A sample of two games is probably not significant
but does suggest you are at least sometimes wrong.
In my first game we had a 4-1 split against us. Two
neutrals were decided by one attacking the other and
us coming to the victem's support. Not too long
afterwards the three southern neutrals announced they
were going against us 'to balance the game', despite
telling us we have been the better diplomats.
In my 2nd game one nation, the Corsairs, again told
us we had done best in trying to recruit them.
However he had decided before the start of the game,
he wanted to do one particular thing, so he had
decided to 'sell his soul to Sauron', his words, from
turn 1. We never found out what this was as a couple
of turns later he declared he had lost interest and
was dropping. As he had already switched icons this
was rather too late however.
Steve
Message: 11
···
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 02:49:14 +0100
From: "Laurence G. Tilley" <lgtilley@morespeed.net>
Subject: Re: Re: Loss of diplomacy
At 02:10 29/09/2005, Steve wrote:
As for MEG/Clint I don't think he is trying to get
rid of
neutrals. I do know he has told me in emails that he
believes that
the neutral swing decides a majority of the games.
Please correct me
if I am wrong about this Clint.
In my opinion if the swing of neutrals does decide
many of the games
then that is a flaw in game design and perhaps should
be mitigated.
I think the game should be decided by the skill of
the 20 non-
neutral players with otherwise those 20 are getting
shafted for
their money.
I think he did say something along those lines once,
and as I said
then, I think that, at least in that form of words, he
is wrong. In
any case, it's a cause and effect thing, you cannot
prove whether
a) the neutrals' declarations decide the outcome of
the game or
b) the direction of the game decides the neutral's
declarations
If as an allegiance team, you play a blinder of an
early game,
communicate well with the neutrals, and persuade and
begin to
demonstrate to them that you are "the boyz who can go
the distance",
then it's likely that a majority of them will join
you. They then
obviously increase the probability that your momentum
towards victory
becomes a charge. It's the assertion of bitter
defeated enemies to
then say, that you won it because the neutrals
declared for you. The
neutrals helped you win, because the neutrals saw you
as potential
winners.
There are a handful of "equalisers" out there. People
who like to
play neutrals and join the side that appears weakest.
But by and
large, people play the game and like to win. In all
my games as a
neutral in the last few years, the choice has always
been between a
side that seems that they might win, and a side that
strikes me as
_not_deserving_ to win. In every case it's been
decide against the
allegiance who's communication is weak. And in every
case, at least
one allegiance has qualified.
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
In my first game we had a 4-1 split against us. Two
neutrals were decided by one attacking the other and
us coming to the victem's support. Not too long
afterwards the three southern neutrals announced they
were going against us 'to balance the game', despite
telling us we have been the better diplomats.
Yes, as I said you sometimes get "equalisers". Actually here you
have a neutral alliance being influenced by an "equaliser". Not much
fun. I like to win, but I would probably not go so far as to join a
neutral alliance. On the other hand, I've a couple of times tried to
wage a "private war" against one neutral. If you'd have come in to
help a neutral in a private war (even if it was not my private war)
it would have inclined me very much against you.
In my 2nd game one nation, the Corsairs, again told
us we had done best in trying to recruit them.
However he had decided before the start of the game,
he wanted to do one particular thing, so he had
decided to 'sell his soul to Sauron', his words, from
turn 1. We never found out what this was as a couple
of turns later he declared he had lost interest and
was dropping. As he had already switched icons this
was rather too late however.
Yeah I was in a game where all the neutrals (4, one dropped) went
against us because we were the best team in their opinion. We went
on to win anyway. The neutral declarations do not decide the game,
they just influence it. Perhaps I should have said that most
neutrals _usually_ join the best team. There are exceptions.
Neutrals move for various reasons, players are people and they have varying motivations as life comes at them. People are difficult to deal with, it has nothing to do with their designation as "Neutral" or "Allegiance" player...
Ever have a Dwarf "ally" wander around using Bain (with all artifacts) improving pops once his emissary rank got up while the FP burned? Do people routinely call for Clint to do something about the Dwarves? Ever have a Noldo insist Elladan and Elrohir lead armies only to have them both die in seperate overrun incidents while he never learns to stop going where the enemy character WAS with his Ring of Wind agent, but to go where the enemy character is most likely to BE? Clint! Please do away with the Noldo! They just make the game worse! Every have a Long Rider ally sit on a Northmen camp with Din Ohtar and all the artifacts simply Refuse and Scout for Characters every turn? Clint! Do something about the agent artifacts! Ever have a Fire King retire armies and name mages on turn 1? Clint! Have Automagic disallow certain orders by nation!
Neutrals will go to the better team to win.
Neutrals will go to the worse team to prolong the game.
Neutrals will go to the team who communicates more.
Neutrals will join their friends when found on allegiances.
Neutrals will start prealigned because they "always wanted to try this..."
etc, etc....
Allegiance players will work in lock step with the team.
Allegiance players will demand everyone do what they want or cry and go home.
Allegiance players will ignore the team and do what they damn well please.
Allegiance players will play one way with one nation in one game and do something totally different, simply for the sake of doing something totally different, the next time.
People are people. If you can't deal with them, don't, there's games for you to play. But don't try to tell people what they "should" or "should not" do or be. It's all too much fun, really, to get so disjointed about...!
Regards,
Brad
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I've played many neutral nations and have picked sides
for many different reasons... Because 1 side was
clearly better organized, becasuse 1 side had people I
wanted to play with, because 1 side had people I did
NOT want to play with, because I wanted to show haow
easy the PRS could be manipulated, because I wanted to
try a certain strategy, to balance a game, because I
was attacked, etc....
Every game is different. You plunk down your money
and you takes your chances.
