The games I am/was in are still running, so I am restricted to make some general comments.
I think the nation combos in GB 1650 are quite balanced, but still there are some who are more powerful than others. In this game variant, those combos which can develop game winning strategies on their own are the most powerful.
WK/BS - very strong combination, as there are no Easterlings to worry about BS can throw all his power in to support WK. With the combined mages and the WK arties, this position can build up a curses group on its own, which is very powerful. Once there are safe backup capitals, this position is very hard to beat.
DrgL/Cor – good combination of characters, economic and military power. The Dragon Lord can draw financial support and safely retreat to the south should he be removed from mirkwood. The Corsair position is almost unassailable and will quickly assimilate the prosperous Haradan pop centers.
Nol/Eot – Strongest FP combo. Eothraim military power combined with the strong Noldo characters. Noldo is one of the few nations which can search and use artefacts effectively.
The weakest nations are Rhudaur, who cannot survive turn 10, and Haradwaith, who might survive just a little longer. Players taking on these should like the challenge and be satisfied to play on with just one nation. The Dwarves/Northmen – combo is also very weak due to the lack of any good characters.
I think that the DS side is a little stronger because character strength does count more than in a normal game. The military superiority of the FP does only come to full effect when it is coordinated.
My advice for any FP nation: train strong characters, especially agents, from early on, so you can bring up a little defence when the Cloud Lord picks you as target. Building up an off-map backup capital can also buy a few turns.
I would like to see how the first GB games ended. Does somebody know how many are finished and what the results are?
I must dispute Mormegil’s assertion that the Dwarves/Northmen is a weak combination. I have played these two nations as a pair in several games normal games, and in the Gunboat game 95. In the latter game the D/N were the only FP positions still alive at the en of the game - and I can’t claim it was merely due to my own brilliant play 
Far from it - the combination of the positions has a number of strengths which are very useful in a GB game.
1: The Dwarves are spread out, true, but in GB this can actually be an advantage as you have a far better idea of what is going on in the world.
2: The Northmen map is very useful to the Dwarven eastern campaign
3: The Dwarven scout and recon ability is crucially important in a game where information is hard to come by.
4: Without a team to back you up financially, the Northmen’s 20% market bonus is a great advantage.
5: Emissaries are vital in GB - and of course the NM name them at 40.
I don’t accept the comment about a lack of good characters. Sure, neither position has an Elrond or Murazor, but the Dwarves have good commanders, and the Northmen can develop an excellent emissary squad fairly quickly. Gunboat games tend to go on much longer than normal games, so possessing super characters at the start of the game is less important.
Put simply, I believe the Dwarves/Northmen to be one of the stronger Gunboat combinations.
Well, due to the fact that there will be less coordinated efforts to kick out NM as we see in team games, his position might be a little better. But I think, along with your doubtless excellent play, the main reason for surviving this long in game 95 was the fact that the DS did not see your nations as prime targets. So, regarding the geographical situation, you are right. But by just viewing the plain character data and potential, NM and Dwarves are the second weakest FP combo, while Art & Har is the weakest.
Nol/Eot is doubtless the best. Car/Sin does also have good potential. NG/Duns and SG/Woo are both military powers combined with good agent potential.
Ah, the statistics.
If this game was all about statistics, then I’m not sure anyone would play it. Middle Earth is about making the best of each position, and the Gunboat variation is also about how well the two positions knit together.
My argument is that, whatever the statistics may show, the Dwarves/Northmen are peculiarly suited to each other as a combination and thus are far from being the second weakest combos - whatever the statistics may show.
On another note, I am surprised nobody has mentioned the Quiet Avenger / Fire King as an interesting GB position. I would have thought that, given the problems of co-ordination inherant in the GB game, both these positions would be strengthened by the GB scenario. What do others think?
I have not tried the GB game yet, but I definately see that Harad is pretty much dead meat. I do not see how he should make it unless SG sends his starting armies to help against the initial QA/Cors unslaugth. Anybody who has actually made it with Harad ?
The only way I see a surviving Harad on the long run IN Harad land is if the combination where changed to e.g. WM/Art and SG/Harad ?
Why is it that Cors and Harad is swopped alligence compared to standart 12vs12 grudge games ? In my experience a DS Harad is a very hard position to crack for FP if well played.
Has anybody any feeling on the distribution of won GB games FP vs. DS ? Or does Harlequin holds a list ?
- Jeppe
PS. Nimdraug, Nick F and Celebion; Thanks for your comments and anwsers
PPS. To Mikesankey. No thanks, but thanks for the offer My question was only based on the thought that I myself would be interested in seeing what other nations where doing after end game. How hard pressed where my enemies, did somebody help them, where were other nations focus and what was going on in other regions etc.
To loraelin.
I think the combination “now a days” is DogL/QA and CL/FK. That is at least the combinations I to my memory were giving by Harlequin ?
- Jeppe
To Colin
You are right that this game is not about statistics and one of the greatest challenges is to manage a nation despite of any obvious bad odds. But if we are to determine a ranking of combos, we have to start somewhere. If you don’t agree with my ranking, what would be yours?
DS combos
Rhu/Dlt. is clearly the weakest, but Dlts. imho are strong enough to be played on alone and you are guaranteed to have an “interesting” game start…
I don’t think that there are any bad DS combos. Apart from the top rankers WK/BS and DrgL/Cor, all others are very interesting combinations of military and agent powers which I would rank equal, with slight advantages for QA/DgL because of the economic strength and secure position of QA.
It’s so difficult to comment on any number of GB issues whilst one is actually playing in a game. I’ve got a number of thoughts on the actual balance of the GB game - but these will have to wait for a while
Colin
Klub (aka Paul) wrote in an earlier post:
Gunboat format is fantastic and I agree with almost all the sentiments regarding tension, communication and strategy expressed above. Rumors, mage scrying and other information gathering methods become much more important in GB, since you have to keep an eye on events outside your own sphere of influence.
I must say, I agree entirely with your observations. Many team/ally games obviate the need for the more subtle forms of information-gathering. Why waste precious orders when you have access each turn to the turnsheest of your 10 or 11 or 12 teammates? Also, why waste time analyzing fragments and scraps of information when you can get wholesale amounts of information from your team? In this respect, GB reflects more accurately the original design intent of ME PBM, in my view.
Paul, I’d love to meet up with you in a GB game soon.
I wanted to give a vote of confidence for the GB 2950 scenerio. Of course I can’t and won’t mention what game I’m in, but I’ve been reading this thread and find the banter interesting.
I also love the team-play of other games, but since this is my first GB, I must say it is refreshing to sniff the “fog of war” once again.
The fact that you can’t know something unless you commit orders to finding it out (spells, palantiri, recon’s, etc), makes for unique and thrilling play.
Good gaming to you all!
Nick
Originally posted by loraelin
[b]It’s so difficult to comment on any number of GB issues whilst one is actually playing in a game. I’ve got a number of thoughts on the actual balance of the GB game - but these will have to wait for a whileColin [/b]
Yeah I’m in the exact same situation as you Colin…
Originally posted by Nimdraug
Paul, I’d love to meet up with you in a GB game soon.
Isn’t there a basic contradiction here…?
Player, you’re right there is a basic contradiction in what I said. Allow me to clarify: Paul, I’d love to beat you like a drum on the field of battle in the next GB game! 
Now for you Player: have sent in a set-up fotr the next GB game? My understanding is that there are two GB games filling right now – a 1650 and a 2950. How about it?
Gildring (aka Nick) wrote:
I wanted to give a vote of confidence for the GB 2950 scenerio. Of course I can’t and won’t mention what game I’m in, but I’ve been reading this thread and find the banter interesting.
Gildring, I’ve never played a 2950 GB game and am aching to see the next one filled and started. Can you tell us anything more about the 2950 GB without compromising any GB prohibitions against communication with the other players? What is it like? How does it differ from the 1650 GB?
If you feel that you can’t discuss it without violating the no-communication rule, I’ll understand, of course.
Does anyone else have a 2950 GB experience to share with us?
Nimdraug’s Contradiction:
I gotcha the first time, let me finish up some of my current games before I get involved in another.
Paul
Hey, all you Gunboat game fans!
Clint told me in an email yesterday that not many players have actually sent in sign-ups for either the 1650 GB or the 2950 GB games. He said alot have said they are interested or would like to join a GB game in the “future;” but not many actual sign-ups. 
So if any of you guys want to get a GB game filled, you have to send an email to Clint and “officially” sign up for a GB game – that means providing your account number and nation duo preferences, etc. in the message.
Let’s get goin’ and get another GB game started!
hi,
Nice thread. I’m currently in a GB game nearing turn 30 and it looks like it could last for at least 20 turns more. I think GB is a great refreshing scenario created for ME fans, primary because of the time factor. The primary problem with the ordinary team game (especially grudge games)is that you MUST have a whole lot of time available to really enjoy the game. Because the team aspect of the game means that a great deal of information is continously flooding forth and back all players every turn. If you cant handle that kind of informationflow, you will not really be part of the game and probably just be obeying orders.
In GB this factor has been removed. You are not dependent on available time anymore. A GB turn can be made in less than two hours every two weeks (and if you dont have this small amount available, then you are seriously in the wrong business). This is a great advantage compared with spending several hours every day on communication in a single grudge game.
My experience with this type of game is that you NEED to think long term right from the beginning. Each GB game will VERY likely last long past turn 30, and at that stage of the game character war will be the decisive factor. Another experience is that you can lay the basic starting strategies on the shelf. The start is completely unpredicting and you need to focus on the long term surviving of your two nations. In my game one of my nations has fx been attacked by as many as 7 different enemies, which were quite surprising.
Anyway as I, like so many others, dont have the time I used to have available, GB will more and more be my favorite scenario.
Kim is very right about the team game aspect of informationflow. That is why I never will play more than one team game at a time. The total absence of informationflow in GB OTOH can be very frustrating. I recently dropped a GB position where I was fighting a loosing battle for many, many turns. If nobody helps you, you can hardly hope to turn the tide once you are on the loosing street. This is why I pledge for a limited communication in GB games, like 100 words to all allies every five turns. This will avoid the information overkill as well as the total isolation. Due to my late experiences, I would rather not join another normal GB game but limited communication would interest me greatly. We have discussed this some time ago and it seemed as if such a game would be set up soon, but now it looks like it is completely forgotten.
We have discussed this some time ago and it seemed as if such a game would be set up soon, but now it looks like it is completely forgotten.
Nope - it got created. At present most players don’t actually send diplos though… After that we did a normal GB game and a 2950 GB game. As per usual if there’s a player base for it we’ll support it.
Clint
I suspect that the reason for lack of diplos every 5 turns is because its really easy to forget which turn is your turn to communicate.
Some sort of reminder system might be an idea Clint ?