A neutral can also act as a block or no-go area for both
sides, forcing them to work around his territory. (Think, again,
of Switzerland in WW2.)
Maybe you should use a different example of a neutral than Switzerland.
Unless you are of the opinion that the neutrals should benefit monetarily from a
war while not participating, like the U.S. during the first years of WW I. If a
neutral trades with one or both sides in a conflict they are not really neutral, they have entered the conflict to gain from the human misery of their neighbors. I know this is OFF TOPIC, Sorry!!!
But you're not off topic. If this can happen in RL, why not in a war game? Let the neutrals have the opportunity to benefit from the "human misery" of the aligned players. It's what makes playing a neutral fun - it's also what makes the aligned players come and "kick your a***" if you misjudge things and they rumble your devious plan. The neutrals can (in a good game) add an enjoyable "third dimension" to the conflict, and they should not be penalised by the ratings system for playing as (the various kinds of) neutrals - isolationist, profiteering, undecided, mercenary etc.
If the late declaring neutrals annoy you, then attack them in the mid game, or threaten to. That will of course distract some of your effort from your prime enemy - but that's part of the story line. The annoying neutrals are there "to give us moral choices" not to mention strategic ones.
Unless you are of the opinion that the neutrals should benefit monetarily from a
war while not participating, like the U.S. during the first years of WW I. If a
neutral trades with one or both sides in a conflict they are not really neutral, they have entered the conflict to gain from the human misery of their neighbors. I know this is OFF TOPIC, Sorry!!!
>Unless you are of the opinion that the neutrals should benefit
monetarily
>from a
>war while not participating, like the U.S. during the first years of
WW
>I. If a
>neutral trades with one or both sides in a conflict they are not
really
>neutral, they have entered the conflict to gain from the human
misery of
>their neighbors. I know this is OFF TOPIC, Sorry!!!
But you're not off topic. If this can happen in RL, why not in a war
game? Let the neutrals have the opportunity to benefit from the
"human
misery" of the aligned players. It's what makes playing a neutral
fun -
it's also what makes the aligned players come and "kick your a***" if
you
misjudge things and they rumble your devious plan. The neutrals can
(in a
good game) add an enjoyable "third dimension" to the conflict, and
they
should not be penalised by the ratings system for playing as (the
various
kinds of) neutrals - isolationist, profiteering, undecided, mercenary
etc.
If the late declaring neutrals annoy you, then attack them in the mid
game,
or threaten to. That will of course distract some of your effort
from your
prime enemy - but that's part of the story line. The annoying
neutrals are
there "to give us moral choices" not to mention strategic ones.
Excellent points. But they don't counter the main problem:
Why should a late-declaring neutral (for whatever reason)
reap the same rewards as starting players for the hard
fought victory they did not participate in?
That's the key here, in regards to a PRS that promotes
the Team win. That's one of Darrell Shimels main points
also. (although Darrell, win% would still include these
victory jumpers too, eh?)
Brad
···
At 15:16 14/10/2002, Steve wrote:
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Because the game is a simulation of a world which though imagined has many similarities to the real one, and because of the fact that while the victorious alliance has succeeded in defeating the openly hostile nations, they have failed to defeat the parasitic ones. Or they have failed to recruit potential allies early enough for them to be useful, which amounts to the same thing.
Having thus put it in a nutshell though, a germ of an idea appears:
The finest victory must surely be 10 nations winning even though all the neutrals declared against them. So instead of penalising late declaring neutrals, why not reward the aligned nations (in PRS terms), with a modifier proportionate to the number of neutrals which declared _against_ them, provided that they still won? This, it seems to me, might help to solve your problem. A confident team approaching the mid-game would have an extra incentive to provoke a sluggish undeclared neutral.
Excellent points. But they don't counter the main problem:
Why should a late-declaring neutral (for whatever reason)
reap the same rewards as starting players for the hard
fought victory they did not participate in?
I like, but it would have to be combined with some way of stopping a Neutral from declaring your way. Perhaps there should be some modification for the number of surviving nations which dislike/hate a Neutral compared to the number which tolerate/are friendly on a particular side. If disliked by enough nations then it should be impossible to join that side. What a shame for the poor Harad player who has managed to take out the Corsairs early on and build up an enormous position only to find that he can't declare for either side and so can't win.
Richard
···
----- Original Message -----
From: Laurence G. Tilley
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 8:07 AM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Neutrals - A new suggestion
At 03:26 15/10/2002, Brad wrote:
>Excellent points. But they don't counter the main problem:
>
>Why should a late-declaring neutral (for whatever reason)
>reap the same rewards as starting players for the hard
>fought victory they did not participate in?
Because the game is a simulation of a world which though imagined has many
similarities to the real one, and because of the fact that while the
victorious alliance has succeeded in defeating the openly hostile nations,
they have failed to defeat the parasitic ones. Or they have failed to
recruit potential allies early enough for them to be useful, which amounts
to the same thing.
Having thus put it in a nutshell though, a germ of an idea appears:
The finest victory must surely be 10 nations winning even though all the
neutrals declared against them. So instead of penalising late declaring
neutrals, why not reward the aligned nations (in PRS terms), with a
modifier proportionate to the number of neutrals which declared _against_
them, provided that they still won? This, it seems to me, might help to
solve your problem. A confident team approaching the mid-game would have
an extra incentive to provoke a sluggish undeclared neutral.
