Why is it that gamers playing in Tolkien’s 4th Age setting would find a 5 player neutral team such a threat as to unite 18 nations of sworn enemies to fight this minority threat?
I mean we could have 18 nations of orcs and elves working together to destroy mankind.
Am I the only one that finds this somehow wrong when compared to humans inheriting Middle Earth, as JRR himself intended?
Why the stigma against neutrals?
Why not cooperate with and use the neutrals to affirm your own agenda?
I mean look at the win % posted by Clint.
I think a team should be worrying about the enemy and not the 13%.
I believe that players are very in the mindset of a two way war that if something new appears (like a neutral alliance) then the other sides think they need to remove this new thing so that they can get on with their little two way war. Probably the best thing is to have a proper three way war 8 vs 8 vs 9 for a true three way game.
Gavin
Hey Joe,
I am certain that in some Fourth Age scenarios a neutral team that is trying to win as a team get the hammer rather than the enemy of my enemy is my friend approach. To be blunt, there are three ways this kind of setup will end.
-
The UNANNOUNCED neutral team that plays as the ends (free or DS ) against the middle while building up for a strong blow against both alliances is viewed as an ‘unbalancing’ threat to the teams already declared by allegiance choice at the beginning of the game. The real issue is that the aligned nations are led to believe they can recruit the ‘neutrals’ as in 3rd Age into their collective and gain allies. When they figure out they cannot, they either a) overreact and kill all the neutrals so that no doubt remains or
b) feel betrayed by the ‘neutrals’ they have been wooing and again force the issue of allegiance choice with the sword rather than the word. -
The ANNOUNCED neutral team is mixed up in a crazy three way dance that for some is unacceptable due to predilections of how the game is supposed to be played and decided and so they either draw the ire of both remaining teams or they side up with one or the other and kill the third for the classic one vs. one that everyone seems comfortable with. Note this is also the most expedient method of giving one’s alliance, whichever icon it has, the decided advantage.
-
The ANNOUNCED neutral team lucks out and a true three way dance ensues where the battle royale is running amok in Middle Earth.
Many folks complain that the battle royale is not adhering to the Tolkein thought pattern as the neutrals were decidedly not neutral. They were neutral in that they had to be bought or cajoled into service, rather than on principle. I think it is bunk that folks cannot get past the necessity to make the GAME fun. It is, after all, a game and can be manipulated to suit the broader audience as the inevitable commercial aspects become a strong part of the driving force behind innovation and ugghh change.
To put to rest a final issue without turning this into a rehash of previous events, a neutral team that follows the pattern of “I am recruitable” when it becomes obvious that they are in fact NOT recruitable forces the other players in the game to look at the reality of a three way battle after which the neutral team looks to be in the stronger position given the facts that the Free and DS have spent the better part of their economies and troops and character efforts against one foe while a sleeping giant is looming nearby. The decision to “gang up” against the perceived stronger opponent is purely a reaction against elimination. I think this applauds the power of the neutral if properly played. And keeping in mind that many times not everyone in the game feels a coalition against one icon is the best move still leaves room for further fissures in the team structure that well chosen words and acts may cause a break in the dam of truces.
As an aside, I am all for a “true” free for all in fourth age where a nation can have whatever allies he is able to recruit to his banner. The notion that every DS nation or whatever must work with all the other DS nations to the extent of sharing resources, sharing files, joining the groupsite, and so on is purely an “in the box” reaction due to experience in other scenarios and notably this does NOT have to be the case in Fourth Age. A DS can attack another DS if he wants to. The fact that the rest of the DS will probably be more in the 3rd age mindset and take this as a betrayal is something to bear in mind when contemplating such a move. I have played as a DS with Free and neutral neighbors as allies, and yes later on the Neutral “betrayed” us and killed me… my fault for not allowing that contingency.
At any rate, I hope my viewpoint helps you Joe to understand that not everyone is ready for a neutral neighbor to not be a recruitable neighbor. While I have no issue in the cloak and dagger, one must be ready to face the music once the “gig is up” and the fat lady starts her warmups.
all the best,
jerry roberts
game 40 Freep
game 45 DS…still waiting on my turn !
Joe, you may email me privately to continue this conversation off the boards if you choose to… I will be happy to expound more…(((Thanks to Ernie Hakey III for teaching me the value of the typed word…lol)))
All good points. I could indeed see myself reacting to the game that way.
The cloak and dagger is needed for the mere survival of any dream of victory for a neutral win. Otherwise nation relations alone puts neutrals at a disadvantage.
I do not speak specifically but rather wish to open discussion. I want to understand from other players and other games from multiple experiences.
Are there any trends or is neutral victory such a small niche as to not be visible?
Here here! I would love another 3 way battle if there’s sufficient interest. Tried to put one of these togther sometime ago but it folded as I suppose I was not that adept a salesman.
Any of the old and new 4th Age players fancy another 3-way?
Greg
Im your Huckleberry!
Count me in.
jerry roberts
This came up recently. To get this game off the ground you’re going (IMO) need to get friends and allies joined up to the game. The other option is to have a 2 nation per player rule (upto 2 nations per player) I’d say. I hope this comes across as trying to help out.
Clint (GM)
What about a game 45 rematch where everybody knows the score from the start!
Adam
DN
Grudge matchs such as suggested really favor the aligned nations still … Due to nuetrals not being able to have pc’s in mountains… Some may not consider this signficant … But after playing many years I consider this a tremendous disadvantage. Steel is the Key resource in all Me games … What side actaully utilizes it for other than a gold comodity…
Leads back to the starter thread… If nuetrals are all so powerful in FA you would think they would win over 10% of the games… I am quite sure it’s way less than that. So why Fp/ds teamup… I call it the harad syndrome… Harad has the highiest winning percentage in 1650 so all us expierenced players think of harad on turn 12 march 5000 HC st/st and destroying the opposing side to win the game for whatever side he joins… We carry this belief over into 1000 and view all nuetrals having this kind of power… So today it’ s nearly impossible for free nuetrals to team up and create a new Team 3rd nuetral team and expect any chance to win… Nuetral team Have nearly 0 chance to win… in Game 45 it was 9v9v7 that means each nuetral had 18 downgrades alone compared to the aligned 9 and an 18 v 7 advantage . So unless some real changes are made I believe no nuetral team will ever win in 1000 again unless it’s a grudge match… The change that must be made before I will ever try for nuetral team win is every position including the nuetral be able to have pc’s in mountain hex’s.
Terry
Terry I think that you’re talking at cross purposes. For normal games Neutrals have some disadvantages but IMO many advantages (which I’ve gone into before). For the 3 way game you get downgrades to opposition (and upgrades to your own allegiance) as appropriate so it’s a proper 3 way game. A study of the hexes showed that H&R have the highest product/gold production so therefore the most useful.
As for what’s the best commodity that’s a different discussion altogether. As to why Neuts only win sometimes - well they are at a disadvantage in some terms as players will often perceive them as a threat (as described above) so they are more hunted down I’d guess. As a player I never trust a Neutral until he’s aligned to my side (whether that be turn 12 for Neutrals or normally).: Clint player Doesn’t mean that I won’t interact with them - I think it’s an essential part of the game!
For the game 45 re-match some of the opposition didn’t want to re-play. Can you chat to your team-mates and ask if they’re up for playing as a team together again - if we can get 2 of the teams I think it’s likely that you can get a 3rd team. Chat to the team co-ordinators to see what you can get sorted there I’d suggest. (Or ask me).
Clint (GM)
Clint
I am in total aggrement with if you get lucky enough to get steel in hills and rough the production rates will be higher than mountians… becuase hills and rough produce all resources except mithril… As a nuetral your better off sucking up as many mountain hex’s as possible becuase 3 of every 4 will produce steel and the numbers of hills and rough producing steel is less than 50% chance…
As a nuetral when your faced with possibility of 2 on 1 disadvantage through game . Then add in some Regions you simply cannot even take some regions at all becuase to many mountain hex’s. This gives both the DS and FP the whole map for setups and the nuetrals some of the pooriest resource production wise…
An aligned nation taking the mountain regions of mordor can place not only has the defensive value of having to have food just to enter the hex. Movement is automatically halted… great setup for agent kills… there troops are twice as likely to have steel armor… While the nuetral may get an extra MT and yes fortified up to a fort… Fort in FA just really stop army movement becuase most nations have war machines to nuetralize them down to towers or to bare MT’s. This is a huge disadvantage…
I think it’s hard to envision the pure challenge of playing a nuetral well in FA enviroment… Having played 1650 nuetrals and FA nuetrals … 1650 nuetrals are much better off … Games I have done best in was always aligned in 1000 hands down…
Sorry getting longwinded for forum…
As for grudge Fa … I may need a break from FA for awhile on my part… Particularly nuetrals it’s strees me out :eek:
Terry
Now, havent you changed your tune!! Its what me and Joel already said
and which you so BITTERLY disagreed with. Can you be taken seriously?
Note Neutral teams have won 13% of normal games, compared with DS 33%. Now if you’re saying they should be equal chance to FP/DS/Neutral then I see it more as an option for Neutrals to win in one of two ways, Aligned to a normal team or making their own way. I’m reasonably happy with the way it is at present. I think, like any game, you need 5 players focussed on a team win, good diplomacy etc and that will certainly help to get the game going in the direction you want it to… 
Clint
Yes becuase I constantly running into players with your Ineptness in FA thinking they are good enough to handle 2 or 3 on 1 solo which is a requirement for a nuetral team win… Without question after turn 8 when no nuetral has joined a an aligned side both alliances will team up on all the nuetrals regaurdless of how pleasant the diplos are…
The 2 Kingdoms in particular will always come under severe fire before turn 12 in all cases… As proven in game 45 you are not ready for the challenge required by a player staying Nuetral as SK…
I’ve way more experience in ME then you
have. Take a look at your ME Acct number its 109xxxx while mine is 102xxx,
that a good few years difference in experience.
You FORGET something, only 2 of the neutrals achieved their objectives in 45.
The Blackwater and SK, the rest of the team didnt achieve jack s**t. You
guys were the INCOMPETENT players and me and Joel were not willing
to die for players like you in both the your playing ability and as people.
Out of your mouth constantly streams untruths and falsehoods; you say
any player in a neutral team should be able to handle 2-3 players. You
LIE, SK and Blackwater were facing 5-6 nations NOT 2-3 due to incompetence of the rest of the neutral team. The rest of you were having
major problems facing 1-2 players. Very pathetic for a grown man.
The ONLY thing you were right in when you said ‘players don’t like me
after playing games with me’… Very true but thats down to your inflated
ego and personality.
Where are you in the FPS??? You are nowhere. Says it ALL
acct# mean anything about player skill… just to let you know this is my second account number…
Yes those Players in gm 45 feared your PRS rating so much they ganged up on you from fear PRS rating and your account number;)
Lol, I ****ed up by joining the neutral team and then realised it was the
totally wrong choice for reasons I’ve gone into already. Everyone makes
mistakes its how we learn from them is the important issue.
Hey you two, please stick to the topic and stop attacking each other. And no, I’m not looking for excuses or any kind of reasoning, I’m looking ot see this thread get back on topic before I start erasing posts that have nothing to do with the topic.
Perhaps a new thread titled “Guy vs. Terry” or something would be more appropriate.
well my acct begins 101 and my PRS ratings are good even without the horde of games that weren’t included. Your points are guys??? it means nothing I’m constantly being impressed by a newbies intuitive ideas. This game is about new ideas and adpating, not ratings and length of play. Of course there are safe ways to play but who wants a chess match when not actually playing chess?
Im with Clint. I rarely fully trust a neutral. It is difficult to not trust allies from other games though in that situation…Have played a few FA gamesa and they always turn out differently… A neutral team, better to declare it at start at least then its complete war and not a game of ‘maybe diplomacy’ IMO.