You are not denying such contacts take place and that is progress.
Nope - never did either so not sure what progress you are alluding to here. You make it sound like we hid this - it’s in plain view in the house rules and players have group joined normal games for ages - common knowledge. We allow upto 5 players to join in a group in a normal game. Anything more than that is not allowed. It’s in the house rules. Have I misunderstood something? I assume that you have read the house rules? It’s well worth 15 minutes of your time to do so if you haven’t.
lets discuss the company’s unpublished practices.
Not a big fan of your comment - if you have an issue feel free to bring it up. What unpublished practices? Bribes for money? Sexual favours? Assassinations on request?
Not sure what we have done to raise your ire this time or what the issue is. Generally I find it better if these things can be sorted out amicably (for example your hint that we were secretly allowing groups to join - well that’s no secret and could have just been an email to us asking clarification on policy for example) but it doesn’t appear to be your style.
I know that you have ulterior motives for these sort of attacks but don’t know what they are.
Maybe it’s just that you want the game to stay as “the good old days” of GSI but things have moved on from then and hopefully so has our service so we sometimes contact players to help out if we can. Is that the issue? Or something more devious? (Bit like a Clancy novel? )
The player concerned has not replied to me so I don’t even know that it’s an issue only that you claim that it is that I contacted him and asked is it okay if we forward his turn to you as you hadn’t received any emails from him (loosely put as I understand the issue).
Note if you want to discuss this can you put it in a different location as this is supposed to be Gunboat and I don’t really want to hi-jack this thread. We try to stick to the maxim of have fun and make it fun for others but you seem to enjoy attacking us.
So how about modifying the rules of current GB games (in which eliminated nations are published) to show what the current combos are. If you read this thread, I think the overwhelming opinion is that is should be done so the opponents can plan accordingly.
As for the “players detest rules changes in mid game”, that is has already happened in one of my games which I can back up with email proof (already sent you the emails in fact)
So how about modifying the rules of current GB games (in which eliminated nations are published) to show what the current combos are. If you read this thread, I think the overwhelming opinion is that is should be done so the opponents can plan accordingly.
What do players think? I can do this - as mentioned I am not a big fan of mid-game changes (except where I think that they are essential or awesomely good idea). Reading this thread I’ve got a couple of players like it - not enough to change the ruling at present IMO.
Actually, I have studied the House Rules. Version 16 updated 26th March 2004. It was was was sent to me when my current Game started. I am unable to find where mini-teams of up to five are allowed in Standard Games. You can help me with that?
Mind you, the version I have on file is from 2002, version 7 I believe, and the link on the MEGames website says Page Not Found at this particular time (that link is dated Nov28/03).
I vote for announcing for the new combos. Does this apply equally to the enemy and your own team? Or do you only hear about the enemy changes? [/b]
It only makes sense to list the parings of all nations as they currently stand. I can’t understand any valid argument as to why this should not be done. I think it unfair to the other players to have stealth combos in the game. If 3 nations are attacking 2 then the 2 at least should know that one person is running all 3. It would alleviate some of “how did that happen, wonder if those guys are communicating” stuff that some may be experiencing.
Example: I find out the CL has doubled scout, I will try to eliminate the double scout nation ASAP. The CL gets the benefit of a double scout but at least I know he has the option and I get the chance to change my play to mitigate strong agent play.
I think it unfair to not let all players know and I play 3 nations in one game. If I could give specific examples I don’t think anyone would disagree but I can’t due to the GB restrictions. There will be some unhappy campers when/if it ever comes out
Absolutely the palyer combinations should be announced in mid game. I don’t really see this as changing rules, I see this at keeping the rules the same so that I know which nations I am facing.
So far only three people have said knew combinations should be announced in games already in progress, and I have seen zero people say they should not be announced. Possibly we should start a new thread asking for people to vote.
Originally posted by thuiatt Absolutely the palyer combinations should be announced in mid game. I don’t really see this as changing rules, I see this at keeping the rules the same so that I know which nations I am facing.
tim huiatt
Agreed, you start the game knowing who your likely opponents will be, why should it be different on turn 5, 10 or 20?
I have always thought those pairings should have been up to date as a courtesy to the players that contributed a nice chunk of change to play in these games.
I too think it would be fair if all players new the combos, but it shouldn’t be decided by a poll on this thread, but asking all the ones presently playing Gunboat.
Originally posted by Ulrik Bisgaard
[b]I too think it would be fair if all players new the combos, but it shouldn’t be decided by a poll on this thread, but asking all the ones presently playing Gunboat.
Ulrik [/b]
Well I do play GB
I would like to see something done rather than allow this to continue to languish. Seems most everyone agrees it is a good idea and at least in one of my games the rules have already been changed on turn 6.
Regarding replacements, not all positions miss turns. I know a couple of instances where both positions were replaced by players in the game with no turns missed.
> Regarding replacements, not all positions miss turns. I know a couple of instances where both positions were replaced by players in the game with no turns missed
R u sure? Of course I can’t find the harley email now when I need it but I thought the 3 turn wait was in the game rules (on the covering email you get when u get yr turn, which explains the gunboat rules)?
I’m not sure I necessarily agree that 3 special service turns have to be played before the nation can be handed to someone else (I think circumstances will be different in each case) but I do agree u need offset some of the advantages to be gained by one player playing 3 nations.
So Clint, any chance we can hear about the new (and current nation combos) in our current games?
Originally posted by Stags
[b]> Regarding replacements, not all positions miss turns. I know a couple of instances where both positions were replaced by players in the game with no turns missed
R u sure? Of course I can’t find the harley email now when I need it but I thought the 3 turn wait was in the game rules (on the covering email you get when u get yr turn, which explains the gunboat rules)?
I’m not sure I necessarily agree that 3 special service turns have to be played before the nation can be handed to someone else (I think circumstances will be different in each case) but I do agree u need offset some of the advantages to be gained by one player playing 3 nations.
So Clint, any chance we can hear about the new (and current nation combos) in our current games?
cheers,
John Stagoll
GB 10 [/b]
I know at least 2 cases where the players replaced without 3 missed turns. My guess is Clint does not want the deal with the headaches that will arise when the combos are announced. I am sure there were be some very unhappy people.
