Okay at present I’ve not got enough feedback to make a decision on the 3 nation ruling. If I get time I’ll contact each game and get a vote in each game with one player one vote. (I’m a little busy at present with the GSI deal).
How does that sound?
Clint
Clint - i didn’t see any negative votes. why not save yourself the headache of polling all the GB players. You could do a one-time broadcast email to all GB players saying that this will be implemented unless you get a majority dissenting vote (per game) via email by such&such a date. Thus people who are ok with it don’t have to respond, and only folks who don’t like it will need to respond (and from what we’ve seen on the BBS, there is no one who doesn’t like it)
I think it is a good idea to inform players of a 3 nation combo with specifics. But I don’t like the idea of changing rules midstream, so a game by game vote sounds best to me. In any event, it is a moot point for me as the only GB game I’m in already has this rule (just started last week).
Drew
Without appearing to be negative, or even stating whether I agree or dissagree with the suggestion, why do the vocal minority ALWAYS jump for a ruling asap.
It’s probably a good pulse check for Clint to see where the land lies, but surely asking everyone currently playing in a GB game is going to tell him exactly what people who will be affected think rather than those players who happen to use the bulletin board and are vocal.
Dave, not meaning to pick on you personally… although you might think that 
Cheers
Sc0rp10
if you want to know the new combos…don’t forget…vote early…vote often…I do
No one has contacted me about voting.
Never do today what you can put off till next week and the next…
actually I haven’t been contacted to vote either…but I am registered under several names and prepared to throw the “name that new combo” lever…steve caskey
No offense ScOrp10. What I was suggesting is that Clint ask all current GB players to respond with their vote on the subject by a deadline date TBD. He could do that by sending them all an email. I was trying (ineffectively apparantly) to offer a suggestion on a way to do the polling/voting that wasn’t high overhead for Clint.
cheers,
Dave
To my allies in GB229,
Sorry all, had to drop this game due to inappropriate intervention of the moderators. This game has lost integrity. Anyway, hope you all still win. Remember no combinations are disallowed and are there some game altering combinations in the game now.
Good luck,
Steve
Might I inquire what the inappropriate intervention was? I am in the game and would like to know.
What’s going on in ME229? I’m in that game and would like to know as much as possible in accordance with house rules for GB games. Can you (or Clint) tell me anything about perceived “inappropriate intervention of the moderators?”
Nick ME 229
Just my opinion of things. MEG has a different view. I have put it behind me wrote off the $500 I spent on it and migrated away from GB to team games.
Perhaps if rules regarding replacements are ever instituted, I may give GB another try.
Kudos to two of my former opponents and at least 1 of my former allies, nice work. Best of luck to those left behind.
Steve former GB advocate
I’ve been in a handful of Gunboat games, but there are a few things to think about:
1 - Do you think all the players of current games read this Forum regularly?
I could name at least a few who have never seen this forum, much less read this lengthy post.
2 - If the decision is made to announce the position changes, when would it be announced?
This could be an opportunity for the opponents to gleam information as well as attack the presumed weakened pair, when they might not have had any of this info before. I would suggest that announcements such as this be made every 5 turns, and in list form in the front sheet (which surely everyone reads each turn as well) - for example, current teams - Wo/NE, Sil/SG, Sin/NM, etc etc - but then on turn 5, Wo/NE/Ro, Sin/NM/RhE. This doesn’t immediately say “look, the person who dropped the Ro/RhE is weak! Kill him while we can!” Whereas, if you announce on Turn 3 “the position of the Riders of Rohan will now be handled by the Wo/NE player,” then the DS know to pummel the Rhun (as if they already hadn’t - hence why the drop), as well as know the Wo/NE/Roh side is weakened while the three-some position is recuperated.
3 - Most importantly, this is giving information that all Nations would not necessarily know. In the above example, the Rhun nation is knocked out, hence only the Rohan position picked up. By announcing that only the Rohan position is being taken over, everyone knows that the Rhun nation is defunct - and can change attack plans accordingly. Normally in Gunboat games, a successful 585 order would be needed - instead of broad announcements.
While I certainly see the obvious advantages of three Nations under one leader –
I vote no to immediate notification.
Personally I don’t think dead nations should ever be announced. I think this rule was instituted for some newer GB games running.
Inappropriate intervention -none that I know of. We’ve contacted some players and Steve didn’t like that in one game, and also allowed potential combinations that Steve felt were unfair but that’s within the rules.
We don’t interefere in the game just in case you guys are worried.
Hope that helps.
Clint
Allowing 3 nations to put 4500 troops into an area that they would not otherwise be able to do so certainly affected the game and by my definition is inappropriate intervention or lax moderation.
Allowing Arthedain to be picked up by the Cardolan/Sinda and Harad to be picked up by SG/WM on turn 3 is most likely inappropriate to Rhudhar, WK, Corsairs and QA though I cant speak for those nations.
Obviously game balance was not the primary concern, IMO
Steve
I’ve recently experienced very early coordination of moves by eothraim + north gondor + dunland. The short term advantages of this combination is very large in terms of pressure on Mordor. I have considered if the only appropriate counter move was to drop my nations to enable coordinated counter moves by my allies. I think the gamemasters should exhibit great care and try to avoid some combinations, and if there are no alternatives only alow these combinations after some lost turns, possibly alowing natsells in the waiting time to alow the nations to survive.
Skage
You know, just a little further back on this thread I pointed out the company’s replacement policy could be subject to manipulation. If memory serves, the GM pointed the ‘cheating’ word in my direction. Although I don’t drop and only picked up once in a 13 year career and have never played Gunboat.
The GM has offered amnesty to persons who will explain how they have manipulated the Gunboay rules. Any volunteers out there?
Gunboat virgin here.
I have a couple quick questions.
Why is there no stealing or influencing allowed against your own team? What is the thought or reasoning behind this rule? Obviously, you would not want to hinder a teammate. But, just like in other games, there is often a team-advantage in stealing/influencing from each other.
Is it true that you cannot kidnap/assassinate an enemy target unless they are in YOUR pop center -or- unless you know targets nation? If so, then what is the reasoning? Just to make agents more difficult to use? Or to force more use of scouts and info-gathering spells? Or am I missing something?
thanks,
-b
Isn’t that the nature of the game? These moves can be countered, as they can within the normal game. If you think it’s hard to deal with why not try playing 6/23 and see what happens (Eothraim often attack in that situation). I can show instances where any combination of attacks is hard to deal with from both sides. The game is pretty even, and I’ve had players, mostly speaking from limited experience of one game and one instance, say that the XX are unbalanced and always going to win, ironically you can fill XX with DS or FP… In future games we’ll be informing players of which nations are taken up etc.
“if memory serves, the GM pointed the ‘cheating’ word in my direction” think you taken my quote out of context. The word cheating was in the sentence I agree but it wasn’t pointed at you so I’d say your memory doesn’t quite serve here…
Steve’s comment - I’ll comment about that one in a few months time when the game is over that he is particularly talking about. It would be unfair to those playing in the game to comment at present. Bear with me.
Clint (GM)