I played in the recently completed 2950 Gunboat and am currently playing the in ongoing 2950 Gunboat. I ran the Dog Lord/Long Rider the first game and had a good time with it. At some point I’ll write an article about what I did and why I made certain moves.
But I will give three pieces of advice for all Gunboat players:
Manage your economy wisely. I almost bankrupted myself because I didn’t pay attention.
Pick one nation to do the fighting, the second nation to provide support. It’s hard to run a pair of military powers that can sustain themselves.
Come out swinging. Conservative play gets squashed.
Ben
Dog Lord/Long Rider - Gunboat 237
Currently in Gunboat 229
Some sort of reminder system might be an idea Clint ?
We don’t want to do that. Isn’t it upto the player if they want to communicate or not and isn’t that the point of GB to get away from the pressure to do so? If the player can’t recall that it’s his turn (having just received an email the turn before) then us reminding them isn’t really going to motivate them.
It also adds to your work-load - not a lot but each 10+ minutes per game (which it would take) takes up 2 hours of our work per day - 10 hours per week and it all adds up.
I don’t know what you guys mean by "diplo"s. Is that a message to another player sent through Harly in a GB game? I thought all communication between players was forbidden? Thanks if you can clarify this point for me. I’ll also look on my set-up to reread the guidelines.
Ben, good to see there are some other quality players in 229.
Nimdraug, or white wolf (I like the name), GB 2950 is very much like the 2950 scenerio without the massive communication and coordination amongst team members.
I like 2950 because it is leaner, meaner, and less predictable than 1650. Dol Guldur can be a real challenge for the Free in 2950 due to the low number of troops each nation’s economy can afford. In 1650, Dol Guldur is little more than a speed bump for the Dwarves and other Free.
Also, due to the low number of troops, one has to get creative: spells, artifacts, and NPC’s all play a bigger role.
I am REALLY looking forward to continuing my GB 2950 because of the “fog of war” aspect; it adds some ‘reality’ to the game. How realistic is it for someone in Mithlond-west to know about what is happening in Lug Ghurzun, far across Middle-earth?
If you have any other questions, shoot them my way. But if you know 2950 in general, then getting GB 2950 isn’t much of a stretch.
Thanks for the response about the 2950 GB game. I agree with your “leaner and meaner” comment about the 2950 scenario. At times, the 1650 game seems cluttered and a bit stale. Conceptually, it’s still a great scenario but it needs some new life. The GB variant of 1650 strips away much of the clutter, in my opinion, and makes the game come alive again. How much more alive, then, must a 2950 GB game then be!
I also agree about the “fog of war” aspect of the GB games – whether 2950 or 1650. Without some of that “fog” (which can at times be very frustrating and annoying), the game not only loses some sense of “reality,” as you put it, but it also loses much of its charm, I think.
As for the “diplos,” I’m not sure how they are forwarded; but in GB games they are used only for the limited-diplomacy option GB games. The regular GB games do not allow any diplomacy whatsoever and thus no “diplos.” Personally, I prefer the no-diplomacy GB games; but I must admit I’ve never tried a limited-diplomacy GB game so I can’t speak on the subject with any authority.
Oh, and you are correct, Gildring. I am Nimdraug, the “White Wolf.” Fear me most at dawn, when the mist is thick . . . and white.
Your point #1 (“manage your economy wisely”) is true of 2950 in general and not just GB 2950. Wouldn’t you agree? Or is there something different about 2950 GB that puts the fragile 2950 economies at greater risk?
Your point #2 is well-taken. I think even in 1650 GB it’s a good idea to have one of your nations in more of a support role and the other fight like crazy. That’s not always possible to pull off, however. The Arthedain/Harad duo comes to mind in the 1650 GB game as an example of two front-line nations being paired.
Your point #3 is interesting. “Conservative play gets squashed,” you said. KBA makes a similar point in an earlier post. He said:
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.
Yet he draws the conclusion that because the GB game is so unpredictable, you need to be a bit more cautious and look to your nations’ survivablility. I wonder which conclusion is the correct one to draw from the GB experience.
Originally posted by Nimdraug Your point #1 (“manage your economy wisely”) is true of 2950 in general and not just GB 2950. Wouldn’t you agree? Or is there something different about 2950 GB that puts the fragile 2950 economies at greater risk?
Er…you don’t have 8 other allies to beg gold from.
One of the difficulties you may be finding in getting your next GB off the ground is there are least 5 GB games going on at present, may be more.
I guess a large part of the player pool are already involved and due to the nature of the GB game it tends to be more lengthy then usual.
Nice to read this stuff though, its great to be able to get on and play the game as you want, but I’m dying with curiosity to find out what has been happening in the games I’m involved in. Did one of my “allies” really let me run head long into that wall then pick up all my arties and take the PC himself. If he meant it I sneakingly half admire him for it.
Brad - if your ever bored of winning with your beloved Rhudaur you should try them in a GB game, now there would be a challenge for you.
Your point #1 (“manage your economy wisely”) is true of 2950 in general and not just GB 2950. Wouldn’t you agree? Or is there something different about 2950 GB that puts the fragile 2950 economies at greater risk?
Your point #2 is well-taken. I think even in 1650 GB it’s a good idea to have one of your nations in more of a support role and the other fight like crazy. That’s not always possible to pull off, however. The Arthedain/Harad duo comes to mind in the 1650 GB game as an example of two front-line nations being paired.
Your point #3 is interesting. “Conservative play gets squashed,” you said. KBA makes a similar point in an earlier post. He said:
Yet he draws the conclusion that because the GB game is so unpredictable, you need to be a bit more cautious and look to your nations’ survivablility. I wonder which conclusion is the correct one to draw from the GB experience. [/b]
Brad summed it up quite nicely. Economy planning is vital since you do not have your teammates to rely on for support, short of a surprise gift of gold/product. In 2950 it’s obviously more important to develop your nations’ economies for the mid-game so you can support larger armies and those expensive characters.
I’ve only played one 1650 game, and it was fun, but I like 2950 because it is more open-ended. Depending on the nation combo, you can have both nations fighting. As the Dog/LR, I was able to use both nations’ armies to fight before I had the Dog Lord take over because that nation’s armies ended up capturing more enemy pop centers.
As for the 3rd point, the best defense is a good offense. For both sides it’s VERY important to play aggressively to the strengths of the nations given and try to bear the brunt of whatever your enemies throw at you. Granted some nations are bound to get beat on, North Gondor, for instance, but remember that your enemies are uncoordinated and joint attacks are quite rare. I could go into my strategy for the Dog Lord/Long Rider, but I don’t want to ruin it for whoever is playing that combo in 229 right now.
Originally posted by Woody Brad - if your ever bored of winning with your beloved Rhudaur you should try them in a GB game, now there would be a challenge for you.
Well, I’ve won them as both DS and FP, so I’m not so sure. Especially, as GB is generally different from the “standard” and predictable play of 12x12 - where Rhudaur get’s trounced, why shouldn’t Rhuduar “generally” Rule in GB? Besides…according to the Rules, you don’t know if I already am…
I would love to play a Gunboat game. When I first heard about it (just after the first ones started) the whole concept appealed to me. The more I read about it the more inrested I have in the game.
Unfortunatly, I’m running two nations right now and that is all I can afford
I am definitely signed up for the next 2950 GB game. In fact, I’ve advised Clint that I wish to be considered for a position in any GB game that starts to accept sign-ups.
As I understand the GB situation in regard to new games at this time, ME Games has received sign-ups from players for both 2950 and 1650 GB games but that it’s only a handful in each case.
That’s the only downside to GB games, in my opinion – namely, that they take a long time to fill. The reasons for that are, I think, as follows.
GB is still not as popular as regular team games.
GB games tend to last longer than regular team games.
Here’s an idea for you to kick around. If you can gather 8 players, you could perhaps convince Clint to offer a GB game in which each player controls three nations. I know Clint is not fond of the GB “triple” option (as opposed to GB duo nations); but if 8 players gathered and requested it (with perhaps 1 backup player in case of a drop), I don’t see why ME Games would not fulfill the request.
Yes, Clint told me that ME Games ran a “triple-nation” GB game but that he was disappointed with the results. He said missed turns caused many problems and also drops were a problem in that game. And I’m also unsure whether that game is still running or not.
But if 8 dedicated GB players got together (with perhaps 1 backup in case of a drop), I don’t see how that would be different from two 4-player grudge teams arranging a game.
Obviously, there are some very interested GB players – but not enough to fill new games quickly. Convincing 8 other GB fans to join a “triple-nation” game might help to get a game filled faster and it would have the added bonus of giving each player the rather unique experience of controlling three nations in one game. To me, that sounds like alot of fun!
Upgrade BOTH nations AS SOON AS POSSIBLE and get your two nations’ characters in companies. This is ESPECIALLY important for offensive agent/emmie squads, and if you’re nations are close enough together to have armies that work together, it helps as well.
I played in the “triple nation” GB game. I thought it was alot of fun but I think the nation pairings could have been a little better in hindsight. I got eliminated fairly quickly due to economic reasons (I dont know if this game is still on going, so I wont say much about it) but it wasnt too bad for a first run. I’d be willing to try it again if it were revamped a little.
Fletch do you happen to have the list of nation combinations for the triple nation Gunboat game please?
I would like to take a look and see if we can get a bit of banter going on their respective merits. It may go on my ME ‘to-do list’, though I would have to free up some cash and time.
