Part 2 - minor breather and as this is a different topic I felt it best to deal with here.
But NOTE that even after turn 12, still being a Neutral does not mean one HAS to be trying for a Neutral victory!
Correct, BUT, you cannot win the game at that point unless it is a neutral victory (in one form or another).
Just as ANY member of a winning side can feel like a winner
I'm not disputing that - how you play the game is largely upto you, and similarly what you get from the game is entirely upto you as the player. One player likes to name characters after Dogs if he's the Doglord - don't understand it myself but heh no skin off my nose (wonder if that translates).
.. so can ANY member of an alliance that achieves a victory by getting one of its members to 1st place at game end.
Yes I understand. However it's not a win in the normal sense - you can only win. There are clearly two types of wins here and I'm hoping to keep them separate. Note it's highest win total on the winning side - any one else is playing for 2nd or 3rd placing with the VPs only at best if they are of a different allegiance.
I KNOW that I gave up my chance to "win" by doing so -- i.e. my Kingdom could not be in 1st place regardless of the number of VPs I might end up with.
Yes but you are losing the game technically. That's the point I'm discussing (or at best 2nd or 3rd in the individual scoring). Is that clear?
Do I digress or what? The point is that even after turn 12, a Neutral may not be committed to a Neutral victory
in play yes, but for winning purposes the above situations that I've described stand.
-- so if a Neutral drops, allowing an existing Neutral player to take over the position may changethe balance of power in the game.
They should change allegiance then IMO. Now it might be that we should look at this for 1000 games and that's something to discuss but at present that's not our policy. For clarity, if it's after turn 12 then any Neutral player (we define it as Neutral Team then, ie neutral but unable to change allegiance with all the benefits and negatives appropriate) can pick up another Neutral nation. In the rare (and it is very rare) situation that they have been allied to players from another allegiance then there is a problem. It's easy to solve - if that player is committed to that team then they should send in orders to change allegiance (seems a simple solution to me) before the turn 12 deadline. If not then they've lost the opportunity to do so. Seem fair? (Note before turn 12 a Neutral position cannot be picked up by anyone else in the game or outside of the game if they are allied to players within the game or for 1650/2950 at any point in the game (before turn 12, during or after). - minor exception Neutral teams we treat these as allied players with said benefits).
What I do think is that, maybe, sometimes, allowing a player already in the game to take over a nation is not as good as getting in an independent player to take it over.
As a general point I agree - we prefer players from outside the game to pick up a nation but sometimes that's not appropriate. The benefits of this take-up policy are more vibrant games, less annoyance for allies with nations perfectly fine but not being played - the negatives are smaller than that IMO.
Thoughts?
Clint
(Monopoly is a boardgame, so is Puerto Rico but they are quite different boardgames and need different skills for example - both ME and Chess have "opening" moves but there is a big difference between the type and impact they have).