Asking for opinions on pre-allied neutrals

mepbmlist
#1

As per Laurence Tilley's interesting synopsis of Game 32, recently
posted to the Mepbm list, I see that a pair of Ensigs played Corsairs
and Harad. (Brian and Benny)

I know that 2 family positions in a single nation game has had a
little controversial discussion in the past, with a consensus, I
think, that unless the GM judges it is somehow being abused, it is
no big shakes

Of course, this applies more naturally when the 'family' is playing 2
nations of the FP and the DS. To allow the most powerful neutral
nation positions to be played like this is, I suggest, a different
kettle of fish.

Quite apart from the normal speculation that it is very easy for 1
family member to dominated by the other to one degree or another, it
stretches credulity to suggest that the 2 nations are truely neutral
& might declare in different directions

I have a particular interest in this, of course, as the Harad and
Corsairs > simultaneously launched attacks at me (Easterlings).
Coincendentally, I launched at Corsairs at the same time, and did
rather more damage than I received, - but no matter. I look back on
this now and think that it is rather a shame that Corsairs / Harad
was effectively before the game had started, 1 massive power bloc

I wholeheartedly disagree with pre allied neutrals, and think that
there should be a strong supposition that a 'family' would play as
pre allied, and I guess I am disappointed that Harlequin allowed this.

What do others reckon?

#2

If it was a non-pre-aligned-neutral game, you are more or less "on the
spot." Shouldn't be allowed (my brother and I played a GSI game as KE and
WW ... we actually did consider going separate ways, but didn't ... agree
it's not truly very likely ... so this sort of potential abuse should be
avoided if possible ... of course, if 2 people _really_ want to do this,
there's little Harly can do about it, but that's true of alot of "bad
things" ...).

$.02

b

mbarber999@yahoo.com wrote:

···

As per Laurence Tilley's interesting synopsis of Game 32, recently
posted to the Mepbm list, I see that a pair of Ensigs played Corsairs
and Harad. (Brian and Benny)
>
I know that 2 family positions in a single nation game has had a
little controversial discussion in the past, with a consensus, I
think, that unless the GM judges it is somehow being abused, it is
no big shakes

Of course, this applies more naturally when the 'family' is playing 2
nations of the FP and the DS. To allow the most powerful neutral
nation positions to be played like this is, I suggest, a different
kettle of fish.

Quite apart from the normal speculation that it is very easy for 1
family member to dominated by the other to one degree or another, it
stretches credulity to suggest that the 2 nations are truely neutral
& might declare in different directions
>
I have a particular interest in this, of course, as the Harad and
Corsairs > simultaneously launched attacks at me (Easterlings).
Coincendentally, I launched at Corsairs at the same time, and did
rather more damage than I received, - but no matter. I look back on
this now and think that it is rather a shame that Corsairs / Harad
was effectively before the game had started, 1 massive power bloc

I wholeheartedly disagree with pre allied neutrals, and think that
there should be a strong supposition that a 'family' would play as
pre allied, and I guess I am disappointed that Harlequin allowed this.

What do others reckon?

Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm

#3

For many years now, GSI (before the xfer to DEFT)
disallowed a team of neutrals unless they were
geographically separated. In 1650, basically
the Corsairs/Harad and Dunlend/Rhudaur teamups
were not permitted. I have to agree with them
and I was glad they didn't allow it. It meant
the surrounding players aren't getting a fair shake.
Not only are such teams more likely to prethink
their allegiance, but the teamup is lethal. It
is quite easy for a Corsairs/Harad teamup to decide
virtually the entire game, if they are able to work
closely together.

For similar reasons, GSI tried to avoid SG/NG teamups
unless there was an opposing teamup in Northwest Mordor
to match them. GSI also did not permit Arthedain/Cardolan
teamups. They were very concerned with trying to give
everyone a fair shake and went to great lengths to
ensure it. I'm grateful to them as well as impressed
by their sense of fair play.

(Over the years, they had to contend with any amount
of effort to stack the decks. For example, one
early ploy was for a team to sign up, with
one partner in reserve. The team would call up
occasionally and ask GSI how close the game
was to filling. Once GSI said it was very close,
the silent partner would try to sign up for a neutral,
hoping to be in the same game. Sheesh! Eventually GSI
stopped giving out information on how close games
were to filling. Harlequin's signup system is
completely open to abuse but we hope those players
are long gone from ME.)

Jeremy Richman

As per Laurence Tilley's interesting synopsis of Game 32, recently
posted to the Mepbm list, I see that a pair of Ensigs played

Corsairs

and Harad. (Brian and Benny)
>
I know that 2 family positions in a single nation game has had a
little controversial discussion in the past, with a consensus, I
think, that unless the GM judges it is somehow being abused, it is
no big shakes

Of course, this applies more naturally when the 'family' is playing

2

nations of the FP and the DS. To allow the most powerful neutral
nation positions to be played like this is, I suggest, a different
kettle of fish.

Quite apart from the normal speculation that it is very easy for 1
family member to dominated by the other to one degree or another,

it

stretches credulity to suggest that the 2 nations are truely

neutral

& might declare in different directions
>
I have a particular interest in this, of course, as the Harad and
Corsairs > simultaneously launched attacks at me (Easterlings).
Coincendentally, I launched at Corsairs at the same time, and did
rather more damage than I received, - but no matter. I look back

on

this now and think that it is rather a shame that Corsairs / Harad
was effectively before the game had started, 1 massive power bloc

I wholeheartedly disagree with pre allied neutrals, and think that
there should be a strong supposition that a 'family' would play as
pre allied, and I guess I am disappointed that Harlequin allowed

this.

···

--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, mbarber999@y... wrote:

What do others reckon?

#4

mbarber999@yahoo.com wrote

As per Laurence Tilley's interesting synopsis of Game 32, recently
posted to the Mepbm list, I see that a pair of Ensigs played Corsairs
and Harad. (Brian and Benny)

I wholeheartedly disagree with pre allied neutrals, and think that
there should be a strong supposition that a 'family' would play as
pre allied, and I guess I am disappointed that Harlequin allowed this.

What do others reckon?

Hi Mike,

I should say, for the record, that I'm not sure that Benny and Brian
_were_ related. They had different addresses in different towns. They
never said that they were related, and ASFAIK Ensig may be a common name
in Denmark(? I think it was). They may possibly be those two guys out
of ABBA though :slight_smile:

I note that you use "pre-allied" neutrals as a bastardisation of "pre-
aligned neutrals. My opinion on each, if I'm reading your meaning
correctly would be:

1) "Pre-aligned" neutrals, meaning the neutrals start as "aligned" by
agreement of all players. Great. My best games have been of this type.
All combinations possible, if 24 or 25 players can agree.

2) "Pre-allied" neutrals, meaning that players have signed on in a
standard game, pretending to be neutrals, but actually having made prior
agreements with other players, is cheating. It should be discouraged,
but ultimately, there's not much that can be done about it if it does
happen. Preserving the neutrality of neutrals is one reason why I
argued so much recently against the idea of circulating neutrals
addresses on turn 1 - it encourages too much dealing, too early. But I
was shouted down by the common mob on that one.

I take your point about family members signing up as neutrals. It seems
to me a funny thing to do - if you want to play on the same side, you
could join one of the allegiances couldn't you? Me, the wife, the cat,
and the fairy who lives at the bottom of the garden, regularly take
several positions on the same team :wink: OTOH I hear Din, and others who
commented about family members possibly wanting to play against each
other. My mother-in-law would make a good candidate for Witch Queen.

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

#5

chiming in with my 2c....

1) "Pre-aligned" neutrals, meaning the neutrals start as "aligned" by
agreement of all players. Great. My best games have been of this

type.

All combinations possible, if 24 or 25 players can agree.

totally agree, great games, once you see the light......

2) "Pre-allied" neutrals, meaning that players have signed on in a
standard game, pretending to be neutrals, but actually having made

prior

agreements with other players, is cheating. It should be

discouraged,

but ultimately, there's not much that can be done about it if it does
happen. Preserving the neutrality of neutrals is one reason why I
argued so much recently against the idea of circulating neutrals
addresses on turn 1 - it encourages too much dealing, too early. But

I

was shouted down by the common mob on that one.

totally agree again, huge no no, in Aus we had dispicable people even
going further who would play a side, then play some neutrals and THEN
play a nation or 2 on the other side just to guarantee a result!

so many games in Aus were ruined as a result it became a joke.

I take your point about family members signing up as neutrals. It

seems

to me a funny thing to do - if you want to play on the same side, you
could join one of the allegiances couldn't you? Me, the wife, the

cat,

and the fairy who lives at the bottom of the garden, regularly take
several positions on the same team :wink: OTOH I hear Din, and others

I got the other one bit what is OTOH? you'll need to explain it to
this dumb aussie.

who
commented about family members possibly wanting to play against each
other. My mother-in-law would make a good candidate for Witch Queen.

nice one :slight_smile:

simple answer for family members wanting to fight each other, one goes
free and the other goes DS.....

personally, I hate neutrals but I've been jaded from aus experiences,
kill them before they kill you is cool with me. Why I love these
grudge games with the prealigned, g34 was great and g58 is looking
good too! Hah hah who said the freep never win 1650?

Sindar Stags.

#6

JeremyRichman@compuserve.com wrote:

Harlequin's signup system is
completely open to abuse but we hope those players
are long gone from ME.)

This gives me an idea: why don't Harlequin simply publish the names of those
who've signed up for each game, without saying what side they're on? More
work... and there's at least one of the gotchas.

Gavin

#7

If we find players abusing it we'll ask them to leave.

I prefer to trust players as much as I can - if you want to abuse the system
why not play "Patience" and cheat at that?

Also the system is always going to be open to abuse as I see it.

Clint

> Harlequin's signup system is
> completely open to abuse but we hope those players
> are long gone from ME.)

This gives me an idea: why don't Harlequin simply publish the names of

those

···

JeremyRichman@compuserve.com wrote:
who've signed up for each game, without saying what side they're on? More
work... and there's at least one of the gotchas.

Gavin

Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm

#8

Hi Mike,

As you know, my son William and I frequently take positions in the same
game. I don't see anything wrong with this, provided those positions are of
the same alignment, any more than I see anything wrong with a single player
playing two positions of the same alignment.

However I do agree with you that players in our position (ie sharing not
just a home but a pc) should NOT be allowed to take neutral nations in the
same 1650/2950 game. As you rightly say, there is no way we are going to
declare for opposing allegiances, and this obviously has the potential to
unbalance the game. William and I did take Harad/Cors in one game and the
experience reinforces my opinion that Harlequin should not allow it in
future.

An exception could be made for FA, where the neutral allegiance can win in
their own right (provided the family concerned didn't get both Kingdoms!).

Regards,

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: <mbarber999@yahoo.com>
To: <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 10:03 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Asking for opinions on pre-allied neutrals

As per Laurence Tilley's interesting synopsis of Game 32, recently
posted to the Mepbm list, I see that a pair of Ensigs played Corsairs
and Harad. (Brian and Benny)
>
I know that 2 family positions in a single nation game has had a
little controversial discussion in the past, with a consensus, I
think, that unless the GM judges it is somehow being abused, it is
no big shakes

Of course, this applies more naturally when the 'family' is playing 2
nations of the FP and the DS. To allow the most powerful neutral
nation positions to be played like this is, I suggest, a different
kettle of fish.

Quite apart from the normal speculation that it is very easy for 1
family member to dominated by the other to one degree or another, it
stretches credulity to suggest that the 2 nations are truely neutral
& might declare in different directions
>
I have a particular interest in this, of course, as the Harad and
Corsairs > simultaneously launched attacks at me (Easterlings).
Coincendentally, I launched at Corsairs at the same time, and did
rather more damage than I received, - but no matter. I look back on
this now and think that it is rather a shame that Corsairs / Harad
was effectively before the game had started, 1 massive power bloc

I wholeheartedly disagree with pre allied neutrals, and think that
there should be a strong supposition that a 'family' would play as
pre allied, and I guess I am disappointed that Harlequin allowed this.

What do others reckon?

#9

RD: My mother-in-law is the Exorcist. Whenever she comes round, she gets
rid of all the spirits!

Regards,

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk>

I take your point about family members signing up as neutrals. It seems
to me a funny thing to do - if you want to play on the same side, you
could join one of the allegiances couldn't you? Me, the wife, the cat,
and the fairy who lives at the bottom of the garden, regularly take
several positions on the same team :wink: OTOH I hear Din, and others who
commented about family members possibly wanting to play against each
other. My mother-in-law would make a good candidate for Witch Queen.

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

#10

Mike Barber makes interesting points regarding the role of neutrals
in MEPBM. As one of the FPs in game 32, I felt a little embarressed
over the fact that two family members (Harad/Corsairs) joined us with
little pleading on our part. But if any of the DS from game 32 read
this, I hope they`ll confrim that we Freeps won because we worked
closely together as a team, not because of the impact of the southern
neutrals (neither of which finished in the top three).
I dragged two newbies from my local wargames club into game 32, and
this allowed us to work closely together, as did all of the Freep
team. But I regard this as being a compleetly different kettle of
fish to two neutrals working as a team.
As for the issue of pre-aligned neutrals, my personal experience
makes it a tempting proposition. In all except one of the 1650 games
I`ve played, Harad and Corsairs have gone the same way. All of those
games ended within 25 turns. The one game where the southern neutrals
joined different alignments lasted until turn 44. I think that`s an
indication of the impact that neutrals acting together can have on
the game.
Jon P.

As per Laurence Tilley's interesting synopsis of Game 32, recently
posted to the Mepbm list, I see that a pair of Ensigs played

Corsairs

and Harad. (Brian and Benny)
>
I know that 2 family positions in a single nation game has had a
little controversial discussion in the past, with a consensus, I
think, that unless the GM judges it is somehow being abused, it is
no big shakes

Of course, this applies more naturally when the 'family' is playing

2

nations of the FP and the DS. To allow the most powerful neutral
nation positions to be played like this is, I suggest, a different
kettle of fish.

Quite apart from the normal speculation that it is very easy for 1
family member to dominated by the other to one degree or another,

it

stretches credulity to suggest that the 2 nations are truely

neutral

& might declare in different directions
>
I have a particular interest in this, of course, as the Harad and
Corsairs > simultaneously launched attacks at me (Easterlings).
Coincendentally, I launched at Corsairs at the same time, and did
rather more damage than I received, - but no matter. I look back

on

this now and think that it is rather a shame that Corsairs / Harad
was effectively before the game had started, 1 massive power bloc

I wholeheartedly disagree with pre allied neutrals, and think that
there should be a strong supposition that a 'family' would play as
pre allied, and I guess I am disappointed that Harlequin allowed

this.

···

--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, mbarber999@y... wrote:

What do others reckon?