Loss of diplomacy

mepbmlist
#1

Well it's finally happened. I've lost interest in this game. It's been
coming for a while. It seems like the vast majority of the players no
longer have any interest or ability to do negotiations or diplomacy
especially with neutrals. Most players want to do away with neutrals
completely and this seems to be supported by MEG. I personally think
that a great part of the game has been lost and what is left isn't
worth the time or money expended.

It's been fun over the years, but the changes that have been made from
the original game and how it was run to now haven't all been good in my
opinion.

Kevin

#2

Kevin,
I agree with your comment about how diplomacy is lacking and the way neutrals are treated.
But I really think it has more to do with society today and the lack of tolerance and compromise than the way the game works. Not to mention the lack of forethought in how another will respond to being an ignored neutral, or worse yet one that is being bullied.
And yes, it seems some bad sentiment towards neutrals are supported by the powers that be, but if players like yourself just walk there will be no one left but those with boxlike thinking and and linear way of looking at the game.
I say stay on board!
I say play even more neutral nations, and force the closed minds to deal with us.
I say let's evolve and let the chips fall where they may!
Ok...now I want you to hit me as hard as you can.

···

Kevin Brown <mornhm@soltec.net> wrote:
Well it's finally happened. I've lost interest in this game. It's been
coming for a while. It seems like the vast majority of the players no
longer have any interest or ability to do negotiations or diplomacy
especially with neutrals. Most players want to do away with neutrals
completely and this seems to be supported by MEG. I personally think
that a great part of the game has been lost and what is left isn't
worth the time or money expended.

It's been fun over the years, but the changes that have been made from
the original game and how it was run to now haven't all been good in my
opinion.

Kevin

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

    Visit your group "mepbmlist" on the web.
  
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mepbmlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---------------------------------

---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#3

Oh brother..

GB

Kevin,
I agree with your comment about how diplomacy is lacking and the

way neutrals are treated.

But I really think it has more to do with society today and the

lack of tolerance and compromise than the way the game works. Not to
mention the lack of forethought in how another will respond to being
an ignored neutral, or worse yet one that is being bullied.

And yes, it seems some bad sentiment towards neutrals are supported

by the powers that be, but if players like yourself just walk there
will be no one left but those with boxlike thinking and and linear
way of looking at the game.

I say stay on board!
I say play even more neutral nations, and force the closed minds to

deal with us.

I say let's evolve and let the chips fall where they may!
Ok...now I want you to hit me as hard as you can.

Kevin Brown <mornhm@s...> wrote:
Well it's finally happened. I've lost interest in this game. It's

been

coming for a while. It seems like the vast majority of the players

no

longer have any interest or ability to do negotiations or diplomacy
especially with neutrals. Most players want to do away with

neutrals

completely and this seems to be supported by MEG. I personally

think

that a great part of the game has been lost and what is left isn't
worth the time or money expended.

It's been fun over the years, but the changes that have been made

from

the original game and how it was run to now haven't all been good

in my

opinion.

Kevin

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

    Visit your group "mepbmlist" on the web.
  
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mepbmlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service.

···

---------------------------------

---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#4

Anyone who has been on this list for a while knows my opinion of neutrals: I used to love playing them until I realised that nobody seemed to have a clue about what neutrality meant! If I wasn't attacked without provocation, it was either a case of being completely ignored or being told that if I didn't switch *now* I'd be attacked...

A neutral should have the right to decline an offer of alliance and not have that be followed by an immediate attack. Maybe the offer wasn't good enough.

A neutral should be able to play both sides against the other.

A neutral should not go into a game with his allegiance switch already decided.

A neutral should be able to set his own policy on who transits his territory and have it respected.

A neutral should be allowed to stay neutral throughout the game if neither side is capable of encouraging his allegiance.

A neutral should be the centre of intense diplomatic effort. Diplomatic effort should not be "join us or die", it should be "how can we work together to mutual advantage".

But, as you say, most people lack the ability or interest...

Sorry for the rant, folks!

Gavin

···

On 28 Sep 2005, at 22:53, Kevin Brown wrote:

Well it's finally happened. I've lost interest in this game. It's been
coming for a while. It seems like the vast majority of the players no
longer have any interest or ability to do negotiations or diplomacy
especially with neutrals. Most players want to do away with neutrals
completely and this seems to be supported by MEG. I personally think
that a great part of the game has been lost and what is left isn't
worth the time or money expended.

It's been fun over the years, but the changes that have been made from
the original game and how it was run to now haven't all been good in my
opinion.

Kevin

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ofVplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

#5

As far as I know neutrals can do all the things listed below. On the
flip side, a person that does not become an ally will eventually
become an enemy of most competent teams. Anyone that will let a
neutral sit and build up for 15 turns is asking to get hammered at
inopportune time.

IMO it is anyone's right to play a neutral as they see fit. It also
the right of the other players in the game to decide on turn 1 to
take any neutral out. It goes with the territory. This is a war-game
not a diplomatic game.

I am playing 3 neutrals presently and don't have any problems.

My 2 coppers,
            Steven McAbee

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, Gavin Wynford-Jones <gavinwj@w...>
wrote:

Anyone who has been on this list for a while knows my opinion of
neutrals: I used to love playing them until I realised that

nobody

seemed to have a clue about what neutrality meant! If I wasn't
attacked without provocation, it was either a case of being
completely ignored or being told that if I didn't switch *now* I'd

be

attacked...

A neutral should have the right to decline an offer of alliance

and

not have that be followed by an immediate attack. Maybe the offer
wasn't good enough.

A neutral should be able to play both sides against the other.

A neutral should not go into a game with his allegiance switch
already decided.

A neutral should be able to set his own policy on who transits

his

territory and have it respected.

A neutral should be allowed to stay neutral throughout the game

if

neither side is capable of encouraging his allegiance.

A neutral should be the centre of intense diplomatic effort.
Diplomatic effort should not be "join us or die", it should

be "how

can we work together to mutual advantage".

But, as you say, most people lack the ability or interest...

Sorry for the rant, folks!

Gavin

> Well it's finally happened. I've lost interest in this game.

It's been

> coming for a while. It seems like the vast majority of the

players no

> longer have any interest or ability to do negotiations or

diplomacy

> especially with neutrals. Most players want to do away with

neutrals

> completely and this seems to be supported by MEG. I personally

think

> that a great part of the game has been lost and what is left

isn't

> worth the time or money expended.
>
> It's been fun over the years, but the changes that have been

made from

> the original game and how it was run to now haven't all been

good

···

On 28 Sep 2005, at 22:53, Kevin Brown wrote:
> in my
> opinion.
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ------------------

--

> ~-->
> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo!

your

> home page
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ofVplB/TM
> -----------------------------------------------------------------

---

> ~->
>
> Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
> To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
> Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

#6

My point exactly...intolerance in action.

Oh brother..

GB

> Kevin,
> I agree with your comment about how diplomacy is lacking and the
way neutrals are treated.
> But I really think it has more to do with society today and the
lack of tolerance and compromise than the way the game works. Not

to

mention the lack of forethought in how another will respond to

being

an ignored neutral, or worse yet one that is being bullied.
> And yes, it seems some bad sentiment towards neutrals are

supported

by the powers that be, but if players like yourself just walk there
will be no one left but those with boxlike thinking and and linear
way of looking at the game.
> I say stay on board!
> I say play even more neutral nations, and force the closed minds

to

deal with us.
> I say let's evolve and let the chips fall where they may!
> Ok...now I want you to hit me as hard as you can.
>
> Kevin Brown <mornhm@s...> wrote:
> Well it's finally happened. I've lost interest in this game. It's
been
> coming for a while. It seems like the vast majority of the

players

no
> longer have any interest or ability to do negotiations or

diplomacy

> especially with neutrals. Most players want to do away with
neutrals
> completely and this seems to be supported by MEG. I personally
think
> that a great part of the game has been lost and what is left

isn't

···

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, "compliance00" <BairG@N...> wrote:

> worth the time or money expended.
>
> It's been fun over the years, but the changes that have been made
from
> the original game and how it was run to now haven't all been good
in my
> opinion.
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
> To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
> Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "mepbmlist" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> mepbmlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! for Good
> Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#7

Bah. There is no such thing as a neutral. Sooner or later that nation must become an enemy or ally and it's sheer folly for a competent team to let them have a dozen or more turns of building up with that uncertainty hovering over them the entire time. The neutrals can do whatever they want but the same luxury needs to be applied to the FP and DS as well. :wink:

Bernout

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Gavin Wynford-Jones
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 4:33 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Loss of diplomacy

  Anyone who has been on this list for a while knows my opinion of
  neutrals: I used to love playing them until I realised that nobody
  seemed to have a clue about what neutrality meant! If I wasn't
  attacked without provocation, it was either a case of being
  completely ignored or being told that if I didn't switch *now* I'd be
  attacked...

  A neutral should have the right to decline an offer of alliance and
  not have that be followed by an immediate attack. Maybe the offer
  wasn't good enough.

  A neutral should be able to play both sides against the other.

  A neutral should not go into a game with his allegiance switch
  already decided.

  A neutral should be able to set his own policy on who transits his
  territory and have it respected.

  A neutral should be allowed to stay neutral throughout the game if
  neither side is capable of encouraging his allegiance.

  A neutral should be the centre of intense diplomatic effort.
  Diplomatic effort should not be "join us or die", it should be "how
  can we work together to mutual advantage".

  But, as you say, most people lack the ability or interest...

  Sorry for the rant, folks!

  Gavin

  On 28 Sep 2005, at 22:53, Kevin Brown wrote:

  > Well it's finally happened. I've lost interest in this game. It's been
  > coming for a while. It seems like the vast majority of the players no
  > longer have any interest or ability to do negotiations or diplomacy
  > especially with neutrals. Most players want to do away with neutrals
  > completely and this seems to be supported by MEG. I personally think
  > that a great part of the game has been lost and what is left isn't
  > worth the time or money expended.
  >
  > It's been fun over the years, but the changes that have been made from
  > the original game and how it was run to now haven't all been good
  > in my
  > opinion.
  >
  > Kevin
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
  > ~-->
  > Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your
  > home page
  > http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ofVplB/TM
  > --------------------------------------------------------------------
  > ~->
  >
  > Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  > To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  > Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
  >
  > Yahoo! Groups Links
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >

  Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

    a.. Visit your group "mepbmlist" on the web.
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     mepbmlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#8

Quote:

On the flip side, a person that does not become an ally will eventually become an enemy of most competent teams.

Why?

During WW2, Switzerland and Eire were neutral yet never became enemies of either side...

You surely aren't saying that WW2 was a minor conflict...?

Gavin

···

On 29 Sep 2005, at 01:32, Steve wrote:

As far as I know neutrals can do all the things listed below. On the
flip side, a person that does not become an ally will eventually
become an enemy of most competent teams. Anyone that will let a
neutral sit and build up for 15 turns is asking to get hammered at
inopportune time.

IMO it is anyone's right to play a neutral as they see fit. It also
the right of the other players in the game to decide on turn 1 to
take any neutral out. It goes with the territory. This is a war-game
not a diplomatic game.

I am playing 3 neutrals presently and don't have any problems.

My 2 coppers,
            Steven McAbee

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, Gavin Wynford-Jones <gavinwj@w...>
wrote:

Anyone who has been on this list for a while knows my opinion of
neutrals: I used to love playing them until I realised that

nobody

seemed to have a clue about what neutrality meant! If I wasn't
attacked without provocation, it was either a case of being
completely ignored or being told that if I didn't switch *now* I'd

be

attacked...

A neutral should have the right to decline an offer of alliance

and

not have that be followed by an immediate attack. Maybe the offer
wasn't good enough.

A neutral should be able to play both sides against the other.

A neutral should not go into a game with his allegiance switch
already decided.

A neutral should be able to set his own policy on who transits

his

territory and have it respected.

A neutral should be allowed to stay neutral throughout the game

if

neither side is capable of encouraging his allegiance.

A neutral should be the centre of intense diplomatic effort.
Diplomatic effort should not be "join us or die", it should

be "how

can we work together to mutual advantage".

But, as you say, most people lack the ability or interest...

Sorry for the rant, folks!

Gavin

On 28 Sep 2005, at 22:53, Kevin Brown wrote:

Well it's finally happened. I've lost interest in this game.

It's been

coming for a while. It seems like the vast majority of the

players no

longer have any interest or ability to do negotiations or

diplomacy

especially with neutrals. Most players want to do away with

neutrals

completely and this seems to be supported by MEG. I personally

think

that a great part of the game has been lost and what is left

isn't

worth the time or money expended.

It's been fun over the years, but the changes that have been

made from

the original game and how it was run to now haven't all been

good

in my
opinion.

Kevin

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ------------------

--

~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo!

your

home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ofVplB/TM
-----------------------------------------------------------------

---

~->

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ofVplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

#9

Well if you start with that attitude, no wonder diplomacy has gone
down the tubes...

Gavin

···

On 29 Sep 2005, at 02:10, Bernie Gaider wrote:

Bah. There is no such thing as a neutral.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#10

LOL -- WWII has nothing to do with MEPBM. This is game!

Had Hitler prevailed do you really think he would left a Switzerland
alone while he owned most of Europe because he liked them? I
don't know why Switzerland was left alone though I do believe
that many German officers used it to house what they looted.

In non-FA there are 2 sides that can win the game, the DS and FP. At
some point I think most teams (and rightly so IMO) decide that one
group is allied and all else are the enemy. For me personally I
would much rather attack a neutral and know he is my enemy that let
him remain neutral with the specter of an attack looming over my
team for untold number of turns. I would personally like to see a 12-
turn declaration limit for neutrals as exists in FA.

As for MEG/Clint I don't think he is trying to get rid of
neutrals. I do know he has told me in emails that he believes that
the neutral swing decides a majority of the games. Please correct me
if I am wrong about this Clint.

In my opinion if the swing of neutrals does decide many of the games
then that is a flaw in game design and perhaps should be mitigated.
I think the game should be decided by the skill of the 20 non-
neutral players with otherwise those 20 are getting shafted for
their money.

I am expressing my view only and not speaking for anyone else nor
trying to convince anyone that my view is the correct/only one.

Steve

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, Gavin Wynford-Jones <gavinwj@w...>
wrote:

···

Quote:

On the flip side, a person that does not become an ally will
eventually become an enemy of most competent teams.

Why?

During WW2, Switzerland and Eire were neutral yet never became
enemies of either side...

You surely aren't saying that WW2 was a minor conflict...?

Gavin

#11

Kevin:
I am coming around to the same position as you.

If ever there was an example of misbelief causing reality it is this game. Harley entered ME with the misbelief this was a "team" game and not an "alliance" game. They and there pals proceed to dismantle the GSI barriers to team play and diminidh (doubtless remove in the future) the GSI incentives to selfishness. When I first came on this List I was astonished at the at how persons so misunderstood this game and were intent on diminidhing it to their own level.

What is the difference between a 'team' and an 'alliance'? Team members are expected to sacrifice for the commonweal. In an allaince national interest is always foremost. Anythig else is a breach-of-duty by a public official. Perhaps even treason in some quarters. There are plenty of recent examples of nations not sacrificing for the common good---be this NATO or the UN. That is the reality in Real Politik.

We have all been members of an athletic team and we watch teams play. The team concept is close and personal. Allainces are more distant and, well, intellectual. Unless, of course, you have been in the diplomatic service or engaged in joint operations with the South Korean army or the former Army of Viet-Nam. Then you see first hand how alliances really work.

Looking into my crystal ball I predict the Kin Strife will be just another "team' game. If your horizon is limited it is limited. In doing so Harley will be denying the members with experience in alliances. For some of us that might even be career enhancing.

Ed Mills

···

From: "Kevin Brown" <mornhm@soltec.net>
Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [mepbmlist] Loss of diplomacy
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:53:02 -0000

Well it's finally happened. I've lost interest in this game. It's been
coming for a while. It seems like the vast majority of the players no
longer have any interest or ability to do negotiations or diplomacy
especially with neutrals. Most players want to do away with neutrals
completely and this seems to be supported by MEG. I personally think
that a great part of the game has been lost and what is left isn't
worth the time or money expended.

It's been fun over the years, but the changes that have been made from
the original game and how it was run to now haven't all been good in my
opinion.

Kevin

#12

As I mentioned to Kevin - since we've been around there's been the ultimate Neutral game - all v all with. We're happy to support whatever game format you guys want to play. Our game concept is to create the best game we can and let that stand on it's own two feet and mostly that works. We leave it up to you how you play it... :slight_smile:

I think around 90% of non-Grudge (and some grudge games do have Neutrals in them) have the usual set of Neutrals. Some 1000 games have even more so I don't know how we're changing that?

Personally find playing in a team much more fun- the better the team strategy is implemented the more fun I have but that's my own take. Luckily enough, I appreciate that, like many things in life, there is no "pure" or correct game - it's all a matter of taste to suit your own palate and I think we offer a wide range of game formats where you - it's just upto you guys if you want to play in them. If you've got a format of game you want to play and there's enough players to play it then that's fine.

I think that in the real world there's generally less time and more of an immediate fix hence the level of diplomacy has decreased somewhat but that's upto the energy that players have at the end of a hard day at work I guess not that the game has changed in any major format just become more accessible.

Clint

#13

I think he did say something along those lines once, and as I said
then, I think that, at least in that form of words, he is wrong. In
any case, it's a cause and effect thing, you cannot prove whether
a) the neutrals' declarations decide the outcome of the game or
b) the direction of the game decides the neutral's declarations

If as an allegiance team, you play a blinder of an early game,
communicate well with the neutrals, and persuade and begin to
demonstrate to them that you are "the boyz who can go the distance",
then it's likely that a majority of them will join you. They then
obviously increase the probability that your momentum towards victory
becomes a charge. It's the assertion of bitter defeated enemies to
then say, that you won it because the neutrals declared for you. The
neutrals helped you win, because the neutrals saw you as potential winners.

There are a handful of "equalisers" out there. People who like to
play neutrals and join the side that appears weakest. But by and
large, people play the game and like to win. In all my games as a
neutral in the last few years, the choice has always been between a
side that seems that they might win, and a side that strikes me as
_not_deserving_ to win. In every case it's been decide against the
allegiance who's communication is weak. And in every case, at least
one allegiance has qualified.

[]
   Laurence G.Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

<http://www.buav.org/campaigns/primates/index.html>
Zero Option - end the use of primates in research

http://www.buav.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

···

At 02:10 29/09/2005, Steve wrote:

As for MEG/Clint I don't think he is trying to get rid of
neutrals. I do know he has told me in emails that he believes that
the neutral swing decides a majority of the games. Please correct me
if I am wrong about this Clint.

In my opinion if the swing of neutrals does decide many of the games
then that is a flaw in game design and perhaps should be mitigated.
I think the game should be decided by the skill of the 20 non-
neutral players with otherwise those 20 are getting shafted for
their money.

#14

Interesting Ed. So how did MEGames cause the switch from alliances to teams?

It seems to me that ultimately it is the players that do that. If a player decides to put the interests of his nation ahead of the team then there is nothing stopping them from doing that. No one is forcing you to share PDFs. Hell, no one forces you to coordinate with anyone. Seen plenty of examples of that in the regular games. :wink:

All I've seen since rejoining the game is that MEGames is doing whatever the players want. We have Gunboat games for those who want less coordination and some fog of war. We have grudge games for those wanting a serious head vs head match. I'm sure if you gathered up enough support that MEGames would start a game for those wanting to emphasize "alliances" and give neutrals a more defined role. But I'd be really surprised if that happened. Each of us votes with our wallets and anything else is meaningless.

Just my two cents.

Bern

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Ovatha Easterling
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 7:21 PM
  Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] Loss of diplomacy

  Kevin:
  I am coming around to the same position as you.

  If ever there was an example of misbelief causing reality it is this game.
  Harley entered ME with the misbelief this was a "team" game and not an
  "alliance" game. They and there pals proceed to dismantle the GSI barriers
  to team play and diminidh (doubtless remove in the future) the GSI
  incentives to selfishness. When I first came on this List I was astonished
  at the at how persons so misunderstood this game and were intent on
  diminidhing it to their own level.

  What is the difference between a 'team' and an 'alliance'? Team members are
  expected to sacrifice for the commonweal. In an allaince national interest
  is always foremost. Anythig else is a breach-of-duty by a public official.
  Perhaps even treason in some quarters. There are plenty of recent examples
  of nations not sacrificing for the common good---be this NATO or the UN.
  That is the reality in Real Politik.

  We have all been members of an athletic team and we watch teams play. The
  team concept is close and personal. Allainces are more distant and, well,
  intellectual. Unless, of course, you have been in the diplomatic service or
  engaged in joint operations with the South Korean army or the former Army of
  Viet-Nam. Then you see first hand how alliances really work.

  Looking into my crystal ball I predict the Kin Strife will be just another
  "team' game. If your horizon is limited it is limited. In doing so Harley
  will be denying the members with experience in alliances. For some of us
  that might even be career enhancing.

  Ed Mills

  >From: "Kevin Brown" <mornhm@soltec.net>
  >Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  >To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  >Subject: [mepbmlist] Loss of diplomacy
  >Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:53:02 -0000
  >
  >Well it's finally happened. I've lost interest in this game. It's been
  >coming for a while. It seems like the vast majority of the players no
  >longer have any interest or ability to do negotiations or diplomacy
  >especially with neutrals. Most players want to do away with neutrals
  >completely and this seems to be supported by MEG. I personally think
  >that a great part of the game has been lost and what is left isn't
  >worth the time or money expended.
  >
  >It's been fun over the years, but the changes that have been made from
  >the original game and how it was run to now haven't all been good in my
  >opinion.
  >
  >Kevin
  >
  >

  Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

  SPONSORED LINKS Computer role playing game Online role playing games Role playing games online
        Massive multiplayer online role playing games Star wars role playing game Wheel of time role playing game

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

    a.. Visit your group "mepbmlist" on the web.
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     mepbmlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#15

I may have not represented what Clint said to me in emails properly.
I am relying on memory so enough said.

Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with neutrals
the way they are now. I think some people that play neutrals think
it should afford them protection from the aligned nations. My object
is to win the game for my allegiance. If I recruit 5 neutrals to do
it, so be it. If I pre-empt 2 neutrals, so be it. If someone attacks
me while I am playing a neutral then so be it.

Play the game, take your lumps and enjoy your successes

I think everyone should do what is best for their allegiance to win
that is within the rules. This is still just a game and we do vote
with out pocketbooks

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, "Laurence G. Tilley"
<lgtilley@m...> wrote:

I think he did say something along those lines once, and as I said
then, I think that, at least in that form of words, he is wrong.

In

···

any case, it's a cause and effect thing, you cannot prove whether
a) the neutrals' declarations decide the outcome of the game or
b) the direction of the game decides the neutral's declarations

#16

Anyone who wants a game without neutrals can play grudge or gunboat or some such scenario. Those who want to play neutrals need to be prepared for the reality that there are 24 other players in a game. The open games most vertainly are what they are. If you don't like them, don't join them.

Often diplomacy fails. War is the outcome. Hopefully the neutral is well played and prepared for the eventuality. The funny thing about wargames - you need to fight to win...

Personally I find pompous, petty, and vindictive know-it-alls to be far more dislikable than the unfortuanate neutral.

Jason Mele

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Laurence G. Tilley
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 9:49 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Loss of diplomacy

  At 02:10 29/09/2005, Steve wrote:
  >As for MEG/Clint I don't think he is trying to get rid of
  >neutrals. I do know he has told me in emails that he believes that
  >the neutral swing decides a majority of the games. Please correct me
  >if I am wrong about this Clint.
  >
  >In my opinion if the swing of neutrals does decide many of the games
  >then that is a flaw in game design and perhaps should be mitigated.
  >I think the game should be decided by the skill of the 20 non-
  >neutral players with otherwise those 20 are getting shafted for
  >their money.

  I think he did say something along those lines once, and as I said
  then, I think that, at least in that form of words, he is wrong. In
  any case, it's a cause and effect thing, you cannot prove whether
  a) the neutrals' declarations decide the outcome of the game or
  b) the direction of the game decides the neutral's declarations

  If as an allegiance team, you play a blinder of an early game,
  communicate well with the neutrals, and persuade and begin to
  demonstrate to them that you are "the boyz who can go the distance",
  then it's likely that a majority of them will join you. They then
  obviously increase the probability that your momentum towards victory
  becomes a charge. It's the assertion of bitter defeated enemies to
  then say, that you won it because the neutrals declared for you. The
  neutrals helped you win, because the neutrals saw you as potential winners.

  There are a handful of "equalisers" out there. People who like to
  play neutrals and join the side that appears weakest. But by and
  large, people play the game and like to win. In all my games as a
  neutral in the last few years, the choice has always been between a
  side that seems that they might win, and a side that strikes me as
  _not_deserving_ to win. In every case it's been decide against the
  allegiance who's communication is weak. And in every case, at least
  one allegiance has qualified.

  []
     Laurence G.Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

  <http://www.buav.org/campaigns/primates/index.html>
  Zero Option - end the use of primates in research

  http://www.buav.org

  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

  Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

    a.. Visit your group "mepbmlist" on the web.
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     mepbmlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#17

Given what I've read on the subjective, the answer is "quite likely".
I'm currently reading AJP Taylor's book about the origins of the war
and it's quite revealing about how little of western Europe Hitler
was actually interested in. His target was Soviet Russia. He also
didn't want Italy as an ally, but thanks to some messed up diplomacy
by the other powers, that's what he got...

ME may only be a game, but one of its founding precepts is neutrals.
The word neutral carries significant connotations. Maybe they should
be called "unaligned" instead.

Gavin

···

On 29 Sep 2005, at 03:10, Steve wrote:

Had Hitler prevailed do you really think he would left a Switzerland
alone while he owned most of Europe because he liked them? I
don't know why Switzerland was left alone though I do believe
that many German officers used it to house what they looted.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#18

In my opinion if the swing of neutrals does decide
many of the games
then that is a flaw in game design and perhaps
should be mitigated.
I think the game should be decided by the skill of
the 20 non-
neutral players with otherwise those 20 are getting
shafted for
their money.

Actually, this is the sign of a finely balanced game.
It would be worse if the FP could only win if 4 of the
neutrals sided with them, or vice-versa. What it
means for game play is that a neutral should be
treated kindly. However, I think it would also be
neat if neutrals could change allegiance more than
once. This would force the FP or DS to maintain good
relations with the neutrals throughout the game.

John

#19

I do not think it's correct to proclaim that diplo has gone down the drain.

As one of 2950 newt lover, I've seen very little difference in the way one was treated from the time GSI ran the game to this day. Harley, or GSI then, has very little influence in the way mails (letters) are exchanged. It might be that mails now have this tendency to be a bit more blunt, as one spend less time pondering over them, but this has nothing to do with any company, the same result happens to pbm Diplomacy. OTOH, real unexpected stabbing happens less often too.

As for the lack of diplo, there are times one has to expect them. In all my times as the Rhuns, I had about one mail per two months on the average, whatever interested I tried to raise, and this changed when one side "decided" I had enough free time and it was either their way or their troops at my door. Corsairs or WW (e.g), on the other end of the spectrum are in it deep rom day 1. But this one knows first hand, except if one has Rhuns as first ever nation a vcery doubtful situation.

Yet, even this is more a general rule than and everytime occurence. We each experienced games where one side made little or no contact, to the wonder of all newts in that game. True, there might be some "dry spell", few games in a row, where diplo is scarce and pointless, but again this
happened then, it happens now and will again in the future.

Didier,

#20

It's a very safe bet to say this is totally wrong, not that I would advise reading "mein kampf".

I'd recommend reading "Rise and fall of the Third reich" by Williams Shirer to any party interested.

And yes, diplomatically, it's always interesting to leave a back door open, cf Austria during the cold war.

Didier

···

From: Gavin Wynford-Jones <gavinwj@wanadoo.fr>
Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [mepbmlist] OT: Loss of diplomacy
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 06:13:48 +0200

Given what I've read on the subjective, the answer is "quite likely".
I'm currently reading AJP Taylor's book about the origins of the war
and it's quite revealing about how little of western Europe Hitler
was actually interested in. His target was Soviet Russia. He also
didn't want Italy as an ally, but thanks to some messed up diplomacy
by the other powers, that's what he got...

ME may only be a game, but one of its founding precepts is neutrals.
The word neutral carries significant connotations. Maybe they should
be called "unaligned" instead.

Gavin

On 29 Sep 2005, at 03:10, Steve wrote:

> Had Hitler prevailed do you really think he would left a Switzerland
> alone while he owned most of Europe because he liked them? I
> don't know why Switzerland was left alone though I do believe
> that many German officers used it to house what they looted.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]