Originally posted by gingerprince
[b]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 [/b]
Oh yeah?!?!?!
Well, you dress like woman and play with elves! And your mom smells like a troll! My agents have already killed (insert names here) and I’ve taken (insert population centers here) and lost only (insert population centers here). I armies will ravage the entire (insert Middle Earth Region here) on my way to (insert destination here). So take that!
My agents have already killed (insert names here) and I’ve taken (insert population centers here) and lost only (insert population centers here). I armies will ravage the entire (insert Middle Earth Region here) on my way to (insert destination here). So take that!
[/b]
Ha. You’re delusional. (insert names here) were only pawns in my cunning strategy - their deaths will be avenged doubly.
You will find the road to (insert destination here) awash with the blood of many of your orc/troll/man/dwarf/elf-folk.
Nazguls and elves may or may not suck, depending on how I am aligned.
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.
Generally the player who has the “lost” nation has a turn or even two advantage over others. A quick look at the games that have run to completion and I think that lots of players don’t look into this aspect of the game in any detail so I don’t think it’s a problem for most.
Clint: I am confused. Does Harley announce the collapse of a Gunboat nation or not? That is what the emissary order 585 does. Don’t see why Harley would be involved at all.
Another reason I love Gunboat: no Neutrals to throw the game out of balance. Just check out the thread about game 95. There are some mighty annoyed and frustrated players because the Neutrals threw the game way out of balance. I too have had too many bad experiences with extremely out-of-balance games (both 1650 and 2950) and became frustrated with all of ME PBM for quite awhile.
GB by its nature, however, tends to encourage game balancing – and by extension more excitinga nd intense game-play. The reasons for this are numerous. But here are a few. (1) No Neutrals. The Neutrals are evenly divided between DS and Free. (2) No diplomacy. It is not possible to have one side hyper-organized and the other side not, as occurs too often, in my opinion, in regular team games. (3) The GB fog-of-war tends to give nations that are hurting a chance to regenerate while those that are thriving are unable to exploit their superior position as fully as they can in regular games.
Well, the player base for 2950 is much smaller than 1650. One is all that Clint is willing to support right now. However if a second one dores start up, I’d be tempted to do that one as well.
