Ant volunteers out there?
For what? Trying to cheat? Is that what you’re asking?
Clint
I agree with all of Blind Ones sentiments above, surely the whole concept of the game is to knock enemy players out. Currently with the three nation combo rule, you can have an enemy on his knees, badly enough that they decide to quit. Then another player in the game can pick up his positions, using his starting two nations economies and resources, not to mention his extra character orders to revive the nation that was dropped!! Making the job of knocking the dropped position out of the game significantly harder to accomplish.
Like the idea of knocking at least one of the dropped positions out of the game, at least you would have some tangible result from your efforts. Still think they should be offered to players not already in the game first though.
cheers
Matt Anderson
Then another player in the game can pick up his positions, using his starting two nations economies and resources, not to mention his extra character orders to revive the nation that was dropped!! Making the job of knocking the dropped position out of the game significantly harder to accomplish.
In a normal game, say a player was running 2 nations having picked one up, then the team would be offered that nation.
A nation that has been knocked out is in a bad state normally - you can pick up some of the pcs and sometimes there’s a fight over that but it’s certainly not the same as having that nation active.
Having two for one - ie if you knock one nation out the other is mostly dropped and then you lose two nations seems overkill to me and has a majorly bad impact on the game for that team that has lost the one nation and I’ve seen some very bad games that way.
Clint
i agree with tim’s post. there is an advantage to playing 3 nations. But the advantage is way more for the other team if you essentially force 2 nations out of the game. So, on balance, it’s better to have 3-nation groupings than have a side lose 2 nations.
In my experience, Clint is right in that the 3rd nation is in need of HELP. But you do get all those extra orders, and with competent play, you can fix the wrongs of your predecessor over time. And if the 3rd nation was being attacked aggressively, there may not be much left to take over… 
So, it’s a very complex, grey situation. I think the original idea of informing both teams of the new pairings is what is needed and is the best solution.
Normal games with player interaction are very different from the fog of war Gunboat games, the advantages of having three nations maps, intel, resources, economies and characters all working in unison is a huge advantage in my opinion, maybe it’s just me though.
cheers
Matt Anderson
I’m not denying that it’s an advantage, but that by taking out one nation you then force the other to drop. Seems even more of an advantage. Would you agree with that?
Also: for that single player you get an advantage but overall the team (it’s still a team-game) loses a nation and gets better co-ordination from one triplet. From my experienced losing a nation is BAD news.
It’s certainly debatable if the advantage gained for 1 less nation is offset by one player playing 3 nations but my experience of not allowing the dropped viable nation to be picked up is that the game dies horribly very quickly due to the knock-on effect of losing 2 nations.
Reverse argument: I’ve not seen the impact of players running 3 nations have such an impact that it’s swung the game back the other way - we’ve had some games end with 3 nations (or multiple 3 nation teams) with similarly skilled players lose the game though so I don’t think that the advantage gained by running 3 nations for one player offsets that of the team losing a nation (and probably the other nation having been played badly and in a bad state).
Does that make sense?
Clint
Sorry to harp on, just remembered not all the nations actually get picked up either…
Clint
the way it is right now…assuming the positions get picked up by two other players and assuming the reason for the drop was imminent doom…you actually penalize the side that was doing well and reward the side that was about to lose nations…it doesn’t matter that much to me since gunboat isn’t hitting it off well with my big mouth but for those players that do like it I think it’s only fair to them that something bad happen to that side when a player drops…not just making the remaining players more powerful as a side then they were the turn before the drop…but anyway…we’re off topic…the discussion was should 3 nation combos be announced…I would say that’s the minimum courtesy that should be afforded to the other side
Originally posted by Clint
[b]For what? Trying to cheat? Is that what you’re asking?Clint [/b]
Because person “A” does not see how company policy can be manipulated, does not mean the policy can not be manipulated. Because person “B” does see how company ploicy can be manipulated does not mean he has done so.
“Cheating” is a loaded word with many connotations. If an individual follows company policy he can hardly cheat. Or, is that wrong? Perhaps “cheating” is unfair? I can think of lots of unfair things. If a person can play the game for free (thus having no financial stake) he can freely drop and lose no investment. Is that “fair”? Is that “cheating”?
Looking back over the years I realize I know, or have met, a lot of “cheaters” and “unfair” types. Many would kill you before you realized you had made a mistake.
I’m not denying that it’s an advantage, but that by taking out one nation you then force the other to drop. Seems even more of an advantage. Would you agree with that?
Also: for that single player you get an advantage but overall the team (it’s still a team-game) loses a nation and gets better co-ordination from one triplet. From my experienced losing a nation is BAD news.
Isn’t the idea of Gunboat to play two nations to the end, not to have the mentality that if you lose one nation it is ok to drop, which is more likely if you know a team mate can be advantaged from you doing so?
Isn’t it a good strategy to go after the remaining nation of a duo after one of the pairing is knocked out?
cheers
Matt Anderson
G’day all, just my quick thoughts on the subject. I do believe Clint is doing a good job with finding replacements. If they weren’t found, a game could quickly go out of balance if a key position was dropped and wasn’t filled.
>blind one 118 wrote:
>I think it’s only fair to them that something bad happen to that side when a player drops.
my understanding is that the nations are only offered up to other players until 3 turns have passed - without orders from the previous player being entered. So there is something
Also, why do players drop? Maybe because they have already lost one nation. If thats the case, then that side is straightaway behind in winning the game as they have one less nation to issue orders with. Even if the 2nd nation is picked up, they are still one nation down.
>.not just making the remaining players more powerful as a side then they were the turn before the drop.
Its not easy but the downside is the game imbalance if nations aren’t filled.
And any advantage of 3 nations being being played by one is still offset somewhat by that alliance being one nation down.
>not to have the mentality that if you lose one nation it is ok to drop, which is more likely if you know a team mate can be advantaged from you doing so?
I guess this raises the question of what to do if 2 nations are dropped. I think they both should be allowed to be picked up as a 3rd nation by players in the game if a completely new player can not be found.
As for dropping, perhaps Harley could introduce a monetary penalty for people who drop a game - I for one firmly believe the actions of one person affect so many people in middle earth, you lose a nation, a key nation and it can change everything, this is the main reason I play pretty much grudge matches only.
>.but anyway…we’re off topic…the discussion was should 3 nation combos be announced…I would say that’s the minimum courtesy that should be afforded to the other side
I agree too, it helps to know your enemies!
and cheers to everyone in Gunboat game 10, what an odd game this is turning out to be!
Some good points from Stags, ok perhaps 3 nation combos are sometimes necessary to keep a game going, still think that some combinations would be too powerful though, is their a set of permitted combinations and disallowed ones? Also think opponents should be notified of any 3 nation combos that are picked up, so you can plan accordingly.
Also penalising drops would be hard to enforce, some people are forced to drop due to financial reasons / family bereavement etc etc. Perhaps regular droppers should be highlighted in some way the same as the PRS system. Top scores don’t look quite so impressive with a drop or two indicated next to it.
cheers
Matt
the scenario that bother me is the one where there are two nations…both beaten up badly and on the brink of bankruptcy…the player drops…they then get seperated…one nation going to one healthy pair of nations that quickly bring that nation back to functioning and the other nation also going to a healthy pair of nations that cure it’s ills also…so you end up losing no nations and suddenly there are two three nation players faced off against you…this certainly doesn’t seem like a reasonable course of action to me…the one nation still surviving isn’t as bad of course since there has already been a permanent loss
, is their a set of permitted combinations and disallowed ones? Also think opponents should be notified of any 3 nation combos that are picked up, so you can plan accordingly.
No Combo disallowed with a pick-up at present (as a player I personally don’t think there needs to be) and I’ve gone into the reasons as a GM why I don’t think there needs to be (hard enough to find pick-ups, team damaged enough and I’ve not seen a swing back yet with a 3nation game)
Also think opponents should be notified of any 3 nation combos that are picked up, so you can plan accordingly.
I’m planning to do that the next GB game as a test-run.
Perhaps regular droppers should be highlighted in some way
We do keep a record. Generally players who drop are not as successful at the game it seems (clear correlation).
The rare event it’s due to a player dropping and the both nations being picked up the nations have usually missed a turn or turn and weakened proportionally. I’ve tried to get across that I don’t think it’s a problem - haven’t seen an example in an actual game yet where this is a problem but we’ve got a few games close to completion so maybe something will come from that. I don’t know yet.
Clint
I dont think there is necissarily a big advantage to the three nation combo. Obviously it depends on the nations (I.E. Qa/CL for example) but how often is that “best case scenario” going to happen?
But anyway…
maybe give priority to the players who may have only one nation left. This way, it brings them back up to 2 nations, if they dont bite, then offer the nations up to the rest of the players? It wont solve the problem, but it might keep the one nation people in a bit longer as well, who would be more inclined to bail since one of thier nations kicked the bucket?
Fletch
I don’t have a problem with any cominations really. Again, I think the goal should be to minimize how much interaction and discretion the GM’s have so that they do not run into problems with the generally public on why they did something. Offer it up to whomever wants it and go from there.
Again, I only want to see the combinations announced to all the players, especially the other side. Clint has mentioned he is going to try this in future games. Hopefully others find it a useful and meaningful addition as well.
tim
. This way, it brings them back up to 2 nations, if they dont bite, then offer the nations up to the rest of the players? It wont solve the problem, but it might keep the one nation people in a bit longer as well, who would be more inclined to bail since one of thier nations kicked the bucket?
I do - but generally the situation where one team has caused the other team to drop a nation means that the winning team members are less likely to drop out or have a nation lost. (Note the word generally here).
Clint
The word “cheating” was used somewhat earlier in this thread. The subject, I think, is worth some discussion. Here are a couple of hypotheticals:
Situation One: A game is advertised as a 25 nation pick up. First come first served. Last filled in 26 days, etc. Instead of 25 free lance individuals joining, however, a group of 4 or 5 persons join as a mini-team. Since at least some of the others on that team are newbies (typically happy to follow orders, since they are learning the game), we end up on turn zero with 70-80% of the team coordinated. Now the opposing force is composed of ten free lancers of various experience levels. Typically, it will take these 4, 5 or even 6 turns to settle down and gel.
This is not contrary to Company Policy. Is it “cheating”? “Unfair”? Contray to British Fairplay, or some similar ethical system?
Hypothetical Situation Two: A GM, on his own volition (ie not asked to do it) contacts a member, or members, of a particular team in a particular game. Perhaps the GM is acting from overzealousness, or some other motive. The nature of the contact causes hate, discontent and turmoil among the contacted individual(s). This hampers team play and cohesion.
Certainly a GM can contact anyone he wants, and this is not contrary to company policy. Is this “cheating”? “Unfair”? Violates an ethical system?
Lets get a discussion going.
. Now the opposing force is composed of ten free lancers of various experience levels. Typically, it will take these 4, 5 or even 6 turns to settle down and gel.
Actually I wouldn’t generally allow such a game to set-up - I balance the game with teams (ie groups of players) and rough levels of experience (what I roughly consider experienced or less experienced or new players). Sometimes you get the odd mix-match but I make strenuous efforts not to have this happen. It’s an imperfect system though but generally we get close to a fair game at set-up then it’s upto the players to play.
My other motive: sounds ominous again… (KGB spy?) Generally I contact players if I feel that there might be a problem and ask. We’ve had a few players not want their turns sent out but so far, the situation that Ed is “alluding” to here I’ve not had any comeback off the player as yet.
Mostly 95% of the queries about policy come down to players not reading the house rules and being aware of what we do (or not do) as the case might be. Well worth 15 minutes reading. (Say half time at the England v Portugal match?! )
Clint
So, mini-teams (or groups) are allowed as long as you think Old Joe and Bill the Weasel are a match for them.
You are not denying such contacts take place and that is progress.
Now that we have moved from the hypothetical to the concrete, lets discuss the company’s unpublished practices.