Just wondering if there is interest in another free for all. I had to drop out of the last one due to my workload in the real world 
but had had a blast up till then. Any takers?
Regards Herman
Arthy G32 1 Week turn around
Woodmen G17 Grudge
Checked into this earlier but there was not enough interest at that time.
Clint
Whatâs a âFree for allâ?
The one I played in was a 1650 game with 23 nations all neutral, no changing allegance. Form & break your own alliances as you see fit. Hack, slash, burn your closest rival if you want to i.e. BS vâs CL. Basically a no hold bars game, its good fun 
Not for the Fire King 
Scott, as I recall 2 nations were eliminated from play in order to allow the program to maintain the 2 Allegiances (QA and Northmen I believe it was). Everyone else was set to Neutral. Whether relations were downgraded or left as Neutral all around, I donât recall.
As FK, I got Ice, Dog and NG into an allegiance, marched my starting troops onto DarkLoo capital while Dog moved on his backup. leaving us as a pretty solid back-back unit. Cloud and BS werenât interested in an Mostly Mordor allegiance, ended up allied with Easterlings, LR I think. Witch King was allied with Noldo I believe. NG took over much of SG, LR and Easties took out Eothraim (No NMen buffer). No other real details.
Personally, due to various items (like DarkLoo vulnerability which tempted me no endâŚ!) Iâm not totally sold on the idea straight up. Some nation modâs might be in order, else a FA type game where all nations are created equal(ish) and then let loose might be more worthwhile. It was just an idea that hit the forum one day and it caught the imagination of the time such that pdfâs were sent out within 10 days. I believe the game ended after a set point, no nations were replaced in the event of drops (Really, how could you âpick upâ a nation in such a gameâŚ?) and the âWinnerâ was based on Victory Points - in game total compared to the average of the top 10 for that nation as published on the PRS pages. I believe it came down to WK and NG, I donât recall which nation got the actual âwinâ.
Very interesting, while the early diplomacy was crucial, I donât believe there were too many back-stabs later against initial allies.
I will repeat my analogy from the previous threads on the subject. It plaid out much like Diplomacy (the board game). Early diplomacy is the most important, but if you can âincentivizeâ something later on it can have a big swing. I think the turn limit (20 turns) made it difficult to manage switching because MEPBM plays out slowly - by the time an initial alliance has bested all threats adjacent to itself, the game is petering out. Its hard to really re-align alliances.
Mordor did seem a tough knot to be in.
Wasnât there another free for all game that started after the first one? All the stragglers who didnât get their dibs in the first two days or whatever? How did it go?
Thereâs only been one such game. I find that variants like this often work once but rarely after without a LOT of player support.
Itâs possible that we could do such a game with less players in it - does that take anyoneâs fancy?
Clint
Can anyone who played both in the free for all and fourth age describe how they play differently?
tongue in cheek or bitterness overflowing wormie?
I have never played fourth age. I am as innocent and guileless in my question as a sleeping babe. Your sarcasm is upsetting my delicate constitution, I will have to calm myself with another sip of chai.
Oh my, Iâve made you cry⌠My bad, me so sorry. :rolleyes: 
I agree with brad that there are some positions in a free-for-all that have big advantages while others are likely to be eliminated very early. So the only way to prevent frustration is to find 23 players and then assign nations per random. tough luck if you get DrkLts but with skillful diplomacy you can still manage to get out there alive.
I would sign up for that.
The FA idea is also a good one, but the problem is due to the fog of war you donât know who plays what and where the nation is. so to prevent advantages from out-game ties, all players would have to agree not to communicate except within the rules of an âingame diplomacyâ.
Iâd like to try that, too.
In the original format you had a list of nations you didnât want to play which avoids most of the âdead nation walkingâ scenario. It could be that you list 5 nations youâre happy to play (in order).
One thing I thought of was have a limited game - around 14 nations. So ignore the NW for example. That way the player numbers would be okay for playing this format. Any interest in that?
Clint
I would be up for it.
Regards Herman
I think all nations have a good chance of surviving, just think if it was Dog, Ice, NG and Dark Lieuts in an alliance = what chance the FK then? Brad just had the edge over the DkLts by being such a charmer!
Surprising how in such a cut-throat game we were all so loyal to each other. I wonder how a GB game would end up, fewer guilty feelings then.
Iâd be interested but need a game or two to end first.
Re: the first all-neutral game
LOL
no, Noldo wasnât allied with WKâŚ
LOL
more like Noldo & Rhu tried to ally with WK, but WK backstabbed them (eh seejaie?) and WK and Card anhilated Rhu very rapidly. Then the northwest bogged down as Noldo used their character advantage to hold off assault from Card & Arth while WK went east against WM.
NG basicly won the game by taking out SG first and Harad 2nd, after Harad had taken out CO. Marty did a great job of diplomacy, making peace with Mordor, and then, as they say, the rest is history. I think WK was in 2nd place at end of the game. Congrats to Marty & SeeJaie!
Regarding differences between 1650 all-neutral and FA:
1650 - you know starting positions, SNAs, etc. If you can believe your allies, you can come up with fool-proof plans to whack unfortunate natiosn. As SeeJaie says, itâs really more like diplomacy using a MEPBM map/ruleset.
FA - you donât know starting positions, SNAs, etc. With the new rules, itâs more difficult, but still possible to whack the unfortunately located nation.
FA GB is a TOTAL BLAST. Itâs even better than 1650 GB as far as I can tell based on game 48, now running turn 6. You have absolutely no clue what is going on in the world. Mages are actually useful as information gatherers. Agents might not steal gold every turn as they might be used for ScoAreas. Comms might not command armies but might skip around doing Recons⌠etc. The lack of information makes FA GB the biggest fog-of-war game so far in MEPBM. It changes the need/power for many of the character classes significantly. A lot of the mage spells you never cast in 1650 all of a sudden are useful. I highly recommend it.
Dave
FA Gunboat Free For AllâŚ!
LOL. Brad, once again, you are just toooo funnyâŚ
or are you serious???
Dave
Whatâs wrong with FA Free for All? Thre Free for All concept and the Fourth Age concept both break the essential theming of the Tolkien books in a few ways. The balance problems of trying to do 1650 Free for All are ameliorated because there is more parity (donât you build your nation or something with a point system?). I have heard that emissary and agent abuse can be a thing to reckon with in FA, but that would be reduced because in a free for all you wouldnât have a huge map to work with and target assaults. Again though, I havenât played FA.
I would suggest the following idea for a 1650 free for all: duos paired to back the nations up geographically. Particularly with the Mordor Nations, pairing them up perhaps as: IK/FK, CL/BS, DoL/DkL allows them to support each otherâs territory. There are other ways to break duos of course, but I think the balance of the free for all would be improved by well chosen duos. It would also allow friends to play as allies without forming pre-aligned blocs (which I was concerned with in the free for all).
cj