Gunboat games

General
#21

Well if you read between the lines the answer to the question is where to sides are equal I favour the good side, but hey thats only because its easier to play them.

The good side dont depend on the market, arties to stack there agents and all the other items the dark side us in a normal game.

That said if you are dark and get your tactics right hold the line, take it to the good side, you can and do win.

But of course its more fun to play the dark side than the good, most of the time, so why not enjoy winning or losing.

Now since players hate the concept of drop outs and its hard to get players to take them over, I mysslef would prefer to adopt the put my hand in my pocket and pay a fee for dropping. You dont have to pay it by simple not playing that format but if you do then its pays for a few turns so someone takes over a drop. I like to test myself so would put my name down for a drop out where a turn or two is free and you dont get me to drop later until one is toasted.

Now as regards the 3player position playing the sindar arthedain and harad the ability to combine them (smashed the wk) with 3 nations emmies and agents, well more than happy to trade with the QA as I had more and did him twice as much damage.

Saved a hard pressed Harad and did for the QA at the time. The concentration of wealth enabled me to do with one nation things I could not do with 2 so how as a 2 player nation do you fight this?

I had a top 3 nation and a second with the sindar take over and that kind of firepower well I would not want to face it as a dark servant.

You could see the outcome of the game long before the end and so it proved to be.

Now pray tell what grudge game are you playing in?

As regards Gunboat I have joined the invite only league of players and await the call to arms for fun and frolics.

If you are in then I will see you on the field somewhere, if not perhaps later who knows.

Clint will let you put together any game format you like within reason if you can form a game up, so dont worry about that.

Vandal

#22

Vandal,

I forgot to include the word not in my previous post. Playing three nations in a gunboat game is NOT fair. I agree with your entire assesment. However, with so many players, me included, that do not want to take the challenge of inheriting positions that you did not run from turn one I do not see a fair way when players quit. You can not just drop the positions, that unbalances it even more. Honestly I do not see a fair solution other than to allow the dropped positions to be picked up.

I (actually Tony) to played Cardolan and Sinda and picked up the Arthedain on turn three. The Witch King and Rhudaur had no chance and with the combined resources of three nations the dark servants conceded just prior to turn 20. However, noone on the free side quit other than the harad/arthedain on turn three.

I would prefer upfront money paid for at least five turns, but realize many players can not afford this so it is probably an improbable request.

I played gunboat 14 (under Tony)
Currently I am in Gunboat 70
Currently playing Gunboat 71 with/against you

I look forward to the invite game as either your demise waiting to happen, or your ally in victory.

Tim Huiatt

#23

I couldn’t agree with this more. In fact, I’d go as far as paying for ten turns just so we have a stable player base for the early game. With each player having 2 nations, I doubt anyone is likely to lose both in that time frame.

I believe Clint has stated in the past that dropouts aren’t a problem with Gunboat games but I have yet to be involved in one where it wasn’t a significant factor. Just because there isn’t a lot of team coordination involved doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a sense of responsibility to the welfare of the team as a whole.

Bernout

#24

I enjoyed playing my pair of nations in my only GB game so far… I played FP, though I think I gave 3 or 4 pairs as my options with 2 for each side.

I have also thought that a normal game of 1650 with 2 equally skilled teams would favour the FP in a short to mid lenght game but would tend to favour the DS if the game went long term…

I suspect that as long as competent play occurs in GB by both sides, then he games will eventually balance out with equal wins to both… since in GB you are not discussing the various opening gambits and cannot easily co-ordinate actions both nations have problems to overcome.

I personally think that one of the keys to success is to “Stay on target” and remember you are playing a compartmentalised game to an extent.

I would probably play another GB if I knew all players were experienced and intended not to drop (other than for real world events rather than in game events)… and I like a number of pairings for both DS and FP, so currently no particular preference for either…

Cheers

Michael

#25

Michael,

the problem with saying the dark servants win if the game goes long is that competent play by the free people keeps the game from going long.

What gunboat game did you play in and what nations did you get to play?

I have not played all nation, but over the next five years I hope to play them all.

tim

#26

Tim,

GB14… same as you and on same side… I was 1/7 :slight_smile:

Michael

#27

Well its not for everyone but to get that stable game as i myself have said paying in advance is not a problem and if it was 10 turns then drop outs could be filled for free and the best team win on merit.

Michaels a good player by the way tim and I have seen a few games go on for a bit but I would not put money on it working with the message format.

Stable games, good players, great game (hopefully) I dont mind paying for it.

Now others may not like the idea or be able to aford it but they sem to want the same thing. No drop outs and a hard game.

Vandal

#28

I would agree that in normal, grudge and Gb 1650 that DS are more difficult to play but they do have longer term advantages (on the whole) than the FPs. The question (or one of them is) is that do the DS in GB have a bigger disadvantage compared with normal 1650 games? Generally the stronger players play DS I’ve found (hence the reason IMO that DS win the normal games slightly more than FPs - but Grudge it’s pretty much 50/50).

IMO I don’t there’s a big difference - clearly there are areas of the map where one side is at an advantage to others but with skill any location on the map can be turned into a winning area (and vice-versa of course!)

So I don’t really see that there’s a need for me to change the set-up for DS. Feel free to discuss this further though if you want and if something appropriate does come up then we can look into that.

Clint (GM)

#29

Any other ideas for reducing lost nations due to missed turns and drop outs? Reducing these would not only improve the overall game but also help balance the DS and FP, since the DS are hurt more my dropouts and missed turns. I’m guilty of unintentionally screwing my team in GB–it happens because no one is there to watch your back so to speak.

A few ideas/remedies…

How about sending out an automated reminder to all players a day or two in advance of the due date?

Maybe some team members could agree in advance to be on standby to do shadow orders if there are orders missing and/or take over a position if needed? Players could agree to allow all GB processing to be delayed one extra day beyond the due date EVERY TURN in order to allow for possible shadowing if needed.

Improve the SS turns, or allow a bit of GM interference so that natsells are done to prevent sudden bankruptcy?

Sharing a position with a friend could also help. Two people playing one GB position could watch out for each other, shadow while other guy goes camping, etc…

The sharing idea also makes it much more financially feasible to get 5 turns of fees up front, which would be great so long as it doesn’t deter players.

Christian

#30

People make the same mistakes in this game that they do in Real Like. If an individual needs a crutch in this game, you can bet he needs one in Real Life.

The Real World manager must face a multitude of problems. Late suppliers, absentee employees, hostile competitors, ureliable contractors, etc, etc. It is the ability of the manager to solve these problems, over the long term, that separate the ‘good’ from the ‘average’ manager.

Likewise players must deal with forces beyond their immediate control. Formost among them are their ‘friends’. Why try and solve that problem for the players? This game is suppose to be a challenge and it can be a very ‘realistic’ challenge, despite being a fantasy game. The less intervention by the /machinery of god’ the better. The better the game and the better the challenge. And as the players gain in experience, it can be a better equipped person in the Real World if they learn from their lessons.

#31

“How about sending out an automated reminder to all players a day or two in advance of the due date?”

We do - the day before. My system of playing is to do the orders early, send them in and then update them later.

Can’t do that with GB games. Sorts of defeats the object.

“Players could agree to allow all GB processing to be delayed one extra day beyond the due date EVERY TURN in order to allow for possible shadowing if needed.”

I don’t think that would help. If a player is late at all then generally they are very late.

“Improve the SS turns, or allow a bit of GM interference so that natsells are done to prevent sudden bankruptcy?”

We’ve played with an AI for such things but at present it’s not ready nor are we even sure we want to implement it. At present we’re having enough difficulties just getting the program converted to PC without adding any extras. As for GM interference - no thanks. We don’t charge for SS turns - this would take up a lot of time and I don’t even want to go into the discussion of GM interfering in turns.

"Sharing a position with a friend could also help. Two people playing one GB position could watch out for each other, shadow while other guy goes camping, etc… "

Some people do that already.

Clint

#32

Blimey I find myself agreeing with Clint I am off to the doctors to see if I am coming down with something.

Vandal

#33

Frank… :slight_smile: Next you’ll agree with Chris C and then we’re all off to the funny farm…

Clint

#34

But Clint sadly I have been agreeing with him of late on far to many points, now you do have me worried.

Its a sign old age is catching up with me and my rampaging days are coming to an end and its the knackers yard time.

Vandal

#35

Of the due date or process date? I’m talking about the due date. So if it processes on Wed, is due on Tues, then the reminder goes out on Monday. Still, the early reminder might not help…then again it might.

If s/he’s late at all you send out a request to the volunteer for shadow orders–you don’t bother waiting for the late person. The shadower has a day to respond/get them in or else the position gets an SS.

How many people even know its an option I wonder? Should players be informed of this option in the GB rules/description?

Most agree that GB dropouts and missed turns make the game worse, not better. Its not just about your allies dropping the ball, its about the opposition too. (Anyone care to fight a ghost nation? How thrilling.) So lets figure out a way to reduce dropouts & missed turns.

The 5 (or 10) turn advance is a fine idea for a particular game if the players request this requirement, but to be implemented as a general requirement to play any GB game will surely deter players–no?

My random thoughts didn’t hit any home runs. Surely someone else has another idea that might work?

#36

A penalty of some sort for dropping? Maybe an admin fee? Drops do cost the GMs time.

#37

Work on the assumption that someone will drop or SS and preplan on that basis. Those actions can be exploited—maybe.

It has always been my opinon that the preHarley Middle Earth would make a great screening tool for potential management candidiates. Observe their planning, problem solving, asset allocation, ability to work with others and diplomatic skills. I think predictions could be made with a high order of confidence. Notice that win/loss, military strategy and talent with spells matters not at all.

#38

I’ve played in three 1650 GB games: the DS twice and FP once. I’ve been fortunate to have been on the winning side every time.

From the experience of all these games (bar one - see below) I would say that the game was ‘balanced’. At some point in the game someone either makes an error, is out manoeuvred or misses a turn. It happens to all. At these critical points someone gains an advantage and the balance of play is shifted irrevocably.

Whether the set-ups of the FP or DS incur an advantage or not is then irrelevant. I would prefer and wait until more games have been played and then take a look at the results.

What should not happen, though, is that inexperienced players are allowed to participate, or worst still control one of the critical nations. This, I believe, happened in my first GB game and contributed significantly to our win.

The last two games I have played have been more evenly matched, but as I have not played FP without diplos it is difficult to comment on game balance, as (I believe) dilpos give the FP such an added edge. I think they should be removed from play. It was a good idea, but as their role has been predominately one of announcing future action it has inevitably supported more of a military game, such as the FP generally use in their preliminary onslaught against the NW/Mirkwood and Mordor up to turn 10.

I would prefer to analyse the results and go from there. I remember reading much of the discussion on The Forum about the first GB - which I was in at the time. I was therefore in a compromising position and unable to comment on the discussion points. A hot topic was the FK/QA pairing. It was suggested that this pairing was too weak and should be changed. I was actually playing these nations - and they were working great together. So what I am saying is, lets take a look at the results before suggesting that one side is better than the other, otherwise we may end up jumping to conclusions that simply aren’t true.