I agree with Guy’s most recent post. It is agreed that changes need to be made. There is a danger in attempting to change too much. Let’s get these implemented. They might even address some other issues that people have…shrug
And I do agree with Smoke’s statement as well. For the record, I will be putting my name in the hat to pick up dropped GB positions after at least one of my games ends. Two active GB games, 1 FA, 2 1650 (plus a pick-up), puts me right at my max…grin
Wade
On another note, in a GB86 game that is finished I played DrgL/Cor. The DrkL came available as WK was knocked out. I took it on. The DrkL almost bankrupt the very first turn (I begged ME to let me do last turns natsells but the, rightfully, said no) as their last turn was serviced. I took every agent I had and went to steal gold and it took me about 3 turns of 100% focus on all 3 nations on economy (Cors not hiring troops, DrkL and DrgL stealing gold / pop transfers) to make sure DrkL and DrgL did not bankrupt. Evils won!
If anyone not in the game took DrkL it would have been out the very next turn, nothing you could have done. Evils would have lost without a doubt as both North and Ithil Pass was gone entirely. I than sent my entire agents (DrkL/DrgL) to the passes plus 1 curse squad (WK/DrkL/DrgL Mages used) (within 2 turns of taking DrkL) and a second curse squad within 5 turns. I was able to take out about 15-20k good troops over about 5 turns in the North Pass. Than setup defense of the gates, built back up the passes with towers, my team attacked outside of Mordor via emmys ect… ect, ect…
The point here is it was a great comeback and a ton of fun for me and the evils I hope. I would be really interested to see the goods point of view on this as I think they where winning before I got the DrkL. I tried to get everyones xml’s to see the whole war but no one really responded to my emails to trade all turns. I would still love to trade turns if any GB86 players are out there.
John
johnmfolz@aol.com
This is a perfect example as to why 3 nation teams should not be allowed. The free pushed an effective strategy, were winning in multiple areas and once they succeeded in wiping out a nation the other side gets a huge boon and can revitalize an almost lost nation and gains access to the tools to make curse squads and the whole game turns on the fact that because the free did well, a three nation team for the other side was formed unbalancing the game in the favor of the side which was losing.
I’m all for compotent play and challenging opponents, but the game should not flip around because ME hands a team a 3 player grouping, especially since it punishes the team which was winning.
See ya,
Ken
John (& GB94 partner),
I agree with Ken. You just gave a GREAT example of why ME Games should NOT give losing nations to another nation pair. The FP had that game stolen away from them by a player gaming the system. The player that gamed the system wasn’t you. It was the DkL player that quit so that his nation could be taken over and supported by a strong nation pair. This is just plain wrong.
Dave
I don’t know anything about dropping to “help your side” as who’s to say that’s the deal? I realize I’ve only played one GB game to the end, as my second one is ongoing (and no comment about that one at all). In my first game, I picked up a nation which was very weak in every measurable way, popcenters, characters, economics. I nearly bankrupted one of my starting nations to save the third one. As it turned out, I did save them all, but the third nation picked up was a huge drain on the resources of both my starting nations, both of which were relatively strong beforehand. Maybe I just haven’t seen enough GB games, but to me, I don’t see what the big deal is on trios – other than the aforementioned pairing of CL/Noldo with double scouters.
Drew
Dave, you’re mis-representing or misunderstanding the situation here. The player did not drop so that someone could pick it up, he dropped as he no longer wanted to play. I have very specific information here.
As to whether or not 3 nations should be allowed - that’s a different point and one worthy of discussion, but please stick to the facts of the situation. I don’t think there’s one blanket answer.
Whether or not that was the deciding factor is interesting. By the end of the game the DS had 3 3 nations and the FP 2. The reason why I think the game ended in benefit of the FP was that the Harad and Woodmen were out of the game before game end and the DS just outplayed the FP.
Clint (GM)
I am not looking at intent but effect. The free were winning at a point then the 3 team set-up occured and it turned the game about (and if it did not, the point is it likely has and will in the future).
The rules set-up you listed above are fine, but I would love to see a no 3 nation rule (I think it should be instantly instituted in Gunboat 1000 BTW as I can see it being utterly unfair in many situations. I’d like to hear if that is something you could imagine instituing Clint?) and would like some sort of delay before a 3 nation team can occur in a game if it is allowed(as mentioned) or perhaps a penalty to the dropped player which is tangible (like a dollar fine agreed too pre-game) to help both minimize the ability to cheat or unintentionally change the course of the game by dropping.
See ya,
Ken
I’m forced to admit that I find the whole “Death to the 3-nation combos!” a little laughable. I’ve the utmost respect for many of the people that have made the argument, I really do. I also can understand their frustration at the defeat of one of their offensives.
The reason why I have trouble swallowing it is that I’ve seen the same people agree to shadow orders, or drops, or the pick-up of other nations in regular 1650 games. Why is it a crime to watch an offensive unfold pefectly, only to see it crushed by a changing opposition? Haven’t we all dealt with this in other circumstances? Having picked up a drop in G95 (non-gunboat), I can tell you from experience that it is really hard to support a weak position and get it turned around without help from the team. I’ve had very little (by my own request), but it is still difficult. Beating up players for picking up a third nation and making all three of them viable seems petty…
As far as I can see, the only real crime here is that the nation dropps and the pick-ups aren’t posted effectively on the front-page of the turn sheets. The nation information is supposed to update every three turns, and that doesn’t always happen. My big thing that I would like to see ME do is update the dropps and the pickups every turn, so that I might be able to change my plans accordingly.
All the other rule changes and the player pool are fine with me. Like I said, I can understand the point behind them. But waving a flag about how frustrating it is to have offensives countered or characters kidnapped is not the best way to defend the position. A clear definition of an unfair advantage is IMO the only reason to make any changes.
Sorry for the length of the post.
Wade
Quick clarification, I am not begetting people for taking up 3rd positions. I do it myself. What I am saying is unlike normal games, in gunboat people have limited resources. When a set of nations is split up, where as before you were facing two nations of opponent, you are now often facing 6 nations, many of which would not have the resources to or ability to interact with your nation in an intimate way and now all the sudden do. It is not simply a turned around offensive so much as a triple of the resources against you to which you often can not effectively respond (yes there are always ways to “survive”).
But I agree that the listed changes by Clint will at least minimize the issues for 1650 and likely 2950. I’m just arguing the 3 nation point because I do feel it can corrupt games. For 1000 I think a bit more might be needed, but there is like 1-2 gunboat 1000 a year, so it likely not a big deal.
See ya,
Ken
The free were winning at a point then the 3 team set-up occured and it turned the game about (and if it did not, the point is it likely has and will in the future).
Not sure if that was the cause here. That was my point. I’m not saying it impacted on the game, it clearly did, but I think the strongest impact in the game was the overall play of one team over another (effectively one team had a small advantage due to one extra nation on their side being tripled up 2:3 but had the disadvantage of around 6 missed turns and nations in need of dire help similarly imipacting).
As for no-3nation I’ll certainly consider it but at present I’m not convinced that it would make for a very good game (for reasons already given). Feel free to play such a game as a variant if you guys can get the players - but say someone drops on one side I think the game would quickly become uncompetitive if we’re unable to find a replacement (outside the game).
Note: We don’t change rules mid-game without a very good reason.
Someone asked that GMs step in and pick up nations - we’re stretched as it is and it’s your game - why would you want GMs to do that? At some point I can see that we can do some sort of AI - we did a simple test algorythm (not used in games I might add) and I can see how we could make that more complex as time goes on but that’s for the future. (If you guys want to design and code that that would be cool with me btw and sounds like a lot of fun).
Clint
Hi,
Here s my view on the 3-nation play.
There are various reasons why people drop out. It could be time, money or interest. But I think the largest reason why people usually drops out, is a result of a deep into human nature. People lose interest in spending energy on a case they think is lost. If there is no hope there is no reason to fight, and to spend money and time which you can spend elsewhere.
I think deciding whether and how a dropout should be replaced, should be much more determined on the health status on that nation. What ruins games is having a fully healthy nation collapse, because the player lost interest or did not have the time anymore. Of course giving a fully healthy nation as a third nation, also disrupt the game the other way around.
However if a nation has taken a real beaten and the player has no aid or secondary nation to support, then the first feeling for most humans would be to drop out and let it go. In such a case it can be discussed on whether such a nation should be picked up or be considered a result of nation elimination of the other side. Personally I think that such a nation could be given to other allied, if it follows certain rules of transfer. Because NO single person would pick up, spend money and time and play a beaten GB nation without any support what so ever. That is just masochistic. So such a nation would either need to be a third nation or be eliminated.
I think Harlequin should examine why people drops out and lay a strategy for each co-incident.
Also one proposal would be to ensure that there are single nations split ups (two persons playing one nation each of a pair) on each side in each game, so that these players (only playing one nation anyway) could be given any such dropouts if interested. That way any single player would still only max play two nations each.
KA
Any chance we can set up a dropped position player that can pick up the position and play it until someone will step in to pick up the postion and that player does not have to pay for the position. Maybe Harlequin sets up a four turn provision to have the nation pair picked up and covered by someone in the pickup pool. As a gunboat player, if I know i have a temporarily ran position on my side or on the other side it would insent me to ask for someone to pick up the position. Harelquin could publish a position is open, not state which position or side it is on and then players can scramble to get a replacement.
The biggest problem I have with dropped positions is the shape they will most likely be in, which is poor. I am not a big fan of paying for a position that is in really bad shape.
Harlequin did ask Tony and I to pick up a position prior to turn one being ran as the player had already dropped. Although it was one game above what we wanted to play, we did pick it up and carried the game through 30 turns. It was fun, but frustrating to have to pick up a third position around turn 15 and that position was still in good if not great shape.
I would be willing to do something like this nature. If I could turn the position around in four turns then I might even be willing to keep the position and pay for it after the free time.
This would cost Harlequin some money, so I am not sure if it is viable. But it might cost less then just watching the position go by the wayside.
Another possible solution and thought.
I think anyone that drops a gunboat position (regardless of no drop or not) should be banned from gunboat. This would include purposely bankrupting your nation. I do not feel that if you transfer your position you should be banned.
I realize some people drop because the game is no longer any fun to you and you feel your team can not win. My only solution is to allow the limited diplomacy. Maybe bring in once every ten turns 20 words.
It would be nice to be able to say Down to five characters and three pop centers. Need money to stay alive capital 2703.
tim
Gunboat really gets messed up when you have drops in the first ten turns. I would also be a fan of paying for ten turns in advance. I realize this might not be financially viable as it looks like a $200 us dollar upfront outlay for some players but it would give you an incentive to not bankrupt your nation in the first ten turns (I guess this means Clint isn’t allowed to play Rhuduar).
Alternatively, we can require a two turn in advance payment for a nation where the money is non refundable. To play Gunboat you deposit $40 to $50 us dollars to Harlequin and then pay for the turns as you go. If you drop, the money is not refunded and then could pay for a standby to cover your position for two or three turns until a replacement can be found.
Again, just trying to think out of the box.
tim
Not sure if I understood correctly but we can’t afford to subsidise a nation for 4 turns in advance I’m afraid.
Clint (GM)
I prefer to play 2950 and FA Gunboat games. But some of the changes decided upon here might migrate over to the 2950/FA games, so I’d like to throw in my two cents.
I’ve picked up third Nations before while playing the game as a duo, but have only received the current turn. However, I think it’s very appropriate for pick-up people OUTSIDE the game to receive all the turns. Information is very pivotal in GB games.
For Nations that are not filled, I like Guy’s suggestion of sending the last turn’s PDF to the allies of that Nation - so the team is not as crippled by the demise of one Nation.
I dislike the diplos in GB games, I think they are unbalancing, since the DS side can much more effectively coordinate than the FP side, especially in the very early stages. It also ruins the fog-of-war concept essential to the GB games - if one side uses diplos, but the other doesn’t … guess who has the advantage? The communication becomes required.
I have no problem in 2950 games with no limitations in pairings, as long as both sides know exactly which pair has picked up which Nations every turn. As far as I have seen, the moderators do a good job of this. I disagree with posting exactly when Nations die - there needs to be a time that the second / recovering Nation can recruit the most important characters / PCs / artifacts of the dead Nation, before everyone else. Also, when attacking a Nation, there should be some question if you’ve won - as it is now, you know immediately when a foe is dead, allowing you to focus on the next target.
In the fourth age game, I think that picking up a third Nation is unbalancing. The biggest issue with FA games is lack of information gathering. The problem was illustrated earlier - a pair of Nations you’ve never met now has a map / character names to allow them to target you, when you have no idea where their forces are.
I think it is important to allow positions to be filled, either by outside players (preferably), or by splitting the pair - otherwise the game quickly degenerates due to the loss of several nations (and thus is no fun), and I know that is not ME’s desire. Challenging games are more enjoyable than a quick romp.
[b]Proposals:
a) In-game players only get the current turn of the dropped Nation, outside pick-ups get all the PDFs. If a Nation is unclaimed (but not eliminated), all Nations of that particular allegiance get the final PDF.
b) Updated pairings will be broadcast in the initial E-Mail message each turn, but dead Nations are updated only every 5 turns.
c) No limit to who can be paired, ME tries in good faith to limit the pick-up of Nation pairs based on SNA synergy. Another option to consider - no double scout Nation can be picked-up by an in-game player (downside - it makes those Nations obvious targets).
d) No three Nation teams for the GB fourth age games. Outside players and in-game solo Nations can pick them up.
e) No same-allegiance diplos. Ever. Gloating after the game is over is fine. Taunting diplos only sent to the opposing side would be fun.[/b]
f) Could we have some other pairing for the poor Rohan / Rhun? :eek:
Mark Farrior
Clint, what I was suggesting is all players that sign up for Gunboat post a $50US deposit which you refund at the end of the game. If they drop, or get eliminated they lose the money and you as a company get to keep it. Now if a player drops, someone can pick up the nation and run it for four turns free of charge as you can take it from the upfront deposit.
Probably not a high desire for players, but it does insent you not to drop and give a pickup player a chance to rebuild a nation at no monetary cost to the player picking up the nation for the first four turns.
Just another suggestion that I would be willing to do to try and keep the game flowing.
tim
Guys,
I dropped into this conversation a little late and first of all let me state that I basically agree with Clint’s suggestion in post nr. 47 in this tread.
I have played around 6 or 7 gunboat games now and really love the format with the fog of war effects, it really makes for a different game.
Second I really think ALL dropped position should be taken up one way or another, though I see a difference between paired nations dropped and single nations dropped.
Paired nationsif they are dropped they are often quite viable still and it can really destroy a game for the side they are on if they are not picked up. It is in nobody’s interest to have a game spoiled that way, but it is true I may well give an unfair advantage if they are split over the remaining nations, I have been on the receiving end of this in game 91 that just ended. Therefore in the interest of better gaming I would suggest that all you gunboat lovers out there make an effort to pick up dropped nation pairs if finances and time allow. I just had one of my two gunboat games end and I volunteered to pick up a dropped nation duo to ME games. Rob just gave me a pair and I know there is another pair waiting to be picked up that was dropped because of “external” reasons.
Single nations: they are often dropped in despair after loosing the other nation. I would encourage everyone to hang in there for the sake of the team but not everyone is willing to play a position which looks like it has no future. Should these positions be given to the rest of the team? I would say by all means because when it happens the opposing team already has the advantage of having knocked out one of the two nations. If the nation is not allowed to be passed on it may have a snowball effect and the game will just end quicker with less and less opposition, I for one do not think that makes for an interesting game.
ON the FP side I would say: If a nation is down to one nation then it can pick up any other nation except Noldo and Sinda can’t pick up Woodmen or Dunlendings.
ON the DS side I would say: If a nation is down to one nation then it can pick up any other nation except Cloud Lord and IK can’t pick up Quiet Avenger or Dragon Lord. Cloud Lord can’t be part of a 3 nation team.
Diplo’s: In my experience diplo’s don’t give a specific advantage to FP or the DS, they give an advantage to the side that knows how to make best use of them. If you don’t like them, play a game that says NO diplo’s, and if you play a game that allows them you better figure out the best way to use them 
. I for one will play either.
Alain
Diplo’s: In my experience diplo’s don’t give a specific advantage to FP or the DS, they give an advantage to the side that knows how to make best use of them
Yep, I’d agree with that. Either side can make very good use of them I’d say.
I’d be interested to see what goes in such diplos; I’ve seen one post on it.
Clint (GM)
Another factor is the game cost. In the U.S. it’s over 8.50 dollar’s a turn. That’s 17.00 a month. Customer’s can’t afford it for too long. Plus their are games that give more bang for the buck. In some cases for less cost.
To help counter this is the following. 1 ) Advertise. Dragon is one of the most read game magazine’s in the U.S. Dragon advertises other game’s all the time. 2 ) Advertiseing at gameing convention’s is less expensive. But not as good. 3 ) Better character artwork. I’ve seen maybe 6 new character pict’s since 1992. Some of these character pict’s are just not worth useing. 4 ) Offer package deal’s. Like the compition does.
I am sure you have already tried these idea’s. But, if not. I hope this help’s.
$7.90 for AMeow players - that’s my advice to use it for many reasons. Also you do get a discount for GB games - not a biggy but there is one.
Dragon has been tried - it’s the wrong market. If you’re saying bring in new players we do and strongly advise them not to play Gunboat. All our games are affordable by anyone who has a desire to play them (I know from my own experience of playing when I was young and also unemployed).
Artwork - totally agree - we need artists though. 
Any volunteers?
Word of mouth is the best way to get others involved. 
Clint