Wouldn’t Noldo and Sinda together create a mage monster also…?
Brad
Working the game publishing business myself, would you like contact of excellent black and white artists? in genral picutres range in price from 50-200 dollars depending on the artist and size (these are quater pages so I would guess you could probably work out a deal with most of the guys.
See ya,
Ken
in genral picutres range in price from 50-200 dollars depending on the artist and size (these are quater pages so I would guess you could probably work out a deal with most of the guys.
Way, way, way out of our price range. Several hundred pieces of artwork later and we’re bankrupt… 
We’d looking for cheap or free artwork, preferably colour.
Clint (GM)
or not… I think we’re in broad agreement on the other bits and pieces. I haven’t got a player base for Drops at present to pick up any dropped nations, and No-drop games only discourages players - not stop them - from dropping. (Payment up front might mitigate that but I doubt it will stop it).
Clint (GM)
I concur with John 100%.
In GB after GB, we see the same thing happen. A nation is eliminated and its nation-pair partner is then targeted and weakened. The player then drops. (maybe he drops to “help” his team. maybe he “just doesn’t want to play anymore.” It doesn’t matter why.) The nation that should now die is given to another nation or nation pair that prop it up and get it running again. That is wrong. let the nation stand on its own two feet. My side, the other side - it’s all the same. Nation pairs shoudl remain as nation pairs. There should be no consolidation. If a nation or nation pair is dropped, it should only be available to be taken up by a player not in the game already. It’s a simple solution.
I’ll sign up to be in the player pool for such pickups if we can fix GB.
Dave
Sadly, even this doesn’t seem to be true. 94 & 96 are both “no-drop” games. Unfortunately, they seem to have almost as many drops, or maybe even the same number of drops as regular GB. Sad. Pathetic even…
Dave
No-drop games have less drops. I’m in the process of compiling all the game data (it’s big so will take me a while) and will publish that later. Both are on-going so I can’t comment more (were I know it - Rob’s on the ball at present and we’ll chat after game 94 ends).
I’ve given my reasons why I feel that nation pick ups are essential for a good game. I agree that 3 nations is not a perfect solution though and am presently looking for alternatives.
One is a player pool ready to pick up. I’ve not got enough players want to do that. But see below:
I quite like Tim’s idea: 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. Not that for the reasons that we’d get the money but rather because it means that the pick-ups get a bunch of free turns to play the nation. We’d offer 2 free turns as well. That gives 4 free turns per nation picked up. Wed’ stagger it so that one nation gets payed for the other doesn’t for 8 turns (or something similar - basically the pick-up player would pay half).
I don’t agree with Dave’s comment about single nations not picking up a dropped nation to become a duo again. I think that most of these ideas will sort out most of the problems of dropped nations (it won’t drive it from the game but it will certainly help).
I’ve suggested splitting the nation up - physically. Ie transfer pcs to other nations, characters to others, gold split, . But had no real response there. There would be a charge for that though - fixed fee, one off of say $20 (that’s a lot of work, and basically each nation would get a lot of stuff for nowt).
Thoughts on this (note the posting about nation splits for 3 nations allowed etc).
Clint (GM)
Thanks so far, I think we’re really getting somewhere here so I appreciate all the posts, especially the ones that I don’t agree with - they make me think the most for why I don’t agree. Much appreciated all your efforts and passion for the game. Keep 'em coming.
Clint (GM)
I think splitting up dropped nations is a non-starter. no one has responded because it just seems like a burdensome, subjective,and inherantly unfair practice - that’d be my guess.
as to you not agreeing with me… LOL. of course you don’t. It all stems from my disdane for mages & weakness squads and your love-affair with them… LOL 
Seriously, though, propping up weak nations by combining them with strong ones is wrong. The goal is NOT to keep the game going. The goal is to provide a balanced and fair game environment. If one side is winning, kudos to them. let them win. We just heard the DS players from GB 91 say how it helped them turn around a lost game into a winning game. That is wrong. ME Games should not combine nations in a game in a way to allow a team that is losing to change the course of the game and win on the power of the new nation combinations. That is wrong. So we can continue to disagree Clint. Sorry. I’ll stick up for you when I think you’re right. But I’ll be vocal when I think you’re wrong.
Dave
Fair enough - we’ll agree to differ here - any other thoughts on the subject.
(Note as a player I use many different types of tactics and play, including weakness squads and the like). As far as I’m concerned this is not my personal bias as to style of game though - it’s not got anything to do with that. Our aim as always been to provide the best game possible, within our resources. Then let that game provide income - rather than attempting to keep games going. A fair and equitable challenge for both sides in the game and I think that nation pick-ups allow for that.
Clint
Dave, I was playing on the winning side of game 91 and what you are saying is totally wrong, we did NOT win that game because a weak nation was transferred and that turn around the game. I think you are reading in there what you want to see.
What happened was that very early in the game the FP player that played Duns/NG dropped a perfectly vialable position. The resulting split up whereby Arth/Woodmen got Duns on top ran Rhudaur into to ground much faster then it should have been with only Arth/Woodmen.
As a matter of fact on turn 24 it looked like this:
FP: 1/4/23, , 5/6/9, 7/10/22
DS: 11/20, 12, 13/15 , 16/19, 18, 14/24
I then picked up the dropped FK position on turn 25 only, which was after two turns of special service and totally decimated in characters. I managed to pull the nation back up with help of the allies but before I could do anything with it the game stopped because the FP had thrown in the towel.
So I would dare say we won that game through better play and good use of the diplo’s DESPITE the FP having had the combination advantage for at least a good 15 turns.
As I said above, I do not have a problem if a single remaining nation gets transferred because I am convinced that it cannot turn around the game totally as one nation is already out in that case and it makes for a better fight. Splitting up two viable nations over the others is a complete different story.
Alain
As an FP player in game 91, I’ll second this. The DS didn’t get the 3 nation split going until very late in the game. It was a couple of the FP players who dropped and good use of diplos which made the big difference. Alain might still complain about the FP split (and me having AR/WM/Duns in particular) but the fact is we lost some key nations in order for that to happen and the DS enjoyed a 2 nation advantage for a good part of the game.
Bernout
Alain & Bernout, my apologies. You are correct that I made a mistake. I mis-rememebered an earlier post. GB86 is the one I refer to as being thrown to the DS by the re-combination of nations. Note post #82 in this thread by John Folz. Sorry for the confusion.
Dave
Such a pleasant feeling, compares with stepping on a rusty 3 inch nail in a
salt mine and transported back to medical attention on a wheelbarrow with
2 coca chewing Hombres pushing. Been thrown the wolves has a positive aspect, you can attack, even if you don’t win they will limp to 2 eternity
and beyond…