let me expand upon this further…first some of a nations strategy is bound to be based upon the pairing of nations…for example lets say eothraim is spending too much and you know it so you go after the noldo to destroy the bank <not a good example but lets just say>…now you put noldo out and assume eothraim is left penniless to fend on it’s own not knowing that now arthedain and harad are bankrolling that nation…or even if you do know you didn’t get the desired effect…there goes your entire strategy <assuming you didn’t really care if the noldo was out or in at that time> plus now the arthedain harad player has not only the cooperation of 3 nations but also the intelligence from those 3 nations…I am totally against this…same person as above
Blind One, the discussion about current Ginboat players picking up a third from a dropped position occurred sometime ago. I’m not sure if it was this thread or another. In any case, the consensus of those involved in the discussion was that they would rather see someone in the game get a third nation than see the position go dead altogether.
Yes, it is an advantage to the player gaining the third position (and also, by the way, considerable additional expense). But the advantage is not as great as one would think. And often the vacated position has nothing to do with poor play; just a player dropping a position for whatever reason: financial, boredom, sudden life change that prevents participation in ME PBM, etc. Indeed, I believe on the small amount of evidence available to me that nearly all vacated positions are simple drops. Why should the entire game suffer as a consequence of the drop? I’m more than willing to allow another player within the game gain some small advantage (and in my opinion, it is small) than have the game become lopsided or come to a premature end.
well then a replacement player should be found for the position/postions vacated…and I wasn’t gunboating at the time or I would have voiced a dissenting opinion < I don’t recall reading it at the time but I may not have paid attention at that point if I did although more likely it was before I started reading the forum>…but I stick with my analysis that it does give an unfair advantage and definately changes the whole complection should a player desire to hurt another player when considering their nations as a team…on the other hand I am willing to go along with majority opinion and have no intention of making more of a fuss then I already have lol <now let me get back to gb14 and reconsider my strategy lol>
I acknowledge, it does give an advantage to have three nations (though the advantage is rather small, I think). I also acknowledge that in the scenario painted by Blind One the strategic plans of the aggressor would be frustrated by the defender operating three nations. (Another scenario involving Noldo/Eothraim combo. Focus on Eothraim in an effort to force extraordinary levels of support from the Noldo thus depriving Noldo of naming characters, improving pop centers, and the like.) I also recognize that not all Gunboat players were part of the earlier discussion regarding picking up vacated positions. (As I recall, Clint sent a message to current GB players asking for feedback.)
The bottom line: all agreed (I don’t recall any dissenting views) that it was preferable to offer a vacated position to current players rather than have the position special service one or two or three turns waiting for someone else to pick it up.
Anyway, Blind One, continue your futile struggle in GB 14, if you will. None can withstand my superior strategy which involves lulling my opponents into a false sense of security by astonishingly inept play. 
lol…damnit…I thought I was the only one using that strategy
“Imagine that I know that Per Bovbjerg is playing in the same GB game as I and I come across a camp named “Lugter af tis owned by the Northmen” or sees a character named “Gert Gulvlâgger of the Woodmen” that instance I KNOW that Per plays that nation.”
I’ve come across this once or twice and been able to venture a guess as to who is running a given position (I for one also tend to use the same character names, so I guess I leave an inadvertent signature too). However, I dont think its really an issue. You might know who is playing a given position, but given the nature of the game, the stategies involved will most likely be radically different than a normal team game.
That being said, I’d prefer to name my characters myself.
Fletch
Works both ways imagine I call all my characters after a bunch of danes, germans or whatever and I happen not to be any of the above?
Let them pick the bones out of that, so yes say I do think the WK is a Dane, lets see how his budies deal with me if they think I am him?
That assumes they have worked it out to of course
Vandal
knowing who runs a particular nation would only become important if clues were used in the forum to say help me in some way…and I think at least half of what is written in the forum about gunboat games is senseless dribble anyway <let me count and make sure I have half of what’s written and I’ll know for sure>…other then that the only point I see behind not knowing who plays which positions is to help players abide by the rules of no communication…and it can’t hurt to make it a little more difficult…there will be lie detector tests administered on turn 49 btw lol
Originally posted by Nimdraug
[b]
The bottom line: all agreed (I don’t recall any dissenting views) that it was preferable to offer a vacated position to current players rather than have the position special service one or two or three turns waiting for someone else to pick it up.Anyway, Blind One, continue your futile struggle in GB 14, if you will. None can withstand my superior strategy which involves lulling my opponents into a false sense of security by astonishingly inept play.
I also don’t recall this and believe it was probably early on in the GB evolution. That being neither here nor there, it seems wrong, but only in the case that Blind One brings up:
Existing nation-pair-player should NOT be allowed to pick up 3rd when: that 3rd nation is a remaining nation in a nation-pair where the other nation is out of the game. My rationale is that it seems like a totally obvious and pretty common strategy in GB to focus attack on one more “vulnerable” nation of a nation-pair to cripple that nation-pair. If the player who started off with that nation-pair quits because the opposition was effective in accomplishing their strategy, then the opposition should reap the rewards, not be penalized by now having the remaining nation be paired up with 2 other nations…
Finally, I think in ALL cases, the GM should work like crazy to find an outside player to take up GB drops for a number of reasons:
a. the nation-pairings were designed with forethought. A 3rd nation randomly added can make a HUGE difference. EX: Let’s say SG gets added to NG/Dun. yowser!
b. Any 3 nations gives 50% more information to that player. In GB, it’s information that is hugely valuable. Thus, it is unfair to the 2-nation players to be playing against 3-nation players.
Dave
GB needs to allow players to pick up 3rd nations. It is an advantage but it is necessary to keep the game going at least in 2950.
In a prefect world, there would be plenty of replacements or there would be no need for any. The fact is that not everyone likes Gunboat when they get to know it or they are not capable of playing GB proficiently. I have known many good “followers/good orders processors” in my days since GSI but many less strategic/tactical wizards. Anyone can play GB but not everyone can play it well, IMO.
Is not fair (IMO) to let 2 nations languish because a player quit or whatever. The rest of said player’s team should not be penalized because someone lost interest or is incompetent.
I think there are several GB openings for any of you that are vehemently opposed to allowing a 3rd nation to a player. Have a go at one and solve your perceived problem.
Back to my original hijack, I think the revised pairs/triplets should be made known to others in the game. Don’t really care what others outside my current games think either.
Steven McAbee
Dropped nations are already allowed to be picked up by remaining players, which is why our current GB 229 continues.
- Ben
Gunboat 229
Originally posted by Celebion
[b]Is not fair (IMO) to let 2 nations languish because a player quit or whatever. The rest of said player’s team should not be penalized because someone lost interest or is incompetent.
…
Back to my original hijack, I think the revised pairs/triplets should be made known to others in the game. Don’t really care what others outside my current games think either.Steven McAbee [/b]
Steve, I agree with you that if a 2nation-pair is dropped, that the nations do need to be picked up somehow. Best if they’re picked up by a new player. It is certainly non-optimal for them to be picked up as 3rd nations by existing players, but better than dying.
I also agree that the new pairings should be made public, and that the GM should try to choose (if possible) the new pairings to give the least advantage to the two new 3-nation pairings.
Dave
another way to get around the 3rd nation problem would be to disallow certain interaction with that nation such as material and gold transfers to and from the third nation…this would at least alleviate some of the financial advantages to picking up a third nation…there may be some other ways to show the isolation of the picked up nation…perhaps making it against the rules to combine in an attack with the other two nations? I think that despite it being a picked up nation it should be treated as much like a foreign entity as possible…steven caskey…not in the game in question but still interested in the rules <and sides are always penalized for having someone incompetent on their side…it’s the nature of the game lol>
Finally, I think in ALL cases, the GM should work like crazy to find an outside player to take up GB drops for a number of reasons:
We do but it’s very hard to arrange. Players don’t like to pick up nations that they don’t know much about, it’s a problem for 1000 games as well. So we had some GB games die very early with this as we didn’t let players pick them up if we couldn’t find a replacement.
What I’ll wait to see is if the 3 nation teams (ie with pick-ups) win more often to see how much of an advantage this brings. Generally if a player drops then he’s almost always put less effort into his nation so it’s suffered. Often a dead nation, a SS turn (or two) or a set-back causes this - ie in a worst position for that side. So picking up the nation means that your team has been set-back but it gives you the opportunity to re-dress the situation.
Well that’s the theory. So far it seems to be working out but time will have to tell on this to see if it’s too strong.
As for informing the enemy and team-mates that’s a possibility. Should I set-up the next game with that and see what happens? Looks like it will be a 2950 GB game as that’s on 10 players and 2 to go.
Clint (GM)
Clint
I would say your assessment is spot on, though unless the postion has been damaged quite a bit, over time there is advantage in playing 3 positions.
You do have to offset this with the missed turns bad play etc to start with, but like all things its pot luck what position you find the nation.
Its better to fill it than let it get taken apart and the game die quickly though, but in the long term unfair to the other side on the balance of play.
Still who said all is fair in love and war?
Its not
Vandal
maybe I’m just paranoid <even paranoids have enemies> but under the current 3 nation way of doing things I can picture a person with two almost bankrupt or close to losing all their major towns handing off those nations one each to players in better shape…that being said I stated earlier I wouldn’t have any more to say about it because the decision had already been made so I’ll drop it now…only when it became none of my business did I really care again lol
The player dropping is not allowed to talk to anyone and the player taking it over has no idea what he is getting.
Could be good or bad but in truth will be a mix?
Now we dont get told when you have a poor player, a dead one or anyhting else as far as I know, so why worry, its a game play it.
Vandal
Originally posted by Clint
As for informing the enemy and team-mates that’s a possibility. Should I set-up the next game with that and see what happens? Looks like it will be a 2950 GB game as that’s on 10 players and 2 to go.
Clint (GM)
I think you should update the pairings to reflect 3 nation players when applicable via the FS. I have been on both the giving and receiving end of it. If I am playing nations X, Y, Z and decide to go after nation A and B, I think A and B should at least know what he/she faces. Of course many times you can’t concentrate your efforts in one theater as events dictate otherwise
Personally I took a 3rd nation for the team not because I wanted any advantage. 3 turns on same day and the fees are not worth it IMO, since I play other games.
I think you should also update the FS with any new players that have joined the game after start-up. It’s not a major thing but I think standby players would like to know who they are playing with in the game. Also to a lesser extent, stand-bys should know who not to talk about the game.
Steven McAbee
nobody said you were looking for an advantage and you were the first person to say it was an advantage…since you are experiencing it I assume you would know…I was just trying to figure out a way to keep things fair <ok what’s really going on is I just want to destroy the enemy and chase them out of the game but that sounds way too violent for such a nice game lol>
We can’t change the rules for present games but can for future games so I’ll update the list when a player takes up a nation. Note we don’t always tell players when a nation has been killed so this will effectively give out that information which is a downside.
As for updating the FS with takeover players - can do for future games. It’s a bit more admin and we generally don’t bother for specific games. Originally when we designed the FS we had a section for players to send diplos via - that hasn’t taken off though.
Thoughts on this as an additional rule for the next game?
Clint