot to visit.
the best game, is a well played game. there is entertainment in defeat. a lession stags has taught me, twice. i’m a slow learner stags, and around when your ready.
sm
I absolutely agree with this. It used to be a lot of fun sending out diplos to my enemies in the hope of stalling attacks etc. I still remember the look my wife gave me when my first MEPBM phone call came through from someone claiming to be the Witch King looking for the Long Rider 
… happy days 
. I’ve never understood why fair play is added as a non-programmed rule to a wargame between forces of good and evil.
I remember the days we ued to religiously put out a team newsletter, with someone collating all the information. Now its just download all pdfs and xmls, stick them through the appropriate player aid and voila. Great if you haven’t got the time, but not so great for a wholly immersed experience.
How about a game where all players agree no to use email/internet for any form of communication about the game. You can use letters/fax/phone/in person… but not email/internet. The game wouldn’t have to be a gunboat then, just plain old regular MEPBM… could call it 1650 for old times sake. I guess it would need a greater amount of dedication from the players, so those who can remember how much harder it used to be to co-ordinate would probably be the players rather than the newer breed who have never experienced this antiquated way of playing (not trying to be patronising at all).
Cheers
Naturally, I love this. The GSI game WAS the advanced MEPBM. I’m finding it easier to win under the company’s format than I ever did in the "Old Days’.
No GM to remind you to get in a turn. No GM to prooof your turn. No GM provided intelligence on a silver platter–had to practice the Intelligence Cycle like I was taught at Ft. Knox and used against the VC. No one to protect me from the ruses of sly individuals. Yep, mighty tough game before the whippersnappers.
Scorpy,
I kind of agree, but have found that the internet helps keep my costs down. Much cheaper than phoning and discussing things. I still phone both friends and enemies each turn just ask Ed, but a lot of coordination gets hammered out through the internet. With the US mail being. well, slow and not reliable to use only the mail would make coordination pretty difficult.
I would go along with no use of xml files, in fact that they not be provided by ME Games for the duration of the game. This would infact cause more manual work to be done by the players. I would go along with no replacement of dropped nations unless done ahead of time by the team itself with the dropping player agreeing to hand over his nation to his replacement. I would allow this to be done only one time in the game. So a team could have a “bench” of one player standing by in case a player had to be replaced. I would also restrict this to no replacement of any nation after turn 20. One of the things I feel does cause some of the drops is that when your side gets behind you no longer have the option of trying to even the odds by focusing on one player and beating his brains out in the hopes he will drop and eliminate his nation like in the old days. You can go a long way to making the game more competitive when you are losing by depriving the enemy of thirty to forty character orders by causing a player to call it quits.
As for the GM, I agree, no helpful input, no reminders that either your own turn is due and not received or that anyone elses turn is due. No shadow turns or contingency orders. If a nation is out of the loop it remains out of the loop to the consternation of its allies. No GM answers to queries about the rules and rules clarifications. Intelligence is limited to the resources of the team. In short the GM processes orders and nothing else.
Finally there would be a winning side but only one winner. My wife used to be a big fan of the Highlander series and would say of this game “There can be only one.” Victory conditions should play a factor in planning for this type of game. However patently stupid conditions such as the deaths of allied characters or should not be part of a nation’s victory conditions. It seems to me a simple thing to substitute the name of an enemy character there. Same holds true of population centers unless there is a logic behind it, such as the population center was once part of your nation and your nation has always sought its return. Same with artifacts; to artificially cause you to attack your allies has always seemed wrong to me.
Finally this game would have to be a fight to the finish. Or at least until there was such an imbalance that one side no longer has a realistic chance for victory. Say an advantage of 4 nations over the other side. That many additional orders to be given against the enemy means defeat is a matter of time.
If this could be set up I am ready to go right now.
Brad
Okay we could do this as a variant game. As per usual if you can get 12 players we can sort this out. I’d add the extra bit that we don’t contact players who input orders incorrectly either.
Clint (GM)
Let’s not overgeneralize here! I am in a game as a DS where we were on the wrong side of a 12 vs 6 for about 40 turns or so, and we’re not losing. On the contrary, we knocked one of the FPs out after turn 50, and even if you factor in us holding nearly a nation’s worth of characters as hostages, that still puts us down order-wise 10 to 6 (or 5 and a half). I could see this game going another 50 turns as there are only hard-headed players left on both sides…see the thread for game 118.
Good for you, I admire the never say die attitude. However in most games players want out if the odds are so heavily stacked against them. When the disparity gets to this point I believe they should have the option to surrender. Without it being counted as a drop.
Does the MEPBM Society have a web site?
Once game 235/2950 finishes up, I would love to get into a grudge game and that sounds like a great way to join an existing team or perhaps to round out a new one. Granted game 235 is still going strong so it could be a while yet.
Bernout
Hey, I thought you were a dinorsaur who plays on? Since then have you been playing devil’s advocate…? This plays into the hands of those who are winning “with” such odds and want an “automatic game end” rules based on nation disparity!
Brad B
Non, mon ami;-)
I meant nothing of an automatic game end. I am a dinosaur and I do play on, Ed the other dinosaur and I played on in I believe it was game 31 when we were the only two players left. I conceded only when he was finally eliminated by a bankruptcy to avoid the Bug Hunt and cost the opposition more money as they hunted me down.
My point about the disparity is that when the odds get to the point I suggested that the team on the downside of the equation should have the option of conceding defeat and have it show as a loss and not a drop. It however would be their choice not an automatic end.
Hope that clarifies my position.
Brad
In that situation yes it’s just a loss. Ie if on the turn the game ends the opposition concede to the opposing team then it counts as a loss.
Clint
So there is some interest in a quasi “Old times sake” 1650 game, but not really enough here.
Clint mentioned 12 players… I make that 2 nations each :(… no thanks…
We definitely have enough ideas for a variant though…
How about you can use email/internet to co-ordinate, but you can’t email/post pdfs or xmls… I concede that internet has helped reduce my MEPBM ancilliary costs dramatically… I still remember the earbashing (well, chat really) my wife and I had the first time the quarterly phone bill came in once I started playing!!! This means you have to type out the relevant information, and have to pick what you want to send… you are honour bound not to use some sort of grab and drop program to lift portions of pdf/xml into an email… you have to work at sending out your information.
How about the team has to find replacements but only upto turn 20… no GM help (not too hard really, lots of the players are on the yahoo list or here).
You can concede as a team at any time… but before T25 it counts as a drop… obviously this really only affects players who care about the new ranking system I suppose.
You can use xmls and Automagic/MEOW… since there is a direct cost implication of not using automagic, and I wouldn’t want to up the charge for my own game… unfortunately this has the effect of making it really hard to muck up orders, but you can’t have everything.
I’m trying not to have too many rules, since this moves the game away from the original… I’d like to see 25 players… with TRUE neutrals at start that want to haggle and will go to the best diplomats/team/whatever criteria they like… but not because they are
a> predisposed
b> “planted”/have friends on 1 side
Are these enough rules… what is missing… who is interested???
Cheers
Sc0rp10
I wouldn’t mind playing in this type of variant. A Neutral position would be right up my alley in fact. I was getting a wee bit tired of this overblown command/control/coordination aspect of the game anyway. Let’s take it back to the Old School!
By the way Brad, you may be a dinosaur indeed: about to become extinct! Your EO is in a heap o’ trouble in 39! 
Chris Guerra
Dragon Lord 36
Long Rider 39
Dwarves 53
That’s standard, Clint has always said if you can get 12 players to agree to play a game then he would help find the remaining players… or something along those lines.
Correct. You need to get 12 players (ie half the game) and then we’ll try to find the rest. Hope that clarifies the situation.
Clint