Maybe we could trade places, John? 
You actually moved your army one turn toward Ostigurth before dropping. I may be crazy, but Iām not so crazy as to take on 4 nations, including the mighty NG (very mighty indeed in this variant) all by myself! I can post onto this forum the appropriate email exchanges Iāve saved if you want your memory jogged. <g>
Well the question is why do people commit treachery? Obviously to gain an advantage. Once the alliances were built, there was little sense in betraying your allies, unless you wanted more enemies.
And the thing is, people tend to remember when you backstab too much, you canāt win a game when no one is trusting you.
Thats why I am careful making promises, but when I do, I never ever break them - call me dumb, but I like being trustedā¦ 
True story: Eothraim and LR were both in frequent communication with us Mordor dudes to the point where we āfeltā we had to choose between them. One of the Mordor dudes copied the Eothraim on an email saying āI prefer the Long Riderā. That was it for the Eothraim communication, as well it should have been, while, as results have shown, nothing came of LR-Mordor diplomacy. Now, it wasnāt as if we were in any position to āhelpā Eothraim perse, so itās really a moot point, but just a glimpse at a part of the ongoing bits of discussions.
As it were, Noldo and Dwarves for all intents and purposes ājoinedā the NG/Mordor group towards the end, but it was really more of a voyeuristic file share than any semblance of alliance. I personally was working towards securing the win for my leading ally for a number of turns towards the end, which really boiled down to sending what characters I had to āattackā they who appeared to be in the lead in order to boost NGās chances at final victory. while, like, sending gold (after having it sent to me by my allies all game) etc.
Iāll take some responsibility for not laying any foundation for later āall neutralā style play, as I stuck with those who stuck with me to the end. Meanwhile, I was always looking for āsomeone elseā to play the mid-game backstab of an āallyā as the game went on. Every turn I had to consider whether or not it was ātimeā to attack my āalliesā for no other reason than to promote the game as it was vaguely āintendedā - āAll for me, One for me, etcā¦ā type game. As stated by EA - this is a community of players we expect to come across in various games over time, and ātrustā is something that wasnāt worth tossing away in this one to the possible detriment of future games.
Having said all that, with a refill break, so whatever it was I said above, I will have to conclude by saying now (Come on Drew, this is good stuffā¦) that this scenarios is likely best served in some form of Gunboat format. I wonāt support that statement, Iād likely go on for too long, so Iāll just leave it as my current opinion and let it stand on itās own.
Cheers and Good Gaming All.
Brad for Ren the (un)Dead
I fully concur with Bradās statement above. (yeah, yeah, I know 'tis shockingā¦) I would take it a step further, though, and say that an all neutral game should be played anonymously, in other words, just like the old style āregularā MEPBM games were. The Company didnāt publish your name to your allies nor anyone else; you had to send out 3x5 cards with your contact info if you wanted any interaction. Actually I think all non-team games of MEPBM ought to be this way, but that is a topic for another threadā¦
Rather than a gunboat style of no communication, I would say this all neutral variant would be better served by unlimited, unbridled communicationā¦only thing being, you have no idea who the real person is youāre dealing with. Iād like a great big disclaimer on the front sheet (I think itās called) to the effect that the game is intended to mirror the classic board game Diplomacy, so donāt get your feelings hurt if you are backstabbed; that way no one can complain later. Some of the most trustworthy and loyal gaming allies one could have in normal situations, all of a sudden becoming backstabbing megalomaniacs in Diplomacy, just because thatās the way the game is supposed to be played.
Drew
PS Iām only half way through my first cup of Joe this morning, so Iām probably not as lucid as Brad. <g>
"1) remove the turn limit In this way, there isnāt a clear line when the game would end that leads to changes in play towards the end. To avoid grueling bug hunts, "
One way that would work would be when āXā nations are removed from play (dropped or taken out) the turn after the game ends with SS turns for everyone? (Note we have to run turns the next turn - so it could be without the SS turns and players put in turns as normal on that one as that seems fairer).
Clint
Thoughts on the turn limit would be appreciated. I reckon that when 2/5ths of the players are knocked out that the game ends the next turn. That will mean itās still competitive and will last a similar length of time. (Iād also suggest a 15 turn minimum though just in case - so the quickest it could end is turn 16).
Last game had 9 out of 23 nations out of play on turn 20 (around 40%).
Iāve got some interest in this format off forum so get in touch (preferably directly) if you are interested.
Note as this is a variant game we donāt do them very often or have many of them running so if you are interested then this is the game for the next year so if youāre planning to play it in the next yearā¦ 
Clint
This next go is only about 1/2 full by last emailā¦Iām posting to see if more people would like to give this a go.
Thanks for your interest,
Jason M. Roberts