[You say NG can breach Ithil alone, but that can only happen if the DS play crap. Strong fortifications are even stronger when you have to take them out on your own, that is why Mordor is harder to take in GB. [/b][/QUOTE]
ahhhhhrrrgggghhhh.
that was my grudge teammates having a stroke, but i prefer defeat in a well played game, to victory over cannonfodder.
on turn one, at best, the fire king, ice king and dk lts can add 1600 hi in total. at JUST 3024, 3124 and his twin cities, the n gondor player can add 1800 hi. and he has how many pop centers within range of mordor.
to quote the french, ( inventors of surrender the capitol ) whats the rush to war? think about it…the answers right there.
if you have a look at your turn 0, you will notice that there ís no NG army at 3124, and if the DS don’t act like fools, you will never hire troops there, but they will.
NG can bring the equivalent of about 6500 hi to 3124 in turn one while IK, FK and DkL can manage 9300, so the outcome should be obvious. Subtract 400 hiring potential from NG and add 300 to DS, plus a smart IK will hire at 3123, that makes 2200 for DS and 1400 for NG, as long as he keeps 3024, which won’t be for long. He could hire at 2421, but that is not even forcmar distance.
That was just maths, not considering the logistical problems. Six of eight NG chars are occupied as armycoms - you want to hire new comms, emis, agents, raise taxes, dnstnat, sell, hire new armies in how many places?
How about offering a Gunboat game where you play one nation per person BUT you are allowed to have communications ONLY to the nation you’re normally teamed with. IE: the Northmen and Dwarves can communicate with each other, but no one else?
Just a thought.
Go ahead, flame me. I’m wearing my flame-proof suit.
I’ve seen NG crack the pass single handed a few times. I cant say whether the DS were experienced or not. However, dont forget that there is always the ability to drop those bridges. One of the better Ng coms can do this (Tarandor comes to mind, but probably Telumehtar as well). So, you always have the defensive option with them. The DS dont have any such roadblock.Plus, with the Dun pairing you can send their forces to the pass as well. Something that you usually dont have in a regular game. There really isnt any need to send the Duns to Rhudaur as far as I am concerned.
But, back to nation setup, I think they are about as balanced as they can be. I think in the original article, the proposition was to attempt to balance some of the weaker nations with a “stronger” brother. Hence, Cors/DrgL. On the plus side, since you know who is working together, you also know who to target. For example, lets say you are trying to quash the DrgL. Once you do damage to him in Mirkwood you could send some characters down to Corsair land and hunt for his backups or hit the Corsairs with agents and emmis. If your nation cant handle doing that then you have to hope that someone on your team will. In the meantime, move onto a different target, eventually it will balance out I think
I’ve played in a few Gunboat games so far and I’ve found that even with the lack of communication some people will cooperate. I’ve sent and recieved gold and artis from teammates, granted its unexpected and not always useful at the moment. (But, its awfully generous to do so rather than just sit there and hoard everything.) For example, the commander of your capitol seed army suddenly ends up with a +40A artis!! :> Thats great, but not always useful at the moment!! (By the way, that didnt happen, its just an example…not trying to discuss in game info here!)
If he does not reply, though, like in my case, you are pretty screwed, since Harly normally does not save the pdfs
We do now - so you can ask for past turns like this when you take it up. (We’ve got a couple of GB nations available - most in fine state just the player unable to play on).
Note we’re taking set-ups for the next 1650 Gunboat game (limited diplomacy - your duo of nations get to send out a diplo to all your team every 6 turns, 20 words long - and you receive the diplos from your team-mates for the other 5 turns.)
We need 2 more player for that.
As for us doing orders for people - 20 minutes per turn x10 = 200 minutes per day. Ouch. GB players are supposed to be committed players to the game - so don’t miss turns please.
Having just won as the DS in the first Gunboats I will put my two penneth worth in:
I did not feel that the QA/FK pairing was weak; in fact each nation is complements the other.
New weak players should NOT be allowed to play Gunboats. In me95 this upset game balance. This should be administered by Harlequins more rigorously IMHO; some inept play by certain FP nations did help us, as the DS secure victory.
Regarding point 2 above, I had thought this was suppose to be the case with GB and was surprised otherwise. Non-experienced players spoil the game. Okay, so we all make mistakes, sure, but not turn after turn.
Well done to some spirited fighting though from the other FP - especially Dwarves/Sinda/Northmen/.
. New weak players should NOT be allowed to play Gunboats. In me95 this upset game balance. This should be administered by Harlequins more rigorously IMHO; some inept play by certain FP nations did help us, as the DS secure victory.
Note we make sure that the game is pretty balanced. So in the same way that players in normal games might be new or experienced I make that balance I do with GB.
What I am generally looking for is committed players in Gunboat. Some of the earlier GB games suffered from non-committed players and that had an impact - but we’ve organised it so that it’s easier for players to pick up nations now (ie copies of all the old turns).
I would prefer it if certain GB games were open only to experienced players, if not all GB games.
Newbies are introduced in normal team games with experienced players because they learn the ropes from the other players. In GB games they cannot do this. Abeit, if both sides contain an equal number of newbies the teams are inherently equal, but, if played poorly, the opposition will notice and target specific nations, especially frontline nations. This can easily have the effect of unbalancing the game.
The enjoyment factor of GB games is the unknown, but also deduction. Making sense of reports you receive of the enemy and that of your allies makes the game interesting, especially if your allies are trying to communicate to you ‘via the map’ and as a player of GB I would assume that my allies know and understand most of the intricacies of the game. They have gained this through experience. Therefore when an ally icon appears at xxyy coordinates YOU have a pretty good idea why they are there or what their intentions might be or what threat they know about. A newbie will may not move his army to xxyy; as an ally a newbie may not interpret this in the same way and that is the difference. It makes the game less enjoyable for the majority.
I therefore think that the original premise put forward - that GB games should be limited to experienced players only should stick.
