Asking for opinions on pre-allied neutrals

mepbmlist
#1

--- JeremyRichman@compuserve.com wrote: > 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.

The rhu are so close to the DS, I feel sorry for them,
and I wouldn't begrudge them allying with another
neutral to give them the extra chance to beat off the
free/dark threats.

As long as the dun/rhu, or the corsair/harad didn't
have a pre-game inclination to join DS or free, then I
wouldn't mind them helping each other out. As long as
players act in their nations best interest, then I'm
fine with whatever they do.

I don't believe it is a major crime for two neutrals
agreeing to not attack each other before the start of
the game. But its suddenly becomes very wise and Ok
for the same neutrals agreeing not to attack each
other as soon as the turnsheets come out.

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.

'fair shake' means a good chance to bash the neutrals
without them having a decent chance of fighting back ?

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.

Thats why in 1650 grudge games the corsair/harad, and
the dun/rhu are on different sides (and BTW I agree
100% with the split). But in a normal 1650 game, I
don't see why these nations shouldn't be allowed to
ally.

If the corsairs/harad realise they can come
first/second by allying early on, and then declaring
for a side just to win, then good luck to them (one of
the reason why harly didn't give out WC was to stop
nations using tactics like this just to come first and
grab a WC).

Its only neutrals having a pre-game incline to go
dark/free that worries me. Having them ally with
another neutral in order to help both of them survive
isn't a crime in my book.

For similar reasons, GSI tried to avoid SG/NG
teamups
unless there was an opposing teamup in Northwest
Mordor
to match them.

I actually go the other way in grudge games. Since NG
is going to be bashed up something shocking, I try to
ensure that the person playing SG is someone who they
can rely on (and who will back them up 100%).

hard to believe my thinking is 180 degrees from the
norm.

oh well, i'm expecting to be shot down in flames once
more
din

···

_____________________________________________________________________________
http://au.classifieds.yahoo.com/au/car/ - Yahoo! Cars
- Buy, sell or finance a car..

#2

--- JeremyRichman@c... wrote: > 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.

The rhu are so close to the DS, I feel sorry for them,

?? In 1650 the only DS they are near is the WK,
and he has other fish to fry -- namely the surrounding
6 FP. Did you mean to say FP instead of DS?

A really enterprising Rhudaur can join the WK
(if the WK is good) and do well against the FP.
Together they have a shot of recruiting Dunlend.
Personally I've played 1650 WK 8 times and the
Rhudaur has always dropped by turn 5. Argggh!

and I wouldn't begrudge them allying with another
neutral to give them the extra chance to beat off the
free/dark threats.

I don't begrudge them allying once the game starts.
But there is all the difference in the world between
two partners who join a game together, and two player
who agree to ally later. The teamwork and communication
of players who know each other and joined together
is almost always much better than two random players
who join up afterwards.

(Also, in my experience most teams who played two
adjacent neutrals are very likely to have made
a pre-decision; that's part of the fun of being
near each other, they can make a plan for how to
clobber the (pick one) WK or FP.

I don't often see the neutrals getting beaten up
on in 1650 in the first 5-7 turns so I don't know
what you are referring to. Usually the FP and DS
are far too concerned about known enemies to worry.
Most players spend that time dealing with the enemy
and trying to recruit the neutrals.

So they hardly need an "extra" chance to beat off
the FP/DS. Just don't wait too long to choose,
that's all. In the meantime, don't stack the
deck.

As long as the dun/rhu, or the corsair/harad didn't
have a pre-game inclination to join DS or free, then I
wouldn't mind them helping each other out.

As I said, I think that is rare.

I don't believe it is a major crime for two neutrals
agreeing to not attack each other before the start of
the game. But its suddenly becomes very wise and Ok
for the same neutrals agreeing not to attack each
other as soon as the turnsheets come out.

Right. As I said (above), the quality of their
teamwork is usually much higher if they joined
together.

>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.

'fair shake' means a good chance to bash the neutrals
without them having a decent chance of fighting back ?

When does this happen? This may spawn a whole other
thread, but I have to say, what's the point of attacking
a neutral while a real enemy gets off scot free?
Gosh, let's ignore the WK and attack Rhudaur, and
alienate all the other neutrals in the game. Uh huh
sure. Sheesh, I'd sure like to play against anyone who
attacks neutrals right off. I'm sure it happens,
has happened, but IMHO is hardly the norm.

> 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.

Thats why in 1650 grudge games the corsair/harad, and
the dun/rhu are on different sides (and BTW I agree
100% with the split).

Gotta disagree, that's no even split. I'll take the
side with Corsairs/Harad anytime, and play FP or DS.

>
> For similar reasons, GSI tried to avoid SG/NG
> teamups
> unless there was an opposing teamup in Northwest
> Mordor
> to match them.

I actually go the other way in grudge games.

Grudge games are different. I was referring
to regular games. In grudge games your team
has total freedom to play anyone anywhere, of
course.

Since NG
is going to be bashed up something shocking, I try to
ensure that the person playing SG is someone who they
can rely on (and who will back them up 100%).

hard to believe my thinking is 180 degrees from the
norm.

Nope, in grudge games what you said makes perfect
sense.

Jeremy Richman

···

--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, Din <din_ohtar@y...> wrote: