Digest Number 1514

mepbmlist
#21

Also, Khand is a strong nation; Khand+Rhun *should* be able to
cause the free terrible problems in the east. In fact, I've
seen the Khand overcome the NM, Rhun, and Dwarfs combined - all by
themselves. They can be an insanely rich HC-in-steel factory
nation. I managed to burn everything from the BS backup to the QA
backup as a free Khand - *that* is a nation that I respect (on my
side) and fear (on the other side). A skilled player can indeed, as
you describe, do a lot in any position. Ideally you'd like to see
five neutrals, all distinct and with an interesting twist to them.

Richard has a point - bringing back Harad and consolidating the
easterlings would give 2950 five interesting neutrals and expand the
strategy relative to 1650. The White Wizard is *far* better than sad
old Rhuduar :slight_smile:

Marc

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, Darrell Shimel
<threeedgedsword35@y...> wrote:

···

--- D N <nanooknw@y...> wrote:
> Marc, G221 does suggest that it's possible to play a
> DS Rhun even against a competent FP, whom no one
> would
> describe as "struggling."
>
> The declaration/launch of Khand and Rhun against the
> Northmen wiped out nearby FP forces, and delayed
> arrival of more by blowing the bridges and flooding
> the Dwarf capital with agents.

On what turn did this attack on the Northmen take
place. If it was after GT5, then the FP were remiss
in not eliminating Rhun before this.

It sucks to be Rhun and have the FP show up on GT4
with a "join us or die" ultimatum. From the FP side,
this must be done to prevent exactly what you
describe.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

#22

imho If the neutrals in a game are worth their salt
they will jump all over whatever side jumps one of
theirs. The tactics of forcing the Rhun or any other
nation to make a decision stinks! It is unfair to the
premise of the game and to the player you are jumping.

That said, the jumped nation should go right ahead and
join the side that forced them in. They can make a
great road block to whatever efforts that team puts
forth. :wink:

Also, as a player in 221 the Rhun and Khand decisions
have made for an exciting game! As a member of the
free team I'm very happy with the decision NOT to
FORCE the Rhun to join us. It has forced us to do
things differently than the "usual" and is making for
one of the best games in recent memory. As a matter
of fact this is the first game I've been in that has
gone up to 20+ turns in years! And I was on the
winning side in four out of five during this time
frame.

If you want to have fun in ME gaming then go with the
flow of the game and learn how to recruit neutrals or
learn how to defend against them when they don't go
your way. Don't force them to make a decision. It
just make enemies in and out of the game and doesn't
make it fun for the person being forced.

JCC

--- Darrell Shimel <threeedgedsword35@yahoo.com>
wrote:

···

--- D N <nanooknw@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Marc, G221 does suggest that it's possible to play
a
> DS Rhun even against a competent FP, whom no one
> would
> describe as "struggling."
>
> The declaration/launch of Khand and Rhun against
the
> Northmen wiped out nearby FP forces, and delayed
> arrival of more by blowing the bridges and
flooding
> the Dwarf capital with agents.

On what turn did this attack on the Northmen take
place. If it was after GT5, then the FP were remiss
in not eliminating Rhun before this.

It sucks to be Rhun and have the FP show up on GT4
with a "join us or die" ultimatum. From the FP side,
this must be done to prevent exactly what you
describe.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

#23

<<Richard has a point - bringing back Harad and consolidating the
easterlings would give 2950 five interesting neutrals and expand the
strategy relative to 1650.>>

Bringing Harad back would also force the Corsair players to not be so
pompous and self-absorbed. We talk about Rhun being so bad . . . on the
other hand, Corsairs are almost too good!! They have perhaps the strongest
economy in 2950 and no fear of early knockout. . . the QA can't take him
out, and the Gondors would do so at the peril of being overrun by Mordor in
their own lands.

That, or the Cors/harad player would just team up every game like the WW /
Duns.

Russ

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "marc_pinsonneault" <pinsonneault.1@osu.edu>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 12:53 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Rhuns

Also, Khand is a strong nation; Khand+Rhun *should* be able to
cause the free terrible problems in the east. In fact, I've
seen the Khand overcome the NM, Rhun, and Dwarfs combined - all by
themselves. They can be an insanely rich HC-in-steel factory
nation. I managed to burn everything from the BS backup to the QA
backup as a free Khand - *that* is a nation that I respect (on my
side) and fear (on the other side). A skilled player can indeed, as
you describe, do a lot in any position. Ideally you'd like to see
five neutrals, all distinct and with an interesting twist to them.

Richard has a point - bringing back Harad and consolidating the
easterlings would give 2950 five interesting neutrals and expand the
strategy relative to 1650. The White Wizard is *far* better than sad
old Rhuduar :slight_smile:

Marc

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, Darrell Shimel
<threeedgedsword35@y...> wrote:
>
> --- D N <nanooknw@y...> wrote:
> > Marc, G221 does suggest that it's possible to play a
> > DS Rhun even against a competent FP, whom no one
> > would
> > describe as "struggling."
> >
> > The declaration/launch of Khand and Rhun against the
> > Northmen wiped out nearby FP forces, and delayed
> > arrival of more by blowing the bridges and flooding
> > the Dwarf capital with agents.
>
> On what turn did this attack on the Northmen take
> place. If it was after GT5, then the FP were remiss
> in not eliminating Rhun before this.
>
> It sucks to be Rhun and have the FP show up on GT4
> with a "join us or die" ultimatum. From the FP side,
> this must be done to prevent exactly what you
> describe.
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> http://photos.yahoo.com/

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#24

I'm not sure I agree. I used to have the same policy as yours . . . I'd get
very upset if someone on my team suggested "pushing" a neutral. However,
I'm getting tired of seeing neutrals sit and sit and build and build and
then join the winning side. It really burns me when we've put a lot of
effort into winning them, the game isn't going well for us, and they jump to
the other side around turn 14 - 16 and finish us off and win the game. Many
times, I find them to be more than a little arrogant as well. Their actions
whisper "We can screw the game up for you if you don't do everything we
want." I admit that I now get a little guilty-pleasure-grin when I see them
not get their way.

Yes, I play neutrals myself. I'd like to think I'm not that bad to deal
with, though. I make a quick decision, join early, ask for no "bribes",
and help out the team as much as I can. I usually end up giving tons and
receiving nothing. That's how it should be . . I got to sit around and
build up for 5 - 7 turns, unlike my teammates.

-Russ

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Choules" <chuck_john_61853@yahoo.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Rhuns

imho If the neutrals in a game are worth their salt
they will jump all over whatever side jumps one of
theirs. The tactics of forcing the Rhun or any other
nation to make a decision stinks! It is unfair to the
premise of the game and to the player you are jumping.

That said, the jumped nation should go right ahead and
join the side that forced them in. They can make a
great road block to whatever efforts that team puts
forth. :wink:

Also, as a player in 221 the Rhun and Khand decisions
have made for an exciting game! As a member of the
free team I'm very happy with the decision NOT to
FORCE the Rhun to join us. It has forced us to do
things differently than the "usual" and is making for
one of the best games in recent memory. As a matter
of fact this is the first game I've been in that has
gone up to 20+ turns in years! And I was on the
winning side in four out of five during this time
frame.

If you want to have fun in ME gaming then go with the
flow of the game and learn how to recruit neutrals or
learn how to defend against them when they don't go
your way. Don't force them to make a decision. It
just make enemies in and out of the game and doesn't
make it fun for the person being forced.

JCC

--- Darrell Shimel <threeedgedsword35@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> --- D N <nanooknw@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Marc, G221 does suggest that it's possible to play
> a
> > DS Rhun even against a competent FP, whom no one
> > would
> > describe as "struggling."
> >
> > The declaration/launch of Khand and Rhun against
> the
> > Northmen wiped out nearby FP forces, and delayed
> > arrival of more by blowing the bridges and
> flooding
> > the Dwarf capital with agents.
>
> On what turn did this attack on the Northmen take
> place. If it was after GT5, then the FP were remiss
> in not eliminating Rhun before this.
>
> It sucks to be Rhun and have the FP show up on GT4
> with a "join us or die" ultimatum. From the FP side,
> this must be done to prevent exactly what you
> describe.
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#25

Your logic supports the 12 vs 12 aligned game. But
perfectly describes what CAN and does happen in the
open games. Yeah, it sucks if a neutral back stabs
your team, but it's their nation and it's their
decision. Can't play it for them.

Recruiting of neutrals is a major part of the open
game. It must be part of the early game priorities.
If your side doesn't get the recruiting done and is
loosing the game then maybe the whooping you were
taking was for a good reason. :slight_smile:

JCC

···

--- "R.K.Floyd" <rkfloyd@charter.net> wrote:

I'm not sure I agree. I used to have the same
policy as yours . . . I'd get
very upset if someone on my team suggested "pushing"
a neutral. However,
I'm getting tired of seeing neutrals sit and sit and
build and build and
then join the winning side. It really burns me when
we've put a lot of
effort into winning them, the game isn't going well
for us, and they jump to
the other side around turn 14 - 16 and finish us off
and win the game. Many
times, I find them to be more than a little arrogant
as well. Their actions
whisper "We can screw the game up for you if you
don't do everything we
want." I admit that I now get a little
guilty-pleasure-grin when I see them
not get their way.

Yes, I play neutrals myself. I'd like to think I'm
not that bad to deal
with, though. I make a quick decision, join early,
ask for no "bribes",
and help out the team as much as I can. I usually
end up giving tons and
receiving nothing. That's how it should be . . I
got to sit around and
build up for 5 - 7 turns, unlike my teammates.

-Russ

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Choules" <chuck_john_61853@yahoo.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Rhuns

> imho If the neutrals in a game are worth their
salt
> they will jump all over whatever side jumps one of
> theirs. The tactics of forcing the Rhun or any
other
> nation to make a decision stinks! It is unfair to
the
> premise of the game and to the player you are
jumping.
>
> That said, the jumped nation should go right ahead
and
> join the side that forced them in. They can make
a
> great road block to whatever efforts that team
puts
> forth. :wink:
>
> Also, as a player in 221 the Rhun and Khand
decisions
> have made for an exciting game! As a member of
the
> free team I'm very happy with the decision NOT to
> FORCE the Rhun to join us. It has forced us to do
> things differently than the "usual" and is making
for
> one of the best games in recent memory. As a
matter
> of fact this is the first game I've been in that
has
> gone up to 20+ turns in years! And I was on the
> winning side in four out of five during this time
> frame.
>
> If you want to have fun in ME gaming then go with
the
> flow of the game and learn how to recruit neutrals
or
> learn how to defend against them when they don't
go
> your way. Don't force them to make a decision.
It
> just make enemies in and out of the game and
doesn't
> make it fun for the person being forced.
>
> JCC
>
>
> --- Darrell Shimel <threeedgedsword35@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- D N <nanooknw@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Marc, G221 does suggest that it's possible to
play
> > a
> > > DS Rhun even against a competent FP, whom no
one
> > > would
> > > describe as "struggling."
> > >
> > > The declaration/launch of Khand and Rhun
against
> > the
> > > Northmen wiped out nearby FP forces, and
delayed
> > > arrival of more by blowing the bridges and
> > flooding
> > > the Dwarf capital with agents.
> >
> > On what turn did this attack on the Northmen
take
> > place. If it was after GT5, then the FP were
remiss
> > in not eliminating Rhun before this.
> >
> > It sucks to be Rhun and have the FP show up on
GT4
> > with a "join us or die" ultimatum. From the FP
side,
> > this must be done to prevent exactly what you
> > describe.
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and
sharing.
> > http://photos.yahoo.com/
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
> To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
> Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

#26

Your logic supports the 12 vs 12 aligned game. But
perfectly describes what CAN and does happen in the
open games. Yeah, it sucks if a neutral back stabs
your team, but it's their nation and it's their
decision. Can't play it for them.

* Yep, I love 12 vs 12 games. I try to join those exclusively in my grudge
games now.

Recruiting of neutrals is a major part of the open
game. It must be part of the early game priorities.
If your side doesn't get the recruiting done and is
loosing the game then maybe the whooping you were
taking was for a good reason. :slight_smile:

* This statement suggests you didn't read this line I wrote:

<<It really burns me when we've put a lot of effort into winning them,>>

*I'm not talking about when teams DESERVE to win no neutrals. That does
happen from time to time. Being biased, of course, I always think my team
deserves an even split! :wink:

Russ

···

--- "R.K.Floyd" <rkfloyd@charter.net> wrote:
> I'm not sure I agree. I used to have the same
> policy as yours . . . I'd get
> very upset if someone on my team suggested "pushing"
> a neutral. However,
> I'm getting tired of seeing neutrals sit and sit and
> build and build and
> then join the winning side. It really burns me when
> we've put a lot of
> effort into winning them, the game isn't going well
> for us, and they jump to
> the other side around turn 14 - 16 and finish us off
> and win the game. Many
> times, I find them to be more than a little arrogant
> as well. Their actions
> whisper "We can screw the game up for you if you
> don't do everything we
> want." I admit that I now get a little
> guilty-pleasure-grin when I see them
> not get their way.
>
>
> Yes, I play neutrals myself. I'd like to think I'm
> not that bad to deal
> with, though. I make a quick decision, join early,
> ask for no "bribes",
> and help out the team as much as I can. I usually
> end up giving tons and
> receiving nothing. That's how it should be . . I
> got to sit around and
> build up for 5 - 7 turns, unlike my teammates.
>
> -Russ
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Choules" <chuck_john_61853@yahoo.com>
> To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 12:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Rhuns
>
>
> > imho If the neutrals in a game are worth their
> salt
> > they will jump all over whatever side jumps one of
> > theirs. The tactics of forcing the Rhun or any
> other
> > nation to make a decision stinks! It is unfair to
> the
> > premise of the game and to the player you are
> jumping.
> >
> > That said, the jumped nation should go right ahead
> and
> > join the side that forced them in. They can make
> a
> > great road block to whatever efforts that team
> puts
> > forth. :wink:
> >
> > Also, as a player in 221 the Rhun and Khand
> decisions
> > have made for an exciting game! As a member of
> the
> > free team I'm very happy with the decision NOT to
> > FORCE the Rhun to join us. It has forced us to do
> > things differently than the "usual" and is making
> for
> > one of the best games in recent memory. As a
> matter
> > of fact this is the first game I've been in that
> has
> > gone up to 20+ turns in years! And I was on the
> > winning side in four out of five during this time
> > frame.
> >
> > If you want to have fun in ME gaming then go with
> the
> > flow of the game and learn how to recruit neutrals
> or
> > learn how to defend against them when they don't
> go
> > your way. Don't force them to make a decision.
> It
> > just make enemies in and out of the game and
> doesn't
> > make it fun for the person being forced.
> >
> > JCC
> >
> >
> > --- Darrell Shimel <threeedgedsword35@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- D N <nanooknw@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Marc, G221 does suggest that it's possible to
> play
> > > a
> > > > DS Rhun even against a competent FP, whom no
> one
> > > > would
> > > > describe as "struggling."
> > > >
> > > > The declaration/launch of Khand and Rhun
> against
> > > the
> > > > Northmen wiped out nearby FP forces, and
> delayed
> > > > arrival of more by blowing the bridges and
> > > flooding
> > > > the Dwarf capital with agents.
> > >
> > > On what turn did this attack on the Northmen
> take
> > > place. If it was after GT5, then the FP were
> remiss
> > > in not eliminating Rhun before this.
> > >
> > > It sucks to be Rhun and have the FP show up on
> GT4
> > > with a "join us or die" ultimatum. From the FP
> side,
> > > this must be done to prevent exactly what you
> > > describe.
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and
> sharing.
> > > http://photos.yahoo.com/
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> > http://photos.yahoo.com/
> >
> >
> > Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
> > To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
> > Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#27

imho If the neutrals in a game are worth their salt
they will jump all over whatever side jumps one of
theirs.

I'm afraid that you may often find it's just your opinion. What's the
point of choosing to play a neutral, if you're not going to play (at least
its turns as a neutral) in a self-interested way? Neutrals are those who
have taken no moral stance in a war. They're looking out for
themselves. Look at RL examples...

In WW1 1940 Britain entered the war when Germany violated Belgian
neutrality which it had promised to support in 1830. The Kaiser said he
didn't think Britain would have gone to war over "a mere piece of
paper". He was right basically, nations don't often enter war just in
moral support of weak neutrals.

In WW2, were Switzerland or Spain ever going to enter the war against
Germany, when Norway's neutrality was ignored? Don't think so.

Personally, I believe that the war in Iraq was fully justified, but there's
plenty that don't, mostly on the basis that they don't accept that it was
done for a moral reason - and the way the press tends to present the
anti-war protesters, you'd think that _they_ had the moral high ground.

If I'm say, Corsair in 2950, I'm a _neutral_, I'm not aligned or allied to
Rhun Easterlings. If I'm playing in the "spirit of neutrality" what on
earth is my nation to gain from entering the war before I'm ready or
against what may be the better side? The Rhun Easterlings are "a far off
people of whom we know nothing" (Chamberlain 1938). Neutrals you know, are
not good guys.

The tactics of forcing the Rhun or any other
nation to make a decision stinks! It is unfair to the
premise of the game and to the player you are jumping.

Oh, Boo Hoo. The "premise of the game" in this aspect, is that some
nations are _neutral_ at the outbreak of an epic war between good and
evil. There's no presumption of a "third way", "political alternative" or
"neutral alliance", in fact I'd say for Tolkein's fantasy, there's a
presumption against it. "For evil to triumph, all that is necessary is for
good men to do nothing" (Burke (and IIRC Gandalf actually paraphrases this
somewhere)). If you don't fight against Sauron, the whole of Middle Earth
will become enslaved. It's a story in Black and White. As for the second
part of your sentence... something along the lines of "All's fair in love
and..." comes to mind.

mefacesmo.gif
     Laurence G.Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

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

···

At 17:59 09/12/2003, John Choules wrote:

#28

Yes, exactly. It's called a pre-emptive strike. It may be risky, as other
neutrals _might_ get all heroic, but on the other hand it may be much more
risky NOT to make the pre-emptive strike. And the balance of the risk
varies very much with regard to each neutral in both scenarios.

Nor and Dwa merrily marching down into Mordor, with a friendly wave to RhE
and a "spirit of fair play", I think account for those rare occasions where
RhE has "done well". He either waits to see how then get on, then joins
them, or, if he's got any blood in his veins, he rubs his hands with glee,
then goes on the Rhun Rampage.

Which reminds me a quip by Jonathon Ross "...'Kill Bill', which remains my
favourite film of the year even though they did subtitle it 'A Wageing
Wampage of Wevenge'"

mefacesmo.gif
     Laurence G.Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

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

···

At 18:46 09/12/2003, R.K.Floyd wrote:

I used to have the same policy as yours . . . I'd get
very upset if someone on my team suggested "pushing" a neutral. However,
I'm getting tired of seeing neutrals sit and sit and build and build and
then join the winning side.

#29

Marc, G221 does suggest that it's possible to play a
  DS Rhun even against a competent FP, whom no one would
  describe as "struggling."

  The declaration/launch of Khand and Rhun against the
  Northmen wiped out nearby FP forces, and delayed
  arrival of more by blowing the bridges and flooding
  the Dwarf capital with agents.

  It's since been a series of well-coordinated battles
  on both sides. FP hid Shrel-Kain, DS Revealed it. FP
  sent Rangers, Silvans, Dwarf, and Noldo troops, Khand
  intercepted. DS sent a second wave, then a third,
  fourth, and fifth, and FP intercepted. FP sent agents.
  DS sent agents.

  The FP could have brought troops to the theatre sooner
  (a buildup and launch by the Western FP early on,
  before the attack, would have helped), but once the
  attack began, the response has been sharp and focused.
  But so has the DS push, and the theatre hasn't changed
  much despite all the fighting.

  A concerted DS effort -- with essential help from
  Khand -- apparently makes a viable DS Rhun, even
  against competent opponents.

  Dan N
  RD: Thanks Dan, but what you're saying is that if Rhun and Khand BOTH go DS, then Rhun is viable. That's a lot different to saying that Rhun can stand alone if Khand is hostile or dropped.

  It was bad decision by GSI to split the Easterlings -already one of the weaker neutrals - into two even weaker nations for 2950.

  Richard.

  >If you're playing against sufficiently weak
  opponents, you can do well
  in any position.
  >I've run a
  dark Rhun and done just fine - but we had a fine team
  and the other
  one really struggled.
  few turns.
  >The real test is how a position fares against
  competent opposition.

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: D N
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 7:29 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Rhuns

  __________________________________
  Do you Yahoo!?
  New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
  http://photos.yahoo.com/

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
       
  Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

#30

Also, Khand is a strong nation; Khand+Rhun *should* be able to

  > cause the free terrible problems in the east. In fact, I've
  > seen the Khand overcome the NM, Rhun, and Dwarfs combined - all by
  > themselves. They can be an insanely rich HC-in-steel factory
  > nation. I managed to burn everything from the BS backup to the QA
  > backup as a free Khand - *that* is a nation that I respect (on my
  > side) and fear (on the other side). A skilled player can indeed, as
  > you describe, do a lot in any position. Ideally you'd like to see
  > five neutrals, all distinct and with an interesting twist to them.
  >
  > Richard has a point - bringing back Harad and consolidating the
  > easterlings would give 2950 five interesting neutrals and expand the
  > strategy relative to 1650. The White Wizard is *far* better than sad
  > old Rhuduar :slight_smile:
  >
  > Marc
  >
  >
  > --- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, Darrell Shimel
  > <threeedgedsword35@y...> wrote:
  > >
  > > --- D N <nanooknw@y...> wrote:
  > > > Marc, G221 does suggest that it's possible to play a
  > > > DS Rhun even against a competent FP, whom no one
  > > > would
  > > > describe as "struggling."
  > > >
  > > > The declaration/launch of Khand and Rhun against the
  > > > Northmen wiped out nearby FP forces, and delayed
  > > > arrival of more by blowing the bridges and flooding
  > > > the Dwarf capital with agents.
  > >
  > > On what turn did this attack on the Northmen take
  > > place. If it was after GT5, then the FP were remiss
  > > in not eliminating Rhun before this.
  > >
  > > It sucks to be Rhun and have the FP show up on GT4
  > > with a "join us or die" ultimatum. From the FP side,
  > > this must be done to prevent exactly what you
  > > describe.
  > >
  > >
  > > __________________________________
  > > Do you Yahoo!?
  > > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
  > > http://photos.yahoo.com/
  >
  >
  >
  > Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  > To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  > Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
  >
  >
  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  >
  >

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
  Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: R.K.Floyd
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 6:32 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Rhuns

  <<Richard has a point - bringing back Harad and consolidating the
  easterlings would give 2950 five interesting neutrals and expand the
  strategy relative to 1650.>>

  Bringing Harad back would also force the Corsair players to not be so
  pompous and self-absorbed. We talk about Rhun being so bad . . . on the
  other hand, Corsairs are almost too good!! They have perhaps the strongest
  economy in 2950 and no fear of early knockout. . . the QA can't take him
  out, and the Gondors would do so at the peril of being overrun by Mordor in
  their own lands.

  That, or the Cors/harad player would just team up every game like the WW /
  Duns.

  Russ
  RD: It doesn't happen -every- time. I've know Harad players - well one at least! - who make a point of attacking Cor.

  Anyway, Harad and Cor combining is 'historically' correct! If you don't like it, and your diplomacy is not up to keeping them apart (:-)) the best way to avoid such an alliance is to play a game using pre-aligned neutrals. I've never yet seen them on the same side when this is done.

  Richard.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "marc_pinsonneault" <pinsonneault.1@osu.edu>
  To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
  Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 12:53 PM
  Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Rhuns

#31

imho If the neutrals in a game are worth their salt

  > they will jump all over whatever side jumps one of
  > theirs. The tactics of forcing the Rhun or any other
  > nation to make a decision stinks! It is unfair to the
  > premise of the game and to the player you are jumping.
  >
  > That said, the jumped nation should go right ahead and
  > join the side that forced them in. They can make a
  > great road block to whatever efforts that team puts
  > forth. :wink:
  >
  > Also, as a player in 221 the Rhun and Khand decisions
  > have made for an exciting game! As a member of the
  > free team I'm very happy with the decision NOT to
  > FORCE the Rhun to join us. It has forced us to do
  > things differently than the "usual" and is making for
  > one of the best games in recent memory. As a matter
  > of fact this is the first game I've been in that has
  > gone up to 20+ turns in years! And I was on the
  > winning side in four out of five during this time
  > frame.
  >
  > If you want to have fun in ME gaming then go with the
  > flow of the game and learn how to recruit neutrals or
  > learn how to defend against them when they don't go
  > your way. Don't force them to make a decision. It
  > just make enemies in and out of the game and doesn't
  > make it fun for the person being forced.
  >
  > JCC
  >
  >
  > --- Darrell Shimel <threeedgedsword35@yahoo.com>
  > wrote:
  > >
  > > > Marc, G221 does suggest that it's possible to play
  > > a
  > > > DS Rhun even against a competent FP, whom no one
  > > > would
  > > > describe as "struggling."
  > > >
  > > > The declaration/launch of Khand and Rhun against
  > > the
  > > > Northmen wiped out nearby FP forces, and delayed
  > > > arrival of more by blowing the bridges and
  > > flooding
  > > > the Dwarf capital with agents.
  > >
  > > On what turn did this attack on the Northmen take
  > > place. If it was after GT5, then the FP were remiss
  > > in not eliminating Rhun before this.
  > >
  > > It sucks to be Rhun and have the FP show up on GT4
  > > with a "join us or die" ultimatum. From the FP side,
  > > this must be done to prevent exactly what you
  > > describe.
  > >
  > >
  > > __________________________________
  > > Do you Yahoo!?
  > > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
  > > http://photos.yahoo.com/
  > >
  >
  >
  > __________________________________
  > Do you Yahoo!?
  > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
  > http://photos.yahoo.com/
  >
  >
  > Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  > To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  > Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
  >
  >
  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  >
  >

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
  Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: R.K.Floyd
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 6:46 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Rhuns

  I'm not sure I agree. I used to have the same policy as yours . . . I'd get
  very upset if someone on my team suggested "pushing" a neutral. However,
  I'm getting tired of seeing neutrals sit and sit and build and build and
  then join the winning side. It really burns me when we've put a lot of
  effort into winning them, the game isn't going well for us, and they jump to
  the other side around turn 14 - 16 and finish us off and win the game. Many
  times, I find them to be more than a little arrogant as well. Their actions
  whisper "We can screw the game up for you if you don't do everything we
  want." I admit that I now get a little guilty-pleasure-grin when I see them
  not get their way.

  Yes, I play neutrals myself. I'd like to think I'm not that bad to deal
  with, though. I make a quick decision, join early, ask for no "bribes",
  and help out the team as much as I can. I usually end up giving tons and
  receiving nothing. That's how it should be . . I got to sit around and
  build up for 5 - 7 turns, unlike my teammates.

  -Russ
  RD: Everything hinges on the attitude of the guy playing the neutral. Like you, I hate the selfish b*s who jump on the winning bandwagon. However it's very fustrating to get really good communication going with a neutral, and have him turn round and say, 'look I really like you guys, but you've got two neutrals on your side already, you're winning the game, so just for game balance I'm gonna join the other team even though they hardly talk to me.'

  The sentiment is right - he joins the losing team in an attempt to make a better game of it - but as I say, it's still frustrating!

  Gimme pre-aligned neuts every time - it saves a lot of time and effort and everybody knows where they stand from turn 0.

  Richard.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "John Choules" <chuck_john_61853@yahoo.com>
  To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
  Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 12:59 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Rhuns

  > > --- D N <nanooknw@yahoo.com> wrote:

#32

I can't argue with you, Richard. I've fallen in love with pre-aligned
grudge games since first trying them last year.

Russ

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "richard devereux" <rd@pagan-47.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Rhuns

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: R.K.Floyd
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 6:46 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Rhuns

  I'm not sure I agree. I used to have the same policy as yours . . . I'd

get

  very upset if someone on my team suggested "pushing" a neutral.

However,

  I'm getting tired of seeing neutrals sit and sit and build and build and
  then join the winning side. It really burns me when we've put a lot of
  effort into winning them, the game isn't going well for us, and they

jump to

  the other side around turn 14 - 16 and finish us off and win the game.

Many

  times, I find them to be more than a little arrogant as well. Their

actions

  whisper "We can screw the game up for you if you don't do everything we
  want." I admit that I now get a little guilty-pleasure-grin when I see

them

  not get their way.

  Yes, I play neutrals myself. I'd like to think I'm not that bad to deal
  with, though. I make a quick decision, join early, ask for no

"bribes",

  and help out the team as much as I can. I usually end up giving tons and
  receiving nothing. That's how it should be . . I got to sit around and
  build up for 5 - 7 turns, unlike my teammates.

  -Russ
  RD: Everything hinges on the attitude of the guy playing the neutral.

Like you, I hate the selfish b*s who jump on the winning bandwagon. However
it's very fustrating to get really good communication going with a neutral,
and have him turn round and say, 'look I really like you guys, but you've
got two neutrals on your side already, you're winning the game, so just for
game balance I'm gonna join the other team even though they hardly talk to
me.'

  The sentiment is right - he joins the losing team in an attempt to make

a better game of it - but as I say, it's still frustrating!

  Gimme pre-aligned neuts every time - it saves a lot of time and effort

and everybody knows where they stand from turn 0.

  Richard.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "John Choules" <chuck_john_61853@yahoo.com>
  To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
  Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 12:59 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Rhuns

  > imho If the neutrals in a game are worth their salt
  > they will jump all over whatever side jumps one of
  > theirs. The tactics of forcing the Rhun or any other
  > nation to make a decision stinks! It is unfair to the
  > premise of the game and to the player you are jumping.
  >
  > That said, the jumped nation should go right ahead and
  > join the side that forced them in. They can make a
  > great road block to whatever efforts that team puts
  > forth. :wink:
  >
  > Also, as a player in 221 the Rhun and Khand decisions
  > have made for an exciting game! As a member of the
  > free team I'm very happy with the decision NOT to
  > FORCE the Rhun to join us. It has forced us to do
  > things differently than the "usual" and is making for
  > one of the best games in recent memory. As a matter
  > of fact this is the first game I've been in that has
  > gone up to 20+ turns in years! And I was on the
  > winning side in four out of five during this time
  > frame.
  >
  > If you want to have fun in ME gaming then go with the
  > flow of the game and learn how to recruit neutrals or
  > learn how to defend against them when they don't go
  > your way. Don't force them to make a decision. It
  > just make enemies in and out of the game and doesn't
  > make it fun for the person being forced.
  >
  > JCC
  >
  >
  > --- Darrell Shimel <threeedgedsword35@yahoo.com>
  > wrote:
  > >
  > > --- D N <nanooknw@yahoo.com> wrote:
  > > > Marc, G221 does suggest that it's possible to play
  > > a
  > > > DS Rhun even against a competent FP, whom no one
  > > > would
  > > > describe as "struggling."
  > > >
  > > > The declaration/launch of Khand and Rhun against
  > > the
  > > > Northmen wiped out nearby FP forces, and delayed
  > > > arrival of more by blowing the bridges and
  > > flooding
  > > > the Dwarf capital with agents.
  > >
  > > On what turn did this attack on the Northmen take
  > > place. If it was after GT5, then the FP were remiss
  > > in not eliminating Rhun before this.
  > >
  > > It sucks to be Rhun and have the FP show up on GT4
  > > with a "join us or die" ultimatum. From the FP side,
  > > this must be done to prevent exactly what you
  > > describe.
  > >
  > >
  > > __________________________________
  > > Do you Yahoo!?
  > > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
  > > http://photos.yahoo.com/
  > >
  >
  >
  > __________________________________
  > Do you Yahoo!?
  > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
  > http://photos.yahoo.com/
  >
  >
  > Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  > To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  > Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
  >
  >
  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

  >
  >

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT

  Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#33

10 vs 10 ruels.
Drop the "neutral"

David Clemmensen

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: R.K.Floyd
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 8:53 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Rhuns

  I can't argue with you, Richard. I've fallen in love with pre-aligned
  grudge games since first trying them last year.

  Russ

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "richard devereux" <rd@pagan-47.fsnet.co.uk>
  To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
  Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 1:35 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Rhuns

  >
  > ----- Original Message -----
  > From: R.K.Floyd
  > To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  > Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 6:46 PM
  > Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Rhuns
  >
  >
  > I'm not sure I agree. I used to have the same policy as yours . . . I'd
  get
  > very upset if someone on my team suggested "pushing" a neutral.
  However,
  > I'm getting tired of seeing neutrals sit and sit and build and build and
  > then join the winning side. It really burns me when we've put a lot of
  > effort into winning them, the game isn't going well for us, and they
  jump to
  > the other side around turn 14 - 16 and finish us off and win the game.
  Many
  > times, I find them to be more than a little arrogant as well. Their
  actions
  > whisper "We can screw the game up for you if you don't do everything we
  > want." I admit that I now get a little guilty-pleasure-grin when I see
  them
  > not get their way.
  >
  >
  > Yes, I play neutrals myself. I'd like to think I'm not that bad to deal
  > with, though. I make a quick decision, join early, ask for no
  "bribes",
  > and help out the team as much as I can. I usually end up giving tons and
  > receiving nothing. That's how it should be . . I got to sit around and
  > build up for 5 - 7 turns, unlike my teammates.
  >
  > -Russ
  > RD: Everything hinges on the attitude of the guy playing the neutral.
  Like you, I hate the selfish b*s who jump on the winning bandwagon. However
  it's very fustrating to get really good communication going with a neutral,
  and have him turn round and say, 'look I really like you guys, but you've
  got two neutrals on your side already, you're winning the game, so just for
  game balance I'm gonna join the other team even though they hardly talk to
  me.'
  >
  > The sentiment is right - he joins the losing team in an attempt to make
  a better game of it - but as I say, it's still frustrating!
  >
  > Gimme pre-aligned neuts every time - it saves a lot of time and effort
  and everybody knows where they stand from turn 0.
  >
  > Richard.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > ----- Original Message -----
  > From: "John Choules" <chuck_john_61853@yahoo.com>
  > To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
  > Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 12:59 PM
  > Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Rhuns
  >
  >
  > > imho If the neutrals in a game are worth their salt
  > > they will jump all over whatever side jumps one of
  > > theirs. The tactics of forcing the Rhun or any other
  > > nation to make a decision stinks! It is unfair to the
  > > premise of the game and to the player you are jumping.
  > >
  > > That said, the jumped nation should go right ahead and
  > > join the side that forced them in. They can make a
  > > great road block to whatever efforts that team puts
  > > forth. :wink:
  > >
  > > Also, as a player in 221 the Rhun and Khand decisions
  > > have made for an exciting game! As a member of the
  > > free team I'm very happy with the decision NOT to
  > > FORCE the Rhun to join us. It has forced us to do
  > > things differently than the "usual" and is making for
  > > one of the best games in recent memory. As a matter
  > > of fact this is the first game I've been in that has
  > > gone up to 20+ turns in years! And I was on the
  > > winning side in four out of five during this time
  > > frame.
  > >
  > > If you want to have fun in ME gaming then go with the
  > > flow of the game and learn how to recruit neutrals or
  > > learn how to defend against them when they don't go
  > > your way. Don't force them to make a decision. It
  > > just make enemies in and out of the game and doesn't
  > > make it fun for the person being forced.
  > >
  > > JCC
  > >
  > >
  > > --- Darrell Shimel <threeedgedsword35@yahoo.com>
  > > wrote:
  > > >
  > > > --- D N <nanooknw@yahoo.com> wrote:
  > > > > Marc, G221 does suggest that it's possible to play
  > > > a
  > > > > DS Rhun even against a competent FP, whom no one
  > > > > would
  > > > > describe as "struggling."
  > > > >
  > > > > The declaration/launch of Khand and Rhun against
  > > > the
  > > > > Northmen wiped out nearby FP forces, and delayed
  > > > > arrival of more by blowing the bridges and
  > > > flooding
  > > > > the Dwarf capital with agents.
  > > >
  > > > On what turn did this attack on the Northmen take
  > > > place. If it was after GT5, then the FP were remiss
  > > > in not eliminating Rhun before this.
  > > >
  > > > It sucks to be Rhun and have the FP show up on GT4
  > > > with a "join us or die" ultimatum. From the FP side,
  > > > this must be done to prevent exactly what you
  > > > describe.
  > > >
  > > >
  > > > __________________________________
  > > > Do you Yahoo!?
  > > > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
  > > > http://photos.yahoo.com/
  > > >
  > >
  > >
  > > __________________________________
  > > Do you Yahoo!?
  > > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
  > > http://photos.yahoo.com/
  > >
  > >
  > > Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  > > To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  > > Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
  > >
  > >
  > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  > >
  > >
  >
  >
  >
  > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
  > ADVERTISEMENT
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  > To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  > Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
  >
  >
  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
  >
  >
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >
  >
  >
  > Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  > To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  > Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
  >
  >
  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  >
  >

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
  Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

#34

  Anyway, Harad and Cor combining is 'historically' correct! If you don't like it, and your diplomacy is not up to keeping them apart (:-)) the best way to avoid such an alliance is to play a game using pre-aligned neutrals. I've never yet seen them on the same side when this is done.

It's an option that we could do this for a 1650 game where the nations are aligned at game start. We'd probably try it without the extra charge that normally we charge for this. Would there be enough players interested? 12v12 no Easterlings fort on 4217 and 1910 as per the normal WC rules.

Cor & Dun FP
Har & Rhud DS

I'd be happy to put in the +10 to any stat (no stealth, nor any stat raised above 40, if Mage then no extra spell) as a tester.

Clint

#35

The problem is the scale of the unbalancing effect that neutral
declarations can have. Richard will remember the game we played when 4
neutrals declared against us (the 5th dropping) because they thought we
were a good team! It rather took the shine off the first 10 turns work of
hard fighting and diligent communication with them.

I don't think I've ever heard any historian argue anything other than the
view that America's eventual entry into both world wars, was anything other
than decisive. But while super-power neutrals might me true to RL, they're
not good for achieving a sporting wargame. The more I think about it, the
more I think that Rhu and RhE are _good_ examples of what neutral nations
should be like. If there were 5 little guys like this, it would be more
reasonable to consider smacking them early, or threatening them, there'd
still be the option of wooing them, and the consequence of failing, and
having them declare against you, would be a set back, rather than something
that leaves players feeling the game has been spoiled.

mefacesmo.gif
     Laurence G.Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

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

···

At 18:35 10/12/2003, richard devereux wrote:

However it's very fustrating to get really good communication going with a
neutral, and have him turn round and say, 'look I really like you guys,
but you've got two neutrals on your side already, you're winning the game,
so just for game balance I'm gonna join the other team even though they
hardly talk to me.'

  The sentiment is right - he joins the losing team in an attempt to make
a better game of it - but as I say, it's still frustrating!

  Gimme pre-aligned neuts every time - it saves a lot of time and effort
and everybody knows where they stand from turn 0.

#36

  From: R.K.Floyd
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 6:32 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Rhuns

  <<Richard has a point - bringing back Harad and consolidating the
  easterlings would give 2950 five interesting neutrals and expand the
  strategy relative to 1650.>>

  Bringing Harad back would also force the Corsair players to not be so
  pompous and self-absorbed. We talk about Rhun being so bad . .

. on the

  other hand, Corsairs are almost too good!! They have perhaps the

strongest

  economy in 2950 and no fear of early knockout. . . the QA can't

take him

  out, and the Gondors would do so at the peril of being overrun by

Mordor in

  their own lands.

  That, or the Cors/harad player would just team up every game like

the WW /

  Duns.

  Russ
  RD: It doesn't happen -every- time. I've know Harad players -

well one at least! - who make a point of attacking Cor.

  Anyway, Harad and Cor combining is 'historically' correct! If you

don't like it, and your diplomacy is not up to keeping them apart
(:-)) the best way to avoid such an alliance is to play a game using
pre-aligned neutrals. I've never yet seen them on the same side
when this is done.

  Richard.

Anyways, a Harad/Corsair duo against a WW/Dun duo would be
interesting. This is 2950, not 1650, so the starting economic
base and armies wouldn't be insanely large.

Basically, either the two pairs against one another or the two pairs
split would make for interesting games.

Marc

···

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, "richard devereux" <rd@p...> wrote:

  ----- Original Message -----

#37

  Anyway, Harad and Cor combining is 'historically' correct! If you
don't like it, and your diplomacy is not up to keeping them apart (:-))
the best way to avoid such an alliance is to play a game using
pre-aligned neutrals. I've never yet seen them on the same side when
this is done.

It's an option that we could do this for a 1650 game where the nations are
aligned at game start. We'd probably try it without the extra charge that
normally we charge for this. Would there be enough players
interested? 12v12 no Easterlings fort on 4217 and 1910 as per the normal
WC rules.

Cor & Dun FP
Har & Rhud DS

I'd be happy to put in the +10 to any stat (no stealth, nor any stat raised
above 40, if Mage then no extra spell) as a tester.

Clint

RD: Good stuff Clint - let's hope we get some takers.

But, how about shuffling the ex-neuts around a bit to make it more interesting? Eg,

Har & Dun FP
Cor & Rhu DS which balances the naval side of things better; or

Cor & Dun FP
Eas & Rhu DS (drop Har) - just to be different! Or

Cor & Har on one side, Dun, Rhu & Eas on the other - the two superpowers v the 3 lesser ex-neuts! Whichever way this was played, it would call for some major changes in strategy by both sides. Anybody else bold enough to go where no ME player has been before? :slight_smile:

Richard.

      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            ADVERTISEMENT
           
Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

#38

I prefer not to change too much in any one go.

Clint

RD: Good stuff Clint - let's hope we get some takers.

···

But, how about shuffling the ex-neuts around a bit to make it more interesting? Eg,

#39

Laurence G. Tilley wrote:

Neutrals you know, are not good guys.

Well said. It's my new ME mantra.

Dan

···

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

#40

I prefer not to change too much in any one go.

  Clint
  RD: I wasn't asking you to make -more- changes, just offering some different ones for consideration,

  Richard.

  RD: Good stuff Clint - let's hope we get some takers.

  >But, how about shuffling the ex-neuts around a bit to make it more
  >interesting? Eg,

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
  Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: ME Games Ltd
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 11:25 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Rhuns