Hi,
Sorry, but I have to jump in here with regard to the idea of
paying extra for some positions.
As Facade stated in a previous letter, the DS are also chosen by many
experienced players, simply because they're easier to win with.
Firstly, I dont see why this should be so. Surely as an
experienced player you're looking for challenges - what
better than the Woodmen? Players that opt for a position
they see as an "easy win" (there is no such thing - at least
with honour) are (in my book) besmirching their reputations
somewhat.
I would also disagree with the view that the DS are easier
to win with. That may well have been the case at one time,
but with the various changes that have been made I do not
think this is as true as it once was. Sure, the statistics
will tell you the DS win 60% of the time. But bear in mind
that the changes to the effectiveness of guarding etc are
almost all in games that haven't finished yet. Since those
changes have been brought in I have played in five 1650
games. Two have finished (both had started by the time the
agent rules were twiddled with) and they finished one to
each side. Of the other three all are going the way of the
FP.
I have seen different scales of turns fees applied successfully within
games, e.g. Austerlitz, the Napoleonic wargame, where if you play, say,
Italy, you're charged a lot less per turn than, say, France.
I think it should be adopted in ME1650, with the exception of complete
newbies to the game - they should still be charged the current prices.
No, no, NO! If this is implemented I think a number of
players (myself included) will cease playing Harlequin
games. Why should people who are less well off be
disadvantaged when it comes to playing the better nations?
It's iniquitous and guaranteed to put people off signing up
for a game.
Colin.