GB 229 ran again today! Hooray! Bad luck to my opponents, good luck to my allies!
- Ben
GB 229
Strangely enough we do have another game starting up - game 8.
I am thinking of adding the extra rule to this one that if a nation is eliminated and the other nation dropped I’ll offer that alive nation to anyone in the team to pick up. They won’t get the dead nation’s information.
Thoughts on that?
Clint
Well, one rule that needs to be added for sure is that dead nations SHOULD NOT be revealed.
I have no problems with dropped nations being taken up by teammates.
- Ben
I concur. Dropped nations should definitely be offered to current players for picking up.
If, however, both nations in a dropped duo are surviving, then I think the surviving nations should be split amongst current players. That way no one player ends up with 4 nations at his command while all the rest have only 2.
I also agree with Benmin18 that dead nations should not be announced or otherwise revealed. Part of the charm and excitement of Gunboat is the LACK of knowledge of what is going on. The slow and painstaking process of piecing together little bits of information to get a bigger picture of what is happening in Middle-earth is intriguing and engaging. And from time to time, when your information gathering labors pay off with a military victory or successful character action, that payoff feels all the more grand and rewarding. In short, it’s part of the fun of Gunboat. Revealing the identity of a dead nation detracts from that, in my opinion.
Some games have the dead nations announced - others not.
I think that this is very much a personal choice thing - some players like it and some don’t.
Clint
Well, Clint, I can’t disagree with that. Personal choice is what the variant games are all about! It’s not a “make or break” issue for me whether dead nations are announced. I happen to prefer that they not be announced. Others, I’m certain, have the opposite view. I would play Gunboat under either policy; but think the variant is strengthened slightly by not announcing them.
And may I say on a more general note, it is my opinion that the variants add tremendous value to ME PBM. And that becomes all the more true in light of the fact that GSI will not authorize programming changes to the game (at least to this date). The variants are thus the only way for ME Games to be innovative. If not for the variants, ME PBM would be quite diminished.
One more item: Gunboat must be gaining in popularity. Gunboat 1650 game 6 just began a week or so ago and now Gunboat 1650 game 8 is filling up!
Perhaps it’s time to consider offering a 2959 Gunboat game.
Seriously Clint, consider this: If Gunboat is meant for players to TRULY use all the resources at their disposal, then WHY tell players that nations are dead? Doesn’t that sort of defeat the purpose? Gunboat is specifically meant to enhance the fog of war. Well, the fog of war is certainly cleared a bit if I know who is dead and alive on my opposition.
- Ben
Avid 2950 Gunboat Enthusiast
Perhaps it’s time to consider offering a 2959 Gunboat game.
I don’t think so I couldn’t get players to take the drop out(s) in the earlier 2950 game and have hardly anyone interested. I know you’re keen but I think this is flogging a dead horse - we can keep one horse alive but not multiple… 
As per usual 1650 is much more popular thatn 2950 or 1000 and that is represented in the number of variant games of each that I can offer.
Well, one rule that needs to be added for sure is that dead nations SHOULD NOT be revealed.
Not sure - I need more feedback before I can decide. It’s certainly less work for us to not give that information out… 
Clint
Originally posted by Clint
Not sure - I need more feedback before I can decide. It’s certainly less work for us to not give that information out…
Clint
Clint,
Now that’s pointless… of course we want to make more work for you.
The other thing that revealing dead nations does is immediately turn the whole game into a vultures’ feast as players from both sides will immediately try to grab pop centers, artifacts, and recruit/kill characters. Dead nations shouldn’t be announced so the partner nation has a chance to have first crack at salvaging everything as best as they can.
It’s all about fog of war, and announcing dead nations kills it.
- Ben
Not sure I would play in game in which the defeated nations are not released for several reasons.
Everyone does not have the same maps; some are more favorable than others.
Some nation pairs start with low level mages which hamper their ability to learn things via the arcane route.
Assuming some sort of quasi-realism, I think it’s safe to assume the trade caravans would have some knowledge of happenings in other parts of the map.
I like the idea of a very sketchy status update of the overall game.
A scrying artifact for each pair would not be a bad idea either IMO.
As for a 2950 game, you would need to assemble your own 8 dedicated players to play 3 nation combos and that is too expensive/ time consuming for some people. Drops in a 3 nation game would be devastating and there seems to be some 2950 players that can’t cut it on their own.
Celebion, there is no need to play 2950 Gunboat as a three-nation game. Perhaps that isn’t what you meant; perhaps you intended only to convey the idea that it is preferable to play 2950 as a three-nation game. But clearly 2950 Gunboat CAN be played as a two-nation game.
Clint mentioned that he had trouble finding replacements for a dropped position in an earlier 2950 GB game. My view on dropped GB positions is that if no replacement can be found within a reasonable time-frame, then the nations should be split among current players. Sure that would give some players an advantage; but I wouldn’t care about that. I’m intertested only in exciting, balanced game play – not victory.
In fact, I think in ALL games dropped positions should be offered to current players if no replacement can be found.
In the case of Gunboat drops, perhaps the dropped nations (assuming nation duos) could be split among the two players who are most struggling (with “most struggling” to be determined by Clint). And in my opinion, a reasonable time-frame before offering dropped nations to current players would be one missed turn following the drop. In two-week games, that would give at least a few weeks to locate a replacement before turning to curent players.
Originally posted by Celebion
[b]Not sure I would play in game in which the defeated nations are not released for several reasons.Everyone does not have the same maps; some are more favorable than others.
Some nation pairs start with low level mages which hamper their ability to learn things via the arcane route.
Assuming some sort of quasi-realism, I think it’s safe to assume the trade caravans would have some knowledge of happenings in other parts of the map.
[/b]
This is the appeal of Gunboat, for you to develop your nation so you CAN gather info. Yeah, not everyone starts with mages, but hey, those are the breaks. You make do with what you’ve got, and I like that. It’s more challenging.
And that is the main reason for Gunboat, as a more challenging alternative.
- Ben
With the current player pool another 2950 GB is next to impossible. I have turns where there was a 2950 GB stand-by was listed for 3-4 weeks. It stands to reason if you cant get one replacement you can’t get 12 players in the current environment.
Since I only play 2950/FA I am all for another 2950 GB game but the player base will not support.
I don’t play GB for the fog of war or to have a 30M PrenMgy until 55ish so I can cast perceive secrets or having my emmys issuing Uncovers.
To me GB it is test of who has more knowledge about the “workings” of the scenario, who has better strategy/tactics/resource allocation when unable plan with others.
Of course like many other things, GB is different things to different people.
Gunboat 229 ran yesterday!
Hooray to my allies! Death to my enemies!
- Ben
Gunboat 229
Since I am asking on a public board and not trying to gain any advantage, would it be within the rules to ask Ben if he is FP or DS in 229?
Unless you are sure, don’t tell me. One of the things inherently lost in a Gunboat game is the trash talk, but I’ll gladly live with that. Gunboat more than compensates with the multi-nation, fog of war aspect.
Nick
Gunboat
I’m not allowed to say which side I’m on.
- Ben
Gunboat 229
Gildring, you have hit on an interesting aspect of the Gunboat game. Because there is no diplomacy in GB, there can also be no trash-talking or other entertaining posts. GB is inherently quiet; and that means that alot of players who I think would really enjoy GB don’t ever hear about it.
But you are certainly correct: the multi-nation gaming and fog-of-war of GB more than compensates for the inability to brag about one’s successes or taunt one’s opponents on this forum.
I rule! I’m winning! Everyone else sucks!!!
How about that?
- Ben
Gunboat 229
Originally posted by Nimdraug
Because there is no diplomacy in GB, there can also be no trash-talking or other entertaining posts.
Not so. It simply frees trash-talking from the often uncomfortable bonds of reality.
Allow me to demonstrate…
Ben, your armies are so weak that even the peasants of <Gunboat censored> laugh at you. Your men/orcs/trolls/elves/dwarves (delete as applicable) flee like the craven dogs they are before my armies. Soon all the lands from the desert to the frozen tundra will be under the control of <Gunboat censored> My mighty agents <Gunboat censored> and <Gunboat censored> kill with impunity. You have no hope of victory, surrender now. Ha ha ha…
A little vague admittedly, but it’s the thought that counts.
Paul