Geographical Super Gun Boat Variant

I’d like to propose a four nation gunboat variant (apologies in advance if this has been proposed or done before).

If four nations are too many for someone, they can always form their own mini team and divide their nations - just as in the regular gunboat variant teams may be shared.

I’d propose dividing the nations along semi-geographical lines because it contributes to the suspension of disbelief necessary to understand why some nations may communicate better than others.

Here’s a first draft attempt at geographical distribution:

Dark Servants:

North and West - Witch King, Rhudaur, Dragon Lord, Long Rider

Central - Fire King, Ice King, Dark Lt’s, Dog Lord

South and East - Corsairs, Cloud Lord, Blind Sorcerer, Quiet Avenger

Perhaps Dog Lord and Long Rider should be swapped?

Free People:

North and West - Noldo Elves, Arthedain, Cardolan, Dunlendings

Central - Woodmen, Sinda Elves, Dwarves, Eothraim

South and East - Northern Gondor, Southern Gondor, Haradwaith, Northmen

Potential rules changes I’d recommend with this:

  1. A diplomacy round on turn 1. Some of these teams will need to know if economic aid is forthcoming and be able to offer artifact swaps and other aid on turn 1. Although the offers would be unable to be confirmed before turn 6, it would add some acceleration to the variant.

  2. Move the Ring of Impersonation to the Sinda Elves (this is to balance some of the artifact synergies created by the DS nation distributions).

  3. No Missed Turns - if someone does not submit a turn, the game is suspended. After 24 hours the position is advertised for replacement. If it is not picked up within 7 days, the position is killed and the game is put up to a vote - continue or concede. The side with fewer concession votes wins - if no concession votes, the game continues.

I think I’ve provided enough information for everyone to disagree with something :wink:

I’d be happy to sign up for any of these teams if such a variant gets off the ground.

Only problem I forsee with the breakdown of the nations and this is mainly with the free is the wealth factor.

You have the woodman, sinda, dwarves and Eothraim – at least two if not three of those nations are gonna need gold and need it badly. While the other two groupings are gonna have a crap load of gold between them.

More interesting, at least for the freep side might be to take one nation from each of those area’s and link them.

Why 4 nations? That’s a major commitment. A less ambitious, but still GB-on-steroids, approach would be to have 4 teams of 3 on each side. If you want the regional element, triplets works out pretty well:

DS
11, 19, 24
12, 13, 20
15, 16, 18
14, 17, 21

FP
4, 5, 10
1, 8, 9
2, 3, 6
7, 22, 23

Blue Knight - I completely agree - the FP central are the at risk risk team and without smart play by the other two teams in supporting them, the alliance will fail. Similarly, I think that if the DS South and East team does not proactively support the North and West team the DS will fail and the Central team is probably just about as vulnerable as the FP central team.

Die Hard - I really like your three nation break down. I chose four nations somewhat arbitrarily - I would probably split a four nation team with a friend and I would probably play a three nation team alone. I’d be happy to play any of the triplets you listed!

i would be up for a three nation game think 4 is to much if things go wrong, unless like you said 2 people in each team of 4

As a player in game 95 I could be interested in this variant.

My main concern is that CL and QA may need to be seperated. The combination of double scout and +20 kill is generally consodered too powerful for gunboat games.

I would suggest the LR and CL be swapped. The LR has Oblmarl and also has cavalry starting in North Harad so he is regional.

It gives the NW alliance the CL nation they need for support. It also gives the NW a voice within Mordor and a place to retreat to.

I’d also support suspending the game rather than running SS turns. If an extra one turn start up fee was payed by each nation/position that may be a way to cover the cost of the work that may be needed by the game moderators.

Mike

I would play this.

I’d be interested in playing this.

Mike Bel

Tony and I will play this variant.

tim

I listed the three-nation pairings again below with the recommended substitution of LR and CL.

DS
11, 14, 24
12, 13, 20
15, 16, 18
19, 17, 21

FP
4, 5, 10
1, 8, 9
2, 3, 6
7, 22, 23

No-Drop Gunboat Format with these additional rules:

  1. A diplomacy round on turn 1 and then follow the normal turn 6, 11, etc.

  2. Move the Ring of Impersonation to the Sinda Elves (this is to balance some of the artifact synergies created by the DS nation distributions).

  3. No Missed Turns - if someone does not submit a turn, the game is suspended. After 24 hours the position is advertised for replacement. If it is not picked up within 7 days, the position is killed and the game is put up to a vote - continue or concede. The side with fewer concession votes wins - if no concession votes, the game continues.

Based on the responses so far, I think we can fill this game pretty easy.

Clint or Rob any comment?

I have emailed my preference to be in this game variant.

The moving of the Ring of Impersination in as interesting suggestion. In moving it you strengthen the Sinda/WdMn arty hunting power, but you weaken the Dunlending ability to influence the south where the QA and LR agents could be at play.

I prefer it stay with SG as it makes that alliance more appealling. It won’t effect my choice to be in the game, but it does reduce my desire to be 7/22/23.

Mike

That is a good point - what does everyone else think about that RoI rule?

clint or rob

would there be a reduced rate for playing 3 nations?

is it worth setting up a game number now? as i have a gameing place vacant at the moment

Doug,

I think that keeping RoI with the Duns/SG combo makes them a good fit to play with the LR and his agent arties and that team…so I’d vote no changes there.

later

tony huiatt

Clint…Tim and I would love to play in this variant (i.e. just one position of three nations between the two of us…). I would absolutely LOVE to play any of the combinations listed above. All four of the DS triples look very intriguing. I’m thinking that the CL start of upgrading to another MT and downgrading a town to a village would still be warranted…

later

tony huiatt

Let’s scrap the RoI swap - with a turn 1 diplomacy if a trade is desired it can be swiftly executed.

DS
11, 14, 24
12, 13, 20
15, 16, 18
19, 17, 21

FP
4, 5, 10
1, 8, 9
2, 3, 6
7, 22, 23

No-Drop Gunboat Format with these additional rules:

  1. A diplomacy round on turn 1 and then follow the normal turn 6, 11, etc.

  2. No Missed Turns - if someone does not submit a turn, the game is suspended. After 24 hours the position is advertised for replacement. If it is not picked up within 7 days, the position is killed and the game is put up to a vote - continue or concede. The side with fewer concession votes wins - if no concession votes, the game continues.

I am ready to sign up for this if the GM’s are on board.

As to the missed turns…make the deadline 48 hours earlier than the 2-week deadline, with the goal being that the turn runs on time. With the position being advertised or run by a stand in, maybe a GM to let the turns process on time. There is NOTHING more disappointing to not have the game run on the allotted time. I’d hate for one persons lack of timing mistakes delay the game for the rest of us…this is gunboat, it’s not like you have to wait for communications to decide on something…if nothing else, maybe players would put in prelim orders…and then make changes at the last minute like some do…

later

tony

Marty and me would also sign up (sharing three nations) if this kind of game will be started.

I would play the Tri-nation variant, I do not think the RoI should be swapped.

Cheers,

Mike

In fact I have e-mailed in my choices already!

M