Deliver us...

mepbmlist
#1

Joel wrote:

<< <snip> If the front line
nations don't get gold or help they can go bankrupt. In the case of
your friend, he had 75,000 gold in the bank and several of our
allies were about to go bankrupt. >>

Although I would prefer not to bore the list with the rights and wrongs of
this specific case, I feel that I could not let this specious argument pass.

It should be noted that in the two turns previous to the dispute, I had
distributed funds to front-line nations. In the case of the final turn
however, presumably because these nations had assumed that I had dropped (and
understandably so given the introduction to them of a new CL by the senior
player), I had received no requests for funding and therefore did not
distribute funds (presuming that the lack of emails indicated solvency among
the front-line nations - the lack of PDFs received also limiting any analysis
of the financial situation by myself).

As an aside, it should perhaps be noted that my last turn also included a
successful steal of Collowesta (orchestrated by myself), the upgrading of a
town to a major-town (one of several fall back positions for front-line
players) and the recruitment of a pure agent (using the SNA). Regrettably,
the assassination attempts failed but, hey-ho, these things happen in war.

Joel wrote:

<< <snip> This is exactly what I'm talking about. The Noldo should NOT be
used as a military power...and their economy isn't small. This is
why new players should not be playing these positions. >>

The inference being that a player (newbie or otherwise) who does not rigidly
adhere to the doctrine of St. Joel must, by definition, be a bad player. To
win at all costs! To min/max until your eyes water! Mantras of the Power
Gamer.

But here, I suspect, that we will finally have to agree to disagree. For me
the sociable aspects of gaming far outweigh the competitive zeal, for you
(assuming that I read you right) the reverse is true. I have witnessed the
Power Gamer/ Recreational Gamer debate in may a game and, quite frankly, the
outcome is inevitably one of 'never the twain shall meet'.

The only point I would like to make is a reassertion of an earlier
conclusion. If newbies or recreational players annoy you sooo much, why don't
you ask Clint NOT to put you in a game that includes them.

Mike Absolom.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#2

It should be noted that in the two turns previous to the dispute,

I had

distributed funds to front-line nations.

I will give you this. I went through old turns and you did indeed
send out gold your last two turns. I mispoke. You meant well but
you should realize that the amount you sent pales in comparison to
your allies deficits and the horde you had left in your treasury.

In the case of the final turn

however, presumably because these nations had assumed that I had

dropped (and

understandably so given the introduction to them of a new CL by

the senior

player), I had received no requests for funding and therefore did

not

distribute funds (presuming that the lack of emails indicated

solvency among

the front-line nations - the lack of PDFs received also limiting

any analysis

of the financial situation by myself).

You received PDFs and turn reports. It wasn't until after you
didn't respond to our e-mails trying to confirm whether or not you
had dropped that we took you off our e-mail list.

<< <snip> This is exactly what I'm talking about. The Noldo

should NOT be

used as a military power...and their economy isn't small. This is
why new players should not be playing these positions. >>

The inference being that a player (newbie or otherwise) who does

not rigidly

adhere to the doctrine of St. Joel must, by definition, be a bad

player. To

win at all costs! To min/max until your eyes water! Mantras of the

Power

Gamer.

That's Mr. Saint Joel to you! Playing the Noldo as a military I
find a funny thing. My inference isn't that they are bad players
but that they are probably a newbie.

But here, I suspect, that we will finally have to agree to

disagree. For me

the sociable aspects of gaming far outweigh the competitive zeal,

for you

(assuming that I read you right) the reverse is true. I have

witnessed the

Power Gamer/ Recreational Gamer debate in may a game and, quite

frankly, the

outcome is inevitably one of 'never the twain shall meet'.

I find both a very fun part of this game...socializing and
competition. Only when players stop socializing with the rest of
the team do I not enjoy it. Ah, it is all too possible that the
twain shall meet if new players stops being recommended confusing
key positions.

The only point I would like to make is a reassertion of an earlier
conclusion. If newbies or recreational players annoy you sooo

much, why don't

you ask Clint NOT to put you in a game that includes them.

Mike Absolom.

Newbies don't annoy me. That's overgeneralizing. It's new players
that take confusing key positions, state they might drop, and stop
communicating. In any event, I'm glad our dispute has given you a
zeal to play the game even more. Just let me know when you think
you're ready to take me on!

#3

--- In mepbmlist@y..., MAbsolom@A... wrote:

The inference being that a player (newbie or otherwise) who does not

rigidly

adhere to the doctrine of St. Joel must, by definition, be a bad

player. To

win at all costs! To min/max until your eyes water! Mantras of the

Power

Gamer.

This complaint strikes me (not having been part of the game in
question, though) as peculiar. MEPBM is a war game, not an RPG.
Complaining about min/maxing in MEPBM is like complaining about
someone min/maxing in chess by choosing to promote a pawn to a queen
rather than a bishop, or arguing that backstabbing an opponent in
Diplomacy or Illuminati shows one to be a power gamer. MEPBM, unlike
most RPGS, is a competetive game in which there are winners and
losers, and it's entirely within the spirit of the game to do
everything within your nation's power to ensure that your team wins
the game - and to expect that the rest of your allegiance will do the
same.

If (to invent an example) the Riders of Rohan are refusing to
coordinate military action against the Dragon Lord with the Sinda
Elves because Eomer didn't trust Galadriel in the books, that's just
plain bad play and should be criticized. If the Dwarves are buying
mithril from the market while their allies struggle to support armies,
that's bad play. And if the Cloud Lord is naming dual-classed
emissary/mages and trying to get them to learn the +damage combat
spells, that's terrible play.

Each nation has certain strengths and a role they need to fill, though
some nations are more tightly bound to one role than another - the
Dark Lieutenants or the Dunedain Rangers have more reasonable
different approaches than the Cloud Lord or North Gondor do. Playing
to use your nation's strengths to help your team and shore up your
allies' weaknesses is strategy, not twinkery.

None of this means that there's only one way to play a nation well or
that it's necessarily in good taste to criticize your teammates for
not meeting your standards. But to complain about players trying to
win at all costs in a wargame is, to my mind, missing the point.

-Peter