Is there anyone in GB229 that received email from Clint asking about allowing drops to be picked up by nations in the game around turn 6? The email did not mention which side and was sent to both sides
I know Ben and Nim posted on the board about it. I was sure an email was sent out also, though I don’t have a record of it.
I actually have no problem with players playing 3 nations and infact I have done myself in Gunboat (and it really doesn’t seem to help)
Drop-Outs are a major concern though in Gunboat. I also wouldn’t mind if something came up saying that a nation had become controlled by someone else.
I also dont mind if a 3 nation player starts attacking me in unison. That I can handle.
What I cant handle is what appears to be a 7 to 8 nation, with surprising co-ordination, attack on me. Especially considering some of the rumours I am getting!
Thomas
Originally posted by Fierein
[b]I actually have no problem with players playing 3 nations and infact I have done myself in Gunboat (and it really doesn’t seem to help)Drop-Outs are a major concern though in Gunboat. I also wouldn’t mind if something came up saying that a nation had become controlled by someone else.
I also dont mind if a 3 nation player starts attacking me in unison. That I can handle.
What I cant handle is what appears to be a 7 to 8 nation, with surprising co-ordination, attack on me. Especially considering some of the rumours I am getting!
Thomas [/b]
What rumors if 229?
it does seem fair & right, and consistent with the intent of GB, for the GM to inform the players of new 3-nation combinations, if such occur, after a 1-turn, get-your-act-together period for the person(s) adopting the orphaned nation(s). In GB, there’s no context for what in the world that nation was doing prior & why its characters are located in middle-of-nowhere, etc. etc. Likely they were out & about in some interesting coordination play with their partner nation that was also dropped, such plans now completely gone bye-bye. Thus it does seem good to allow a one turn hiatus before informing the players in the game of the change. But i do think it good & fair to inform everyone of the new pairings after that one turn.
My $0.02.
Dave
What do others think about doing this? Ie informing players when the duo of nations becomes a triplet in games where we announce dead nations? What about ones where we don’t?
Clint
I wonder if it might be worthwhile to simply state there are three nation pairing rather than the exact ones. That way, you can sort of figure it out, but it also helps negate any advantage someone may take of a potentially SS’d combination.
the reason I mention this, is that being the recipient of a third nation, had my opponent(s) known that my third nation had potentially SS’d and was in need of sorting out they could have taken advantage of this. I obviously cant go into too much detail, but I think you can figure out what I mean.
Personally, I am indifferent either way, on one hand, I would like to know the new pairings, but on the other I can see how someone could jump on a nation before its characters/armies/econ get integrated into the “new plan”
the one turn waiting period I think is a good idea
Fletch
I don’t think there is a need for a one turn waiting period. Not all solo nations that are picked up are in poor shape. Chances are this new nation will be attacking somewhere, perhaps in coordination with others and perhaps winning due to this new combo a victory that would not otherwise be obtainable (I have witnessed this first hand in a game, changed the whole power balance of the game in fact).
Even if people do try to hit the “new” nation the other player still has 3 nation’s worth of resources to counter with and should plan accordingly.
When you factor in map ranges, there is even more of a need to above board with this even in currently running games since there are no prohibited combos out there once the game has started.
Steven McAbee
I think all nations should be informed what the new combinations are if a player picks up a third nation. At least they will be able to understand how two nations not communicating can coordinate an attack so well.
tim huiatt
There is an interesting split of opinion on a 1-turn hiatus on the report vs. “right-away”. A compromise (more work for GM) is for the GM to look at the turn(s) of the nation(s) getting reallocated and decide if it’s immediately offensively useful to the pair it’s joining, in which case I concur that immediate notification is warranted; or if it’s not, i submit the one turn hiatus is still a good idea.
no…can’t do that dave…if the GM has to decide then at least one side will be unhappy with his decision every time…has to be a hard and fast rule to prevent future arguing over whether or not it should have been announced right away or not…I personally don’t care if there’s a one turn wait before the announcement or not…if the situation is so hopeless one turn makes that much difference then there isn’t much chance that one turn will turn the situation around either
Yeah I would not want the GM’s “judgment” to enter into the game no more than is absolutely necessary.
Since movement comes after most actions, there is really a 2 turn window to react to any surprise situations in most cases. Turn 1 there is the “oh shizt” factor, Turn 2 you move characters/armies to the troubled area, turn 3 you are able to take action. This being said, I think all players should be made aware the turn that it happens. I think this is even more important since there are no restrictions on nation combos, CL/QA (double scout), Sinda/Noldo, or NG/SG to name a few examples.
Just my take on things though.
Steven McAbee
I think I would prefer no 3 nation combos allowed at all, why should a team be disadvantaged by the drop of an opposing team player? It’s unfortunate when someone drops the game but realising how much the rest of the team relies on you staying in the game, would surely help keep players from throwing in the towel unless their was a real need to do so. At game start you know what the combos are so have an idea of what to expect from the pairings but if existing players can pick up dropped positions then it can seriously shift the play balance ie: QA double scouting for the CL!! In my opinion dropped positions should only be allowed to be picked up by players not already in the game, if no-one can be found then the position/s are out of the game. Harsh but fair.
Matt Anderson
One of the problems I have with the company’s policy on drops is that these drops are subject to manipulation.
In my opinion dropped positions should only be allowed to be picked up by players not already in the game, if no-one can be found then the position/s are out of the game. Harsh but fair.
We tried that - that was the original rule - and found that the game died badly. With the upto 3 nation rule it seems a lot better game. (Usually the team with the 3 nations has been penalised in some way already - be it a dead nation, or missed turns etc).
My own experienced as a player with 3 nations compared with 2 is that you don’t get a lot extra. The nations picked up are usually in a bad state (if you’ve lost the one nation, then generally your skill level at the game means that both nations have not been played as well for example) and take some (or a lot of) work to kick into action. There are some situations, where conceivably, you get a decent advantage (but invariably you’ve lost a nation on your side - a bigger loss IMO).
One of the problems I have with the company’s policy on drops is that these drops are subject to manipulation.
Sorry Ed - too vague a comment, what sort of manipulation? Just in case anyone’s worried we don’t modify the nations in any way.
At present I’m only getting a handful of feedback so can’t decide on any rulings though.
Clint
Perhaps no ruling is better. Solutions to problems sometimes creates new problems.
Manipulation? Well, would I be penalized if I demonstrated some? Some persons will lie on this subject and it is hard to disprove. If someone actually did it and then said “this is how I manipulated the drop rule”, would you punish him?
ok. no GM mediation. granted, a simple rule is better. Whether or not a 1-turn hiatus is agreed upon (and Clint can collect the data), I do think it is in the spirit of GB, that the new 3-nation pairings be divulged to all the players in the game. Also, Clint knows that CL/QA or NG/SG is deadly. Maybe there are some 3-nation combinations that are dissallowed. I agree that CL/QA and CL/DrgnL should be dissallowed. yikes! I’d have to think a lot about what other combinations really unbalance things. NG/SG seems like a dangerous one, but as the game progresses, it might be a whole lot less dangerous if the reason one is being combined with the other is that it has been dramatically reduced in military might. they’re both just essentially big economic & military bullies. but again, back to Blindone’s point, a simple rule is better than “GM discretion”. so what combinations do people think are JUST WRONG. I submit that QA/CL and DrgnL/CL are both JUST WRONG.
Dave
because of the very nature of gunboat almost any combination of three nations is wrong…I have an idea…what do people think of the idea that if a player drops one of their nations must be eliminated? thus if they only have one nation it just goes away but if they still have two then one is eliminated <perhaps the one with the lowest victory points…hey…maybe I finally found a use for victory points lol>…if it was dealt with this way I wouldn’t even care if it was announced…my main concern is that a player will be beaten soundly then both his nations will be rescued by nations that haven’t been beaten up and brought back to health when they should have both been defeated and everything the opposing player was working towards will go to waste
There is an advantage, no matter how small or big, there is an advantage to playing three nations. Even if the nation is in horrible shape, you can bankrupt the nation after transferring pop centers and money etc and thus strengthening your two nations.
The alternative of not letting the nations get picked up is even a greater advantage to the other side over letting a player run three nations. However, I still advocate letting the other side know when someone is running three nations. It does not violate the spirit of gunboat, but at least keeps everyone on equal footing knowing what combinations of nations are being played.
tim huiatt
Manipulation? Well, would I be penalized if I demonstrated some? Some persons will lie on this subject and it is hard to disprove. If someone actually did it and then said “this is how I manipulated the drop rule”, would you punish him?
Sure thing I’d not penalise you in this situation but as you’re not playing GB (to the best of my knowledge) I’m not sure what you mean.
Actually very few players lie, they find it ethically wrong… 
There’s only one player, that I am aware of, that has used a pseudonym on this list to gain an advantage.
It would depend on the situation for manipulation - unfortunately too vague for me to comment.
So for example - if a player said someone else is cheating that’s too vague. If they gave a specific example then I’d investigate that. Generally we’ve found players stick to the spirit of the rule and only had a handful of occurrences where players messed up. In that case we’ve taken action - usually just sort out the problem (eg a 525 on an allied pc and remove the Em rank and a small slap on the hand - repeated offences are dealt with a lot more strongly).
Does that help?
Clint
Ant volunteers out there?