Yes, moves can be countered and it is in the nature of the game. The only problem is that the dropping side gets an advantadge. When that is said: I dont think this is a major problem, unless there exists players who speculates in the system and drops healthy nations as a favour to their friends or allies.
Skage
One future problem/drawback to gunboat games has been fixed by this forum IMO. Harly will announce in future games the knew combinations of nations as drops are replaced. I still think all current games should be announced as well, but at least one person disagrees so this probably will not happen.
What has not been resolved is what combination of pairs is and is not allowed. I personally don’t think the cloud lord should ever be allowed double scout. Other combinations that I do not think should be allowed in no particular order
Dwarves/cardolan/sinda
cardolan/arthedain
southern gondor/harad
witch king/rhudar
QA/Corsairs
I am sure there are many other combinations that others would not want, and probably to many combinations to make limitations feasible.
However, I still believe that just allowing a nation to drop would greatly unbalance the game more so than allowing questionable combinations. Although it is only a game, I find it disappointing that nations will drop in the first five turns for whatever reason (someone mentioned if you die that might be a good reason to drop, but the jury is still out on that as well 
). My disappointment aside, drops will happen and I think the best resolution is to come up with something that all players think is fair, or at least reasonable to allow gunboat to continue as I do enjoy the format.
Tim
They can do but often a nation that has players dropped is at the disadvantage. Firstly we can’t always replace dropped players, secondly players don’t always tell us so the nation SSes for a turn or two, 3rd when a nation is dropped it’s usually for a reason - ie it’s often in a bad state so anyone picking it up has a lot of catching up.
Clearly there are advantages but I’ve been keeping a close eye on games of GB recently and I’m coming to the conclusion that when a side loses a player it’s almost always at a disadvantage. Part of what I can see is that most games will see some drops, but too many drops and players on that team aren’t able to pick up dropped nations. So one duo dropped often gets picked up, 2 dropped and the nations don’t always get picked up. I always wait a few days to see who comes forward for nations that have been dropped to make sure (as best as can be) that nations are allocated fairly as can be but likewise that’s not always possible.
Both sides are created with players with equal(ish) levels of skills so unless the actual format is flawed (not that I can see one with the allowance of players to pick up dropped nations which was a major killer for the game) I’m reasonably happy as both a player (playing in 3 GB games) and as a GM that the format is fine. As a player I’d love to tweak some of the nations and duos, as a GM I think that some nation duos might want to be addressed - eg Rhudaur might want a MT from the Corsairs as part of the set-up process for example. Any thoughts on playing with the set-ups?
Clint
Regarding not allowed combinations following drops:
First, this should not be up to the GMs. If there is a combination that is not allowed it should be officiel and never up to the whim of the GMs (same discussion as GMs should not rule in this because one side will always disagree, and we do not want to spend more of the GMs time on unhappy costumers. Too much time is already spend on this 
)
Second, I do not think there should be any combinations disallowed. Maybe a double scout nation paired with CL will be too powerfull, but so what? If you don’t what to play such a combination, then don’t. The other way around, being against this combination should only drive you to the peak of your ME skills or perish.
Just my 5 cents.
- Jeppe
PS. And as all other says, I think new combinations should be annouced the turn the new player takes over the new nation.
Good article Tim!
Most of Tim’s pairings-of-concern are interestingly regional army-coordination benefits. I’d be more concerned about those pairings in the early game, and less so in the mid to late game. A lot of other potential pairings make the character war much more viable in GB than it normally is.
I think it’s interesting to backup and think about what is more difficult in GunBoat than a “team game” and what combinations lessen that difficulty significantly for the 3-nation-player. I’d say it’s really “information”. This is all normally shared in a team game. Palantir is hugely useful in a team game. In GB, it’s horribly difficult for a lot of nation combos to monitor their own near-enemy list, much less worry about enemy and friendly nations on other parts of the map:
- Recon information (opposing nation pop/fort/bridge status, armies, etc).
- Artifact information (who has what? where is it located? who’s going to get it?)
- Dragon location/information (DS need these in a team game…)
- Character War (Sinda & CL don’t have x2Scout. Also curse squads are more difficult to create & use w/o x2Scout)
- Economic information - what teammate needs what & when?
- Attack coordination information
Given the above, what does a 3-nation pair make easier? what 3-nation pairings make one of the above so much easier that it becomes unfair? I think any 3-nation pair makes ALL of the above easier. You get potentially a 50% increase in orders/turn that can be devoted to gathering information. You get an opportunity to manage finances with another degree of freedom. You very likely get an opportunity to coordinate attacks too.
The way GB is set up to-start with the 2-nation pairings, the character war is a very difficult war to wage, and takes much longer to really develop than it does in a normal team game. Thus, I would propose to all of you guys to ponder, that it is the information gathering nations that are the least fair to pair up as 3rd legs: x2Scout (Dun, QA, Woodmen) and Mage-centric with no near-enemies (Noldo & BS) Add the above nations as a 3rd to any nation-pair, and you really have advantage for the new 3-nation player. Add them to a “character war” nation, and it’s some shade-of-grey unfair (in my opinion).
All that said, should we allow those 5 nations to be picked up to keep a game going? I think so. Should we disallow a x2Scout nation from being paired with a agent-focused nation? CL/QA - surely; Sinda/Duns-or-Woodmen - Probably; IK/QA - Probably; What about pairings of Noldo or BS with Sinda or CL respectively? Those mages can cast a whole lotta spells, freeing up lots of character slots in the agent nations for… AGENTS. This seems border line to me. What do the rest of you guys think?
Finally, given that character war & dragon recruitment is more difficult in GB, I wonder if Clint sees the FP winning more than in team games? or are there other mitigating effects that dampen the FP’s abilities also?
Dave
Plain and simple, if you can’t manage your duo of nations you shouldn’t be playing Gunboat. It’s not for the faint of heart, and if you’re the type of player that relies on teammates then GB is not for you. But if you feel that you can manage a pair of nations and keep them both going in a game of limited information where every bit of intelligence is important, go for it. I’m still missing the point about the griping of various pairings. Just play the damn game and see what happens.
- Ben
Gunboat 229, 237
from left field…
i have never played this version, and played just about everything to death. maybe im in a small minority, but if your gonna be a lowlife and cheat, go ahead. its no longer about winning or losing, its about fun and playing well. as you all know, you can make no mistakes, and still get crushed. theres no shame in that result.
i like the fact no email involved. im certain i have crossed swords with most, if not all of you guys on this site( benefits of playing since game 13, 1991). i always bitch about the volume of mail this game generates. you shoulda seen the phone bills of old.
im shocked that the harad get killed in rapid fashion. i know its the avenger and corsairs, but man, its the harad your playing tag with guys.
somebody mentioned combining the cloud lord and a double scouter. you cant do that. why not just double up the gondors too. hell, the duns/n gondor combo is very powerful.
i like the you cant attack an allegiance member. theres too many ways to abuse youe fellow allies. is it unheard of for a nation, say n gondor, to pasa an artifact like a palantir, off to another nation. knowing its uncoordinated, its tough, but do able.
anyway, i must get back to this thread. but i find the passion you guys have about this game, warrents attendance.
this is probably a perfect forum to get a grudge team to have an intra-team melee. everybodies blind as to there friends/foes, so theres no choosing up sides.
bravo to you all, you guys obviously have a huge passion for this concept.
sm
What about this:
players rarely drop when the game is running good for them, at least I haven’t seen many drops due to outgame personal reasons. If a pair of nations is in good shape, harly should have no problems finding a replacement player.
Normally, the side on which the drop occurs will be the losing one. If this is the case, the dropped nations will be usually in bad shape and are not much of an advantage for the uptaking player. Evem if game balance should be affected, then only in such way that the odds are evened out a little .
So on the rare occasion that nations in good shape are dropped on the winning side and harly does not find a new replacement player, the rules about forbidden nation combos and telling the other team about the distribution could be applied. As that will not happen very often, the GMs should be able to sort it out.
Does that sound viable?