Only SK and Blackwater achieved their objectives? Don’t speak to loud. Occitan Kingdom was the first Neutral nation to destroy his enemy (Great Ones) bankrupted the 3rd turn of hostilities beginning.
More over I REMIND that SK was the first to propose the Neutral Vistory. It has also been the only one neutral that Left the game. Did you feared to loose? Boooooooooh. Don’t worry All neutrals in the game have known the true Guy. (Well I did know you before). It has been a pleasure you showing your true nature.
The SK wasn’t the 1st one to propose the victory nor was the Great Ones
attack a good one. Being on the same team left a bitter taste in my mouth
but atleast thats resolved now. When you prefer your enemies more…
True colours? Your snail attack on Great Ones consigned the Neutral team
to defeat and left BW and SK with no choice. But then there was ulterior
motives for your attack the camps first strategy for I don’t believe you
are that bad a player.
Have fun!
Better for the FP and Ds for those desiring a Nuetral Team victory in a non team game… 16 downgrades for the the nuetral vs the 9 just from a downgrade standpoint… Then add the most defendable regions will be occupied by the DS and FP able to have pc’s in the mountains… Seriously you would declare turn 1! How many nuetrals in any game change alliengence turn 1 even though most have somewhat of a idea which way they are likely to go by turn 2… That’s over a months worth of diplo’s…
I aggree also I trust no nuetral until he gives me his current pdf. That simply says it all … If he hasn’t I have plans to take him out in any game…
Terry
The Ds 33% seems just like an oddity to me… From setup standpoint I see no significnt advantage here… But we did make changes becuase the FP thought the agent power of the DS at setup was to great… seems these numbers indicate elven horse farmer nations with thier 25 training capability might have been more devestating than the DS nations ability to make cheaper 60 agents… From the numbers we only enabled the FP to increase or maintain the FP high win percentage…
Terry
I’ll have to dig up the old emails to get the addresses of the interested players. Having played a 3-way I can attest that it was a blast to play.
GB
Okay, sent out an email to those players who were interested in the 3-way some months back. If others are interested please send me an email to BairG@nasd.com and let me know if you’d be interested in playing 2 nations or just 1. I’ve pasted the original scenario tweaks below for your review.
Greg
Game 41, a 4th Age variant, recently wrapped up and was a big success. I’d like to get a feel for what interest there might be in another game in this format.
The main difference between this game and standard 4th Age is that the game has 3 allegiences. The Neutrals begin the game as a team and cannot change allegience.
I’ve pasted over the particular rule variations from my setup request to the staff below:
-
The +20% Kidnap/Assassinate SNA would be disallowed.
-
The strategic population centers victory conditions will be disallowed.
-
The allegiences/players would be split as follows: 7 Neutral / 9 Free/ 9 Dark. Both the North and South Kingdoms would be Neutrally alligned for the duration of the game. Players cannot switch allegience during the game. Players cannot contact players of other allegience during the game and players cannot contact any other players within their own allegience prior to receiving their Turn 0. After Turn 0 is received Players can create Yahoo! Groups, etc. as thet see fit within their own allegience but any contact with the remaining two allegiences is forbidden.
-
Upon joining the game a player will initially state whether they have any interest in playing a kingdom. The two kingdoms will be randomly assigned to two of the players who stated the affirmative regarding kingdom play. After the Kingdoms have been assigned the remaining 23 players will be given a random allegience allocated from the 5 remaining neutrals/ 9 Free/ & 9 Dark nations.
-
Upon receiving their allegience from the staff each of the non kingdom players will submit a list, in order of preference, those regions where they wish to begin the game. The latest 4th Age map with 25 regions would be used for allocation. Standard rules apply but if they staff would assist in placing nations with the goal being the most balanced setup it should help in creating a longer lasting, more enjoyable game.
-
Once regions are allocated the staff will send a list to all players informing them of the allegience for each region.
-
All players would then submit their setup sheet for their individual nations contaning SNAs, characters, pc placement, etc. The latest revisions to the 4th Age setup would be used.
-
Turn 0 is sent and the game begins as normal with each allegience treating the other two as enemies.
The restrictions on communication across enemy lines are in place to restrict the game from devolving into a scenario where two allegiences gang up on a third.
Game 41 was a big success and I found it to be a very refreshing change from standard games.
I would be interested … Need some games to end before making a full commitment…
Misonor@ yahoo.com
Terry
Greg - I am interested but there are a couple of things I’m not keen on. I’d prefer 9 v 8 v 8 with a Kingdom each on the DS and FP sides. I think that would give a much more balanced game that 9 v 9 v 7.
Also the relations would need to be tweaked at game start so that each Allegiance started off disliking the other two or it would be unfair on neutrals needing to downgrade.
Gavin
In the current “normal” scenario, I see the only way that the neutrals have a chance is if the independent neutrals and team neutrals alike hide this status from the FP and the DS. The FP and DS would be less likely to attack neutrals early, if this were the case, because they’d want to find out who was a definite enemy first.
In Game #43, my team’s philosophy was that we had 13 known enemies (8 FP and 5 neutral), and 4 recruitable neutrals. When the cover of the neutral team was blown, we attacked BOTH the neutral team AND the FP, while courting the independents. The FP erred by attacking the independent neutrals, while at war with us. The best chance the neutrals would have had would have been to hide their status (independent or not), which would have made us more hesitant to attack them (I’m not sure about the FP, though).
As far as a 3-way Grudge Game goes, I played one back in the GSI days where there were 9 neutrals, 8 FP (who had the NK), and 8 DS (who had the SK). All 3 nations had at least 1 +20 k/a nation (this was before it was limited to 1), and as the DS, we had 2. Basically, each allegiance had a front vs. the other, and it was a true 3-way game. We ended up doing a little more damage to the other allegiances, but progress was pretty limited. The FP and neutrals finally got bored with the game and dropped, but we were still having fun.
Anyway, there are a number of options for a 3-way Grudge Game. I agree with the points raised above that +20 k/a should not be allowed, unless the neutrals can have it, too (I don’t care either way, as long as it’s an even playing field). I’d also support removing the restriction of no mountain PCs for neutrals in such a game, to make it more balanced, overall,
Mike
Game 41 mentioned used exactly the 9x8x8 format with a kingdom (randomly determined) each allocated to the DS & FP. In the post game discussion it was noted that the neutrals found themselves spread far from each other and were in truth easy pickings.
Having both kingdoms neutral would give the remaining 5 neutrals a defensible position by placing themselves on the hip of a kingdom if they so wished.
Each allegience would start out automatically disliking the other two allegiences.
Terry,
Great to hear of your interest! I imagine the game will take a month at the least to fill if that helps in any way. Would you be interested in playing two nations?
GB
Oh hell sign me up for 2 if needed … sheesh LOL
Just hopefully doesn’t end up first of the week again LOL
Terry
The problem with three-way games is that they are inherently unstable. It inevitably turns into 2 versus 1. The only way they drag out is if agreements between the sides shifts based upon a whoever has the current advantage (balance of power theory), and that doesn’t usually happen in practice.
This is why I do not care for fourth age.
Yes, it has been some time since I have posted.
Whatever one may think of ones own character or of others much less of ones gaming ability no one likes to be left hanging out in the cold.
Also it is hard to forget once pneumonia has set in.
:stab:
I am interested in any 3 way but for now I have too many games already.
There’s not enough players for a 3way at present guys. You can “effectively” make it a 3way if you get together with other Neutrals in the normal game though. There’s a game filling at present.
Getting 3 Grudge teams to play isn’t on the cards at present - I’ve tried numerous times.
Clint
Right now, there doesn’t even seem to be much interest in a standard 4th Age game, as the one I’ve been waiting for for a month and a half or so still needs 14 people. I’m fairly busy now, though, so I’m in no huge hurry.
3-way games can be good. I like the idea of no communication between members of the other teams. Unfortunately, there is never enough interest for such a game.
As far as neutrals go, there are two types of neutrals in the game:
Independent neutrals, who have the main advantage of neutrals (ability to declare with whoever they wish), which often leads to them having a lot of time to build up while everyone else fights. Because indepents are often able to build unchecked, they are very often among the top 3 winners in the game, so for people who actually care about their individual PRS rating, that’s another advantage for independent neutrals.
Neutral team members, who have no such advantages. Yes, the kingdoms start with more PCs and a keep at their capital, but this is usually balanced by the fact that there are typically 7 neutrals versus 9 each of FP and DS.
If the split between FP, DS, and neutral is approximately even in a game, I’d be all in favor of lifting the no starting mountain PC restriction for neutral team members and allowing the neutral team to have a +20 k/a nation, while keeping those restrictions for independent neutrals. I think that would be a start toward a more even playing field.
Additionally, I think it would also be interesting to have a team game in which all of the neutrals joined on teams. If there are 7 neutrals, for instance, a team of 3 and a team of 4, each with a kingdom, to effectively have a 3-way alliance from the start. Just as any other neutral teams, though, I’d be in favor of allowing the allegiance the same things that the FP and DS have (starting PCs in mountains and one +20 k/a nation for the allegiance).
Also from this thread, I find it funny that people play this game seriously enough to worry about PRS ratings. I generally tend to put the team first, and if the team wins, I’m happy. I don’t care what my individual nation PRS rating is, and I prefer to play with other people who have the same attitude about the individual rating.
Anyway, it’s been a while for me, too, and those are my thoughts on this thread,
Mike
Now down to 11 players to fill the game.
Clint
Mike - Fourth Age seems to have a small yet dedicated pool of players which means that games can take a while to get going. When one game finishes (or is about to be finished) there is a big rush from that game for players to get into the next one. Those that miss the cut seem to have to wait for months for the next one to finish.
I’m still interested in the 3 way, but it may have to wait a while as I’m now in the FA gunboat game.
Gavin