Bernie:
Through its replacement policies, the publication of players' names and the intermingling of mini-teams with random individuals in 'open' games. I can elaborate if you like.
Ed
From: "Bernie Gaider" <bernout1@adelphia.net>
Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Loss of diplomacy
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:52:46 -0600Interesting Ed. So how did MEGames cause the switch from alliances to teams?
Not wrong at all. MK can be seen as mainly being the venting of a lot of frustration. Hitler himself had abandoned a lot of its principles by 1938. Austria was supposed to be an associated state, run by Austrian Nazis, but that also got messed up. Peter Fleming's book, "Invasion 1940", written in the mid 50s and based on German and British documentation, clearly shows that he wasn't actually very interested in invading England, so it's a good bet Switzerland wasn't high on his list either.
Gavin
On 29 Sep 2005, at 09:03, . XIII wrote:
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 +0200Given 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]
------------------------ 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.comYahoo! Groups Links
Well, if Western Europe was only made out of England and Switzerland, your comment would be correct. In his deranged view, English were just a notch below the "aryan race". Rudolf Hess made a good try to separate England from the rest of the continent. But the rest of the continent there is.
Hitler stated in his book what fate he had in mind for France, which he considered his main hindrance for his eastward expansion. As most of the German military strategy in Western Europe involved lowlands (both Belgium and Netherland), those two countries were incvluded in the same fate, almost by default. Those countries are making a good chunk of Europe.
And we're talking only about western Europe here, not taknig into account Czechkoslovakia (sp), or Yugoslavia.
So no, I stand by my view. Hitler aim was indeed an eastward expansion but he had first to close account in the west so nothing would hinder his progress. Saying otherwise or saying he had little interest in the west is a misunderstatement.
Didier,
From: Gavin Wynford-Jones <gavinwj@wanadoo.fr>
Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] OT: Loss of diplomacy
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:57:42 +0200
Not wrong at all. MK can be seen as mainly being the venting of a lot
of frustration. Hitler himself had abandoned a lot of its principles
by 1938. Austria was supposed to be an associated state, run by
Austrian Nazis, but that also got messed up. Peter Fleming's book,
"Invasion 1940", written in the mid 50s and based on German and
British documentation, clearly shows that he wasn't actually very
interested in invading England, so it's a good bet Switzerland wasn't
high on his list either.
Gavin
On 29 Sep 2005, at 09:03, . XIII wrote:
> 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]
>
> ------------------------ 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
>
I'll stick with the historical view expressed by AJPT and others, which are borne out by the historical record.
I suggest that we close this debate now: this is, after all, the ME list and people have got cross for less in the past!
Gavin
On 29 Sep 2005, at 13:14, . XIII wrote:
Well, if Western Europe was only made out of England and Switzerland, your
comment would be correct. In his deranged view, English were just a notch
below the "aryan race". Rudolf Hess made a good try to separate England from
the rest of the continent. But the rest of the continent there is.Hitler stated in his book what fate he had in mind for France, which he
considered his main hindrance for his eastward expansion. As most of the
German military strategy in Western Europe involved lowlands (both Belgium
and Netherland), those two countries were incvluded in the same fate, almost
by default. Those countries are making a good chunk of Europe.And we're talking only about western Europe here, not taknig into account
Czechkoslovakia (sp), or Yugoslavia.So no, I stand by my view. Hitler aim was indeed an eastward expansion but
he had first to close account in the west so nothing would hinder his
progress. Saying otherwise or saying he had little interest in the west is a
misunderstatement.Didier,
From: Gavin Wynford-Jones <gavinwj@wanadoo.fr>
Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] OT: Loss of diplomacy
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:57:42 +0200Not wrong at all. MK can be seen as mainly being the venting of a lot
of frustration. Hitler himself had abandoned a lot of its principles
by 1938. Austria was supposed to be an associated state, run by
Austrian Nazis, but that also got messed up. Peter Fleming's book,
"Invasion 1940", written in the mid 50s and based on German and
British documentation, clearly shows that he wasn't actually very
interested in invading England, so it's a good bet Switzerland wasn't
high on his list either.Gavin
On 29 Sep 2005, at 09:03, . XIII wrote:
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 +0200Given 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]
------------------------ 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.comYahoo! 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.comYahoo! Groups Links
Playing the game from an "alliance" standpoint is an
interesting view worth some thought. You and Kevin
are two of many that probably share that view. Why
not sign-up a game that meets your needs. Rather than
a "team" concept from the start do it as an alliance.
In fact, the Circa 1000 format would allow that very
easily.
Also, as others have stated, there could be an all
neutral game. You could have a "Kings Peace" (thank
you Sam) for say, the first three turns, to form
alliances with up three, four or five nations.
JCC
--- Ovatha Easterling <ovatha88@hotmail.com> wrote:
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
>
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
There's no difference between "Alliance" and "Team" game. Same game, same program, same rules. It's the people who play the game who made it a "Team" game - in the never ended quest for greater efficiences yeilding greater results - winning. The more cohesively the "Alliance" can coordinate the available orders and resources of the available characters/nations/pops etc, the "more" they will "collectively" be able to do.
When the FP coordinate their camp placement while the DS emissaries bump into each other, the FP get more pops. When the FP coordinate their arty searching, while various DS nations each attempt to locate and "steal" artifacts from each other, the FP end up with more artifacts that can drastically affect the balance of power. When the FP "Team" supports their poorer and harder hit allies, the blunt the attempts of the more disorganized DS "Alliance". You can go on and on.
It's simply how the players themselves have evolved the game. End up with a group of "Alliance" players against a more "Team" oriented group, and the "Team" will win 9 times out of 10. All those "Alliance" players can only gripe and complain about their "allies" and point fingers at each other, because it's certainly never "their" fault that they lost, generally missing the point entirely. As the game goes on, some players begin to realize that if the "Alliance" doesn't emerge victorious, THEY won't "win" their glorious Victory Point race. And they begin to rationalize greater cooperation with allies to that point that eventually, they too evolve into "Team" players. Same game, same program, same rules. Play, learn, adjust, repeat.
Brad
Playing the game from an "alliance" standpoint is an
interesting view worth some thought. You and Kevin
are two of many that probably share that view. Why
not sign-up a game that meets your needs. Rather than
a "team" concept from the start do it as an alliance.
In fact, the Circa 1000 format would allow that very
easily.
Also, as others have stated, there could be an all
neutral game. You could have a "Kings Peace" (thank
you Sam) for say, the first three turns, to form
alliances with up three, four or five nations.
JCC
--- Ovatha Easterling wrote:
John Choules <chuck_john_61853@yahoo.com> wrote:
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"
>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
>
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sure there's a difference between a "team" game and an
"alliance" game. Look at how the words are spelled!
JCC
--- Brad Brunet <bbrunec296@rogers.com> wrote:
There's no difference between "Alliance" and "Team"
game. Same game, same program, same rules. It's
the people who play the game who made it a "Team"
game - in the never ended quest for greater
efficiences yeilding greater results - winning. The
more cohesively the "Alliance" can coordinate the
available orders and resources of the available
characters/nations/pops etc, the "more" they will
"collectively" be able to do.When the FP coordinate their camp placement while
the DS emissaries bump into each other, the FP get
more pops. When the FP coordinate their arty
searching, while various DS nations each attempt to
locate and "steal" artifacts from each other, the FP
end up with more artifacts that can drastically
affect the balance of power. When the FP "Team"
supports their poorer and harder hit allies, the
blunt the attempts of the more disorganized DS
"Alliance". You can go on and on.It's simply how the players themselves have evolved
the game. End up with a group of "Alliance" players
against a more "Team" oriented group, and the "Team"
will win 9 times out of 10. All those "Alliance"
players can only gripe and complain about their
"allies" and point fingers at each other, because
it's certainly never "their" fault that they lost,
generally missing the point entirely. As the game
goes on, some players begin to realize that if the
"Alliance" doesn't emerge victorious, THEY won't
"win" their glorious Victory Point race. And they
begin to rationalize greater cooperation with allies
to that point that eventually, they too evolve into
"Team" players. Same game, same program, same
rules. Play, learn, adjust, repeat.Brad
John Choules <chuck_john_61853@yahoo.com> wrote:
Playing the game from an "alliance" standpoint is an
interesting view worth some thought. You and Kevin
are two of many that probably share that view. Why
not sign-up a game that meets your needs. Rather
than
a "team" concept from the start do it as an
alliance.
In fact, the Circa 1000 format would allow that very
easily.Also, as others have stated, there could be an all
neutral game. You could have a "Kings Peace" (thank
you Sam) for say, the first three turns, to form
alliances with up three, four or five nations.JCC
--- Ovatha Easterling wrote:
> 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"
> >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
> >
> >
>
>
>__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.comMiddle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.comYahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
And they begin to rationalize greater cooperation with allies to that point that eventually, they too evolve into "Team" players. Same game, same program, same rules. Play, learn, adjust, repeat.
Sort of like evolution? Best team wins so players are encouraged to be better for the reward of winning. Not sure what the ESS is though... 
Clint
Brad --
I think one of the points that you may be missing is that with an Alliance type assumption, not all of the "allies" needs to be of the same "allegiance". In GSI-run 4th Age games, I was in some games where players from different Allegiances worked together to win, as an alliance that crossed Allegiance boundaries -- but do that under MEGames' stewardship and as soon as other players realize what is happening they cry foul and half of them drop in protest. Game 142 is a recent case in point.
Now, I may not be as rabid as Ed in wanting the "good old days of GSI" to return -- but there are some points he has made about the way the game has changed that are indeed valid. For example, one of the ways that MEGames makes "teams" much more likely than "alliances" is by publishing all the contact info on your "teammates" from day 1, in the frontsheet. The default assumption they are making here is that all the players of the same Allegiance WILL work together -- closely or otherwise. And that may be a perfectly reasonable assumption in 1650 and 2950, as ONLY FP or DS can win -- but less so in 4th Age c. 1000, because one of the REASONS for the development of 4th Age to begin with was that many players WANTED the option to (a) attack nations of the same allegiance who were being obstructionist or whatever and (b) ally with (in terms of alliance-type play) nations of other allegiances. In 4th Age there are ways to win that do not require an allegiance victory. Under GSI, it was more effort for players to contact each other, but it was actually feasible for players to contact the people they WANTED to work with -- regardless of allegiance! Again, more useful for "different" types of 4th Age alliances, since there are ways to win that do not depend on specifically having to win as an Allegiance.
The same underlying assumption is made with nation replacement. If a nation drops, other players of the same allegiance are given the option to pick up that nation, REGARDLESS of who that nation may actually have been working with. I have been in one 4th Age game where a single FP nation was working with the DS, originally joining them as a matter of national survival but basically commiting itself to the long-term success of the DS team. Both DS and FP were fighting Neutrals, in northern and southern campaign areas that were essentially separate. The DS were winning their battles in the south and the Neutrals there were falling, while the Neutrals in the north were winning against the FP. But the DS, especially given one FP ally, were doing so well that through extensive negotiations -- yes, actual diplomacy -- the Neutrals (of which I was one) and surviving FP in the north settled their differences and banded together to face the threat from the southern DS and their lone FP ally. The game was VERY balanced at that point, in terms of number of nations on each side, economic power, character power -- it was a very challenging game. Then the lone FP who was working with the DS dropped. MEGames offered the position to the other FPs in the game -- and of course my allies among the FP could hardly turn it down. MEGames assumption -- that the FP nation that dropped should be picked up by the FP remaining -- BROKE that game. The enemy had essentially, through MEGames' normal policy, not only lost one of their allies, but that ally was suddenly working for our side -- and instead of a balanced game, we had 2 more nations than they did. A game that had seen a lot of triumphs and tragedies, and some very intricate diplomacy, died a couple turns later when the DS found out what had happened and dropped in disgust -- and I don't blame them. Bad enough that their ally had dropped without telling them -- but to have the nation suddenly be their enemy instead was the last straw.
Similarly, in a game where it is past turn 12, and some Neutrals were working with the other Allegiances but just did not change their icons, a Neutral nation working with one allegiance dropped -- the position was offered to other Neutral players (under the assumption that since the Neutrals could no longer change Allegiance that they must by definition be trying to win as Neutrals) -- and a Neutral player working with the opposite allegiance picked up the position. Again, essentially, a nation switched sides not due to the original player's actions but due to the GMs' replacement policy.
Another assumption that MEGames makes that is NOT what GSI did is "victory". Under MEGames, if you are in the "losing" allegiance, you CANNOT place 1st, 2nd or 3rd in terms of "victory". However, under GSI, the Allegiance that won automatically had its best nation get 1st place, BUT 2nd and 3rd place went to the two nations from the rest of the active nations that had the highest VP scores -- regardless of Allegiance. So for instance a nation that was still Neutral in 1650, or a nation of the "losing" Allegiance, could not WIN -- take 1st place -- but it COULD take 2nd or 3rd place. Yes, we played a game where VCs actually mattered. Nations on the losing side who were still active on the last turn -- whether the side "dropped" to allow the enemy a legitimate victory or whether by doing the One Ring -- were eligible to place 2nd or 3rd.
So for example in 4th Age you might have a group of nations from across the Allegiances who were working towards a strategic victory. Technically, when a non-Kingdom satisfies the strategic victory requirements, that nation's Allegiance wins -- with no guarantee that the nation who got got those pop centers would win, place or even show, although getting the 200 extra vps for the two Kingdom capitals, and having all those extra pop centers, certainly makes it likely. Anyway, such an alliance might well claim the top three spots -- if that nation does take 1st place, then its allies regardless of allegiance would be eligible for 2nd and 3rd place. And if it doesn't take 1st place, one of its allies of the same Allegiance might -- and other allies of other Allegiances would still be allowed to claim 2nd or 3rd, as would the nation that satisfied the conditions. However, under MEGames' rule that nations not of the "winning Allegiance" cannot win, place or show, regardless of their scores such nations would NOT be allowed to be in the top three officially.
Clearly, the default assumption that GSI made was that players could, and sometimes would, engage in what other players might consider unorthodox alliances -- and that was part of the game. It is a lot less a part of the game under MEGames, because the default assumption there is that nations of a specific Allegiance will always want to work with each other as a team and that nations of different Allegiances (including Neutrals after turn 12 in 4th Age games when they can no longer change allegiance) will always be enemies.
Or at least, that is how it appears to me, and I have been around for a while...and played in a lot of games... -- Ernie Hakey III
-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Brunet <bbrunec296@rogers.com>
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:47:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] Loss of diplomacy
There's no difference between "Alliance" and "Team" game. Same game, same
program, same rules. It's the people who play the game who made it a "Team"
game - in the never ended quest for greater efficiences yeilding greater results
- winning. The more cohesively the "Alliance" can coordinate the available
orders and resources of the available characters/nations/pops etc, the "more"
they will "collectively" be able to do.
When the FP coordinate their camp placement while the DS emissaries bump into
each other, the FP get more pops. When the FP coordinate their arty searching,
while various DS nations each attempt to locate and "steal" artifacts from each
other, the FP end up with more artifacts that can drastically affect the balance
of power. When the FP "Team" supports their poorer and harder hit allies, the
blunt the attempts of the more disorganized DS "Alliance". You can go on and
on.
It's simply how the players themselves have evolved the game. End up with a
group of "Alliance" players against a more "Team" oriented group, and the "Team"
will win 9 times out of 10. All those "Alliance" players can only gripe and
complain about their "allies" and point fingers at each other, because it's
certainly never "their" fault that they lost, generally missing the point
entirely. As the game goes on, some players begin to realize that if the
"Alliance" doesn't emerge victorious, THEY won't "win" their glorious Victory
Point race. And they begin to rationalize greater cooperation with allies to
that point that eventually, they too evolve into "Team" players. Same game,
same program, same rules. Play, learn, adjust, repeat.
Brad
John Choules <chuck_john_61853@yahoo.com> wrote:
Playing the game from an "alliance" standpoint is an
interesting view worth some thought. You and Kevin
are two of many that probably share that view. Why
not sign-up a game that meets your needs. Rather than
a "team" concept from the start do it as an alliance.
In fact, the Circa 1000 format would allow that very
easily.
Also, as others have stated, there could be an all
neutral game. You could have a "Kings Peace" (thank
you Sam) for say, the first three turns, to form
alliances with up three, four or five nations.
JCC
--- Ovatha Easterling wrote:
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"
>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
>
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
[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
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I think one of the points that you may be missing is that with an Alliance type assumption, not all of the "allies" needs to be of the same "allegiance". In GSI-run 4th Age games, I was in some games where players from different Allegiances worked together to win, as an alliance that crossed Allegiance boundaries -- but do that under MEGames' stewardship and as soon as other players realize what is happening they cry foul and half of them drop in protest. Game 142 is a recent case in point.
Technically you can't win in 1000 if nations of a different allegiance are still in the game (turn 52 being the end game exception for a different result), you can ally together but you can't technically win. I'm happy if you guys consider it a "win" but technically it ain't and that's the way GSI designed it - not our design. So although you are allowed to do this within the game you can't actually win that way.
As a player we played a 3 way game and took out one allegiance but then the battle turned to the remaining 2 teams.
MEGames assumption -- that the FP nation that dropped should be picked up by the FP remaining -- BROKE that game.
*** I'd be interested to know what players feel about this as it's our policy. Generally nations that are of an allegiance will be allied - they are working for similar goals - ie the victory of the team with them jockeying for position within that game. That's how we interpret the game. Otherwise it would be a free for all and then I don't see the point of allegiances at all or worse still you could join as allied to the FP but play a DS nation - who actually wants that in the game?!!! Ditto Neutrals - they are NEUTRAL - no pre-game alliances etc. I think that this clear definition helps everyone to know what the game is and what the goals are. (Obviously you can also set your own goals but then that's a personal goal within the game - eg ally with opposition and "split" the win - but it's not a game winning condition as the program and the rules understand it."
Allegiances are there to encourage team-play but not necessarily at the cost of the individual nation. (How you play the nation is upto you largely!)
I point out the victory conditions in the 1650 game as an example.
The game ends in the following ways:
B: One Ring is taken to Barad-dur and 990ed twice (thrown into Mount Doom) - Victory is achieved by the SIDE (emphasis of GSI there) that possesses the One Ring.
(In 1000 games B is replaced with a Strategic VC but it's still side based).
It doesn't end with two allegiances agreeing a victory, nor by Neutrals taking out all the FP/DS (in 1000 Neutrals can win as a SIDE though). At that point victory is allocated depending on game end 1 or 2). Although you can have the strongest nation (individual VCs) the rules clearly state "All surviving members will have their Vps totaled ... and the highest combined total on the winning SIDE (GSI's emphasis again there) is the winning nation." Seems quite clear to me.
Now you might say you want to play a different game to the one that is stated above - but that's not Middle Earth as I see it. Personally I prefer it when players play to get enjoyment out of the game in different ways but you still have to be aware of what is considered "winning" and "losing" by the majority of players ie that you are all playing the same game.
With the 1000 game that Ernie mentioned where some players dropped some players were clearly of the impression that one set of rules was allowed (SIDE victory), another that another set of rules was being implemented (alliances set-up within the game but not side related). But see above and the rulebook for what is actually winning the game (as per the rules) - anything else, by implication, isn't.
Similarly, in a game where it is past turn 12, and some Neutrals were working with the other Allegiances but just did not change their icons, a Neutral nation working with one allegiance dropped -- the position was offered to other Neutral players (under the assumption that since the Neutrals could no longer change Allegiance that they must by definition be trying to win as Neutrals) -- and a Neutral player working with the opposite allegiance picked up the position. Again, essentially, a nation switched sides not due to the original player's actions but due to the GMs' replacement policy.
12 turns seems plenty of time IMO... I feel that if a Neutral is allied then it should change allegiance. GSI put the turn limit in the game for a very specific reason and that was to encourage neutrals to actually show their colours at one point and change to the team that they were supporting. What other reason is it in the game for? If you are still Neutral at that point then the only option within the game is a SIDE victory (ie other Neutrals that have stayed Neutral).
We do run things differently and have a slightly different slant but so far we've mostly got positive feedback on this.
Clint
A: Either the Fp or DS have all been eliminated.
Hey Clint!
Always happy to debate this particular issue. Note also that I do not necessarily say that GSI's way was better -- just that they DID run it differently.
According to the way GSI ran things, there was only one "winner" in terms of players winning -- i.e. the player who got 1st place. You could not "win" -- i.e. get 1st place -- unless your Allegiance was victorious. HOWEVER, GSI gave "winner's certificates" to the TOP THREE. The 1st place nation had to be from the victorious allegiance. HOWEVER, 2nd and 3rd place went to the TWO NATIONS WITH THE MOST VPS OTHER THAN THE 1ST PLACE NATION -- regardless of allegiance. THAT is what I mean when I say "win" -- to come in 1st, 2nd or 3rd. Under GSI, taking one of the top 3 spots in the game, either winning and getting 1st place or coming in 2nd or 3rd got you a winner's certificate good for a free game entry with free capital insurance and also extended your subscription to Whispers. I don't recall exactly what it was that 1st place got that was better than 2nd or 3rd -- maybe they got the larger extension to Whispers, or something -- but in any case, coming in 1st, 2nd or 3rd got you something REAL -- and you did NOT have to be on the "winning side" to get 2nd or 3rd. I know -- because in more than one game I was in, an enemy nation placed 2nd or 3rd in a game where I was on the winning side, and in some 1650 games, Neutrals that had not declared yet got 2nd or 3rd. Sometimes you would see the VPs listed something like 1500 points for 1st place, 1950 for 2nd and 1850 for 3rd -- that sort of thing -- because two nations on the "losing" side actually were the two most powerful nations in the game. Their side lost, so they could not "win", i.e. they could not take 1st place -- but they DID get rewarded for being powerful nations.
So you quote the rulebook as saying "All surviving members will have their Vps totaled ... and the highest combined total on the winning SIDE (GSI's emphasis again there) is the winning nation." And that is exactly what GSI meant -- the nation with the most VPs on the side that "won" is the winning nation, i.e. gets 1st place, and all the rewards that go with it. BUT that does NOT mean that 2nd and 3rd placeHAD to also be of that same Allegiance!!! I can dig up multiple final standings that show 2nd and 3rd place going to nations which were NOT on the winning side -- they nonetheless got certificates etc. I have lots of back issues of Whispers where they showed standings in the Hall of Heroes -- if you look through them you WILL see games that ended with nations of the other allegiance getting 2nd or 3rd place.
But the way you at MEGames do things, you make sure that ALL the nations on the non-winning side are prevented from getting any standings at all. You "xx" out all the nations of the "losing" side for the final standings. I have sheets from GSI which show the final standings and on which nations of the losing side which were still active on the last turn -- even if they conceded victory on that last turn -- were NOT "xx" out of the standings. Usually they did not place or show -- but they were allowed to if their VPs were high enough.
Now, many players consider they THEY have won the game even if they do not place in the top 3 -- because their nations made a significant, perhaps even essential, contribution to the eventual victory of their side. The Eothraim are often in that position in many 1650 games -- they can have a huge impact on the early game yet also tend to get hammered hard by enemy armies and agents both, and may never fully recover. I have no problems with that feeling -- but it doesn't mean they get a medal for being 2nd or 3rd. Similarly, a player whose nation has a lot of points but whose side lost clearly cannot feel as much pride in that fact as if his side had actually won. However, GSI's game DID recognize that individual nation performance was a valid measure of a player's success as well -- they just didn't allow such a nation to "win" and take 1st place. A nation with 900 points can defeat a nation with 2400 points -- if 900 happens to be the best total on his side and his side wins.
Now, I have no problem with defining a "win" as exactly how it IS defined -- the SIDE wins, and the best nation on that side (as determined by VP total, not necessarily by play or contribution to the victory) wins, but that was only used to see who got 1st place. There can be only one winning NATION. Everyone on the winning side SHOULD feel proud of helping secure that victory -- but there is a second level of victory built into the game, and that is 2nd and 3rd place. Like a horse race, you have win, place, and show. GSI allowed ANY nation that was still active to "place" or "show". The rewards were less, but they were there -- and GSI did NOT reward 4th place.
In many games there is no real difference anyway between GSI's version of victory and your version, because the side that wins also happens to have the top three nations on it -- that being one of the reasons the side won, after all. But your method does NOT allow nations of other allegiances to place or show. GSI did! That is a documentable difference. I am not just speaking from memory -- I can dig up hard evidence if you insist! Games where the Noldo were the winner but the Cloud Lord or Long Rider were in 2nd place, that sort of thing.
Now, when you say "win", I think what you mean is "be a member of the winning allegiance". When I say "win" I mean "be in 1st place", exactly what MEGames meant by "winning nation". I think that being able to be in 2nd or 3rd as a membor of a different allegiance ADDS complexity to the game. And I think that being rewarded for having a strong nation when the game ends DOES encourage "nation first" thinking. As Ed might say, that is the difference between an alliance and a team. Is it better? Depends on the kind of game you want to play. I enjoy the game in a variety of ways, so it doesn't bother me as much as it might bother others, whichever way the game goes.
So, do I need to bring up specific games from GSI days, with national standings and VP totals as the "winners" -- meaning win, place and show nations, 1st, 2nd and 3rd place finishers -- that show members of different allegiances on the same scoreboard? I'll be happy to do so. Though I don't have access to an international fax. Let me know. It wouldn't really matter -- but you also have all these rating systems that are based in part on final standing. Some players might score better if their "losing but strong" nations were actually able to be in 2nd or 3rd place. Others might find that their scores were lower because their "4th in totals but 2nd on the winning side" final standings actually put them in 4th rather than 2nd place on the scoreboard because the last nations left on the other side were NOT prevented from taking their "rightful place" among the powerful nations of the world. Essentially, what you do at MEGames is redefine "all surviving members" -- you count as eliminated all members of the losing side or sides. GSI counted any nations that were active on the last turn of the game -- even if their activity was limited to conceding victory to the enemy -- as "surviving members". That is why they need to specify that the highest total on the winning side is the winning nation -- because there WERE surviving nations on other sides as well!
Now, on to the "replacement players" issue. That is a tough one -- because we should not expect MEGames to have to know which nations are working with other nations within every single game. And I have been on the good side of the MEGames policy at least as often as I have been on the bad side. MEGames definitely replaces players faster than GSI ever did -- under GSI the nation would have to go through 2 SS turns and 2 "no orders" turns before they would replace them (though players could hand nations off normally of course), and by the time 4 turns had gone by it was often not worth the effort to replace them. In general I like the "replace quickly" policy. But it might be worth looking at a nation's relations with other nations before automatically making it available. That might be a bit too much work, I don't know -- but in the case of that game where the FP was a traitor to the Free, one might have been surprised to notice several other FP having been downgraded to Disliked and several DS having been upgraded to Tolerated!
But as a matter of policy, even though it may not always be the best thing for a specific position in a specific game, I think MEGames "quick and easy replacement" policy IS good for the game as a whole. Many more games were "broken" by players dropping out unannounced and not getting replaced, than were ever broken by a quick replacement. The subject of replacing Neutrals in 4th Age games is a bit more complicated, because Neutrals CAN change sides.
But NOTE that even after turn 12, still being a Neutral does not mean one HAS to be trying for a Neutral victory! Just as ANY member of a winning side can feel like a winner -- whether or not he places in the top 3 -- so can ANY member of an alliance that achieves a victory by getting one of its members to 1st place at game end. Using the Eothraim in 1650 as an example -- the number of games where they place in the top 3 is smaller than average compared to other nations for most FP victories, and they certainly place 1st at a lower percentage than many other FP nations -- but if the FP win and the Eothraim are still alive, they can probably feel good about the game and their part in it. Do they call themselves a winner? They can if they like. Do they actually WIN the game? No -- their highest VP total ally does. So lets look at a Neutral who either doesn't choose an allegiance soon enough and then fails, or who simply decides not too (and turn 12 comes awefully fast for some Neutrals, especially those who don't have enough commanders or who are suffering a loss of commanders due to agent infestation). I have been a Neutral in a game where I declared fairly early on that I was effectively joining the FP even though I was not changing my icon. I happened to be playing a Kingdom and I wanted to take advantage of some of the "still Neutral" Kingdom special options. There was no question in any of the other players' minds that I was effectively an FP -- I was fighting the DS and helping the FP in a number of ways and places. I KNOW that I gave up my chance to "win" by doing so -- i.e. my Kingdom could not be in 1st place regardless of the number of VPs I might end up with. I also gave up other things -- despite working with the FP th ebest relations we could have with each other would be Tolerated, so I could not join their companies or get supplies at their pop centers and vice versa. Similarly I was denying myself the ability to use all those juicy Good artifacts -- including the ones I started with, which I handed off to a "true" FP nation so that they could be made use of. BUT I certainly felt that I had at least as much responsibility for the eventual FP victory as any of the original FP nations, even though I could not WIN. I considered myself as much a part of the FP team as the officially Good nations. IF the GSI rules were in effect, I could certainly be 2nd or 3rd. There were a couple other Neutrals also doing the same thing -- and we could potentially have gotten a "strategic victory" if we wanted to. Instead, when the DS were defeated, we called a world-wide truce. If it had been the only way to end the game, I and the other Neutrals would have simply "conceded" to our FP allies -- instead, MEGames changed the turn counter to turn 52 so that all the nations remaining would still be active. (BTW, that is an interesting way to generate the draw, though there is one thing built into the program that may not have been accounted for -- a Neutral Kingdom still alive at the "end" of the game gets an alternate scoring of VPs based on the number of turns in the game -- which at turn 52 is 1600 points before adding in individual VPs. That was a few points higher than I actually got through the regular scoring, but not much higher.)
Do I digress or what? The point is that even after turn 12, a Neutral may not be committed to a Neutral victory -- so if a Neutral drops, allowing an existing Neutral player to take over the position may changethe balance of power in the game. Of course, any dropped nation that is picked up may end up being played differently and result in a change of focus etc. And as long as the players know what the policy is, they can take it into account, even if they don't care for the possible consequences. What I do think is that, maybe, sometimes, allowing a player already in the game to take over a nation is not as good as getting in an independent player to take it over. Then at least the player taking over the position can evaluate it based on the situation the nation is in, rather than simply using the nation to support the situation as best for his other existing nation. I think this is much more likely to be a factor for Neutrals than for DS or FP -- it is pretty rare for an FP or DS to be a traitor, whereas a Neutral may simply be committed to a cause without having changed his icon. It happens -- sometimes it takes a few turns, and sometimes unexpected events stop the allegiance change -- like having your capital invaded by agenst on turn 9 and killing your commanders on turn 10 when you didn't see them coming...
Okay, enough babble for me... -- Ernie III
-----Original Message-----
From: ME Games Ltd <me@MiddleEarthGames.com>
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 03:41:03 +0100
Subject: [mepbmlist] Winning the game
I think one of the points that you may be missing is that with an Alliance
type assumption, not all of the "allies" needs to be of the same
"allegiance". In GSI-run 4th Age games, I was in some games where players
from different Allegiances worked together to win, as an alliance that
crossed Allegiance boundaries -- but do that under MEGames' stewardship
and as soon as other players realize what is happening they cry foul and
half of them drop in protest. Game 142 is a recent case in point.
Technically you can't win in 1000 if nations of a different allegiance are
still in the game (turn 52 being the end game exception for a different
result), you can ally together but you can't technically win. I'm happy if
you guys consider it a "win" but technically it ain't and that's the way
GSI designed it - not our design. So although you are allowed to do this
within the game you can't actually win that way.
As a player we played a 3 way game and took out one allegiance but then the
battle turned to the remaining 2 teams.
MEGames assumption -- that the FP nation that dropped should be picked
up by the FP remaining -- BROKE that game.
*** I'd be interested to know what players feel about this as it's our
policy. Generally nations that are of an allegiance will be allied - they
are working for similar goals - ie the victory of the team with them
jockeying for position within that game. That's how we interpret the
game. Otherwise it would be a free for all and then I don't see the point
of allegiances at all or worse still you could join as allied to the FP but
play a DS nation - who actually wants that in the game?!!! Ditto Neutrals
- they are NEUTRAL - no pre-game alliances etc. I think that this clear
definition helps everyone to know what the game is and what the goals
are. (Obviously you can also set your own goals but then that's a personal
goal within the game - eg ally with opposition and "split" the win - but
it's not a game winning condition as the program and the rules understand it."
Allegiances are there to encourage team-play but not necessarily at the
cost of the individual nation. (How you play the nation is upto you largely!)
I point out the victory conditions in the 1650 game as an example.
The game ends in the following ways:
A: Either the Fp or DS have all been eliminated.
B: One Ring is taken to Barad-dur and 990ed twice (thrown into Mount Doom)
- Victory is achieved by the SIDE (emphasis of GSI there) that possesses
the One Ring.
(In 1000 games B is replaced with a Strategic VC but it's still side based).
It doesn't end with two allegiances agreeing a victory, nor by Neutrals
taking out all the FP/DS (in 1000 Neutrals can win as a SIDE though). At
that point victory is allocated depending on game end 1 or 2). Although
you can have the strongest nation (individual VCs) the rules clearly state
"All surviving members will have their Vps totaled ... and the highest
combined total on the winning SIDE (GSI's emphasis again there) is the
winning nation." Seems quite clear to me.
Now you might say you want to play a different game to the one that is
stated above - but that's not Middle Earth as I see it. Personally I
prefer it when players play to get enjoyment out of the game in different
ways but you still have to be aware of what is considered "winning" and
"losing" by the majority of players ie that you are all playing the same game.
With the 1000 game that Ernie mentioned where some players dropped some
players were clearly of the impression that one set of rules was allowed
(SIDE victory), another that another set of rules was being implemented
(alliances set-up within the game but not side related). But see above and
the rulebook for what is actually winning the game (as per the rules) -
anything else, by implication, isn't.
Similarly, in a game where it is past turn 12, and some Neutrals were
working with the other Allegiances but just did not change their icons, a
Neutral nation working with one allegiance dropped -- the position was
offered to other Neutral players (under the assumption that since the
Neutrals could no longer change Allegiance that they must by definition be
trying to win as Neutrals) -- and a Neutral player working with the
opposite allegiance picked up the position. Again, essentially, a nation
switched sides not due to the original player's actions but due to the
GMs' replacement policy.
12 turns seems plenty of time IMO... I feel that if a Neutral is allied
then it should change allegiance. GSI put the turn limit in the game for a
very specific reason and that was to encourage neutrals to actually show
their colours at one point and change to the team that they were
supporting. What other reason is it in the game for? If you are still
Neutral at that point then the only option within the game is a SIDE
victory (ie other Neutrals that have stayed Neutral).
We do run things differently and have a slightly different slant but so far
we've mostly got positive feedback on this.
Clint
Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Waste of time Ernie, been there done that.
MEG and many players are too narrow minded to understand what FA can
actually be about. Personally I enjoyed the atmosphere of FA under
GSI far better than it is now. I doubt many others agree and MEG
caters to the majority, which I have no problem with.
As for 142 and 41, I know that we won the game because our "team"
kicked the shit out of the opposition. I am sure by MEG's definition
that was a loss and draw but I care little of that.
You can't make someone think outside of the box and there are a
lot of non-creative types in MEPBM that rely on rote to get them
through.
No personal offense towards anyone and just my opinion.
Steven McAbee
PS I think "traitor" is the wrong term. In FA anything goes or at
least it use to under GSI.
Hey Clint!
Always happy to debate this particular issue. Note also that I do
not necessarily say that GSI's way was better -- just that they DID
run it differently.
--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, DrakaraGM@a... wrote:
Ernie,
You got me on FA. The game we played was my second and last, a game where I was both disappointing and disappointed and resulted in my swearing off FA, period full stop. Lots of reasons not worthy of any more space here. Certainly not your allegiance, mind. You earned my, likely, eternal respect, although after reading the emails tonight, I have to assume you type 97 words/second or something, so I'll respect that too..
So I'll, willingly even, ascribe to the belief that certain cookie-cutter MEGames policies have not necessarily fit the FA mould as well as they might.
But I have a real hard time with Victory Points. While I'll concede the point that a winning "nation" from the winning "allegiance" is..."only fair" and that the rest of the placing in order of "score" regardless of allegiance (as GSI appearently did it..?) is the best policy, I simply dislike the hardcoded "scoring system" of VP's. The concept of "scoring" the game has been trashed back and forth ad nauseum for years now, likely to never be adequately resolved. There evolved 2 directions in which to go: 1) replace VP's with a different, less (perceivedly....) selfish system that scores what the nation actually DID as opposed to what the nation ended up HAVING and 2) rate the Player based on his Team Game success.
The PRS rates the Player based on his Team Game success, while throwing a bone to the VP's with a VP based rating. I'm of the mind that the VP's can be replaced by a wholey different system (one of which I proposed years ago, an order-based, turn by turn accumulating system) that would "improve" the current VP system to provide for "individual" victory and lessen the reliance on "team based" PRS style scoring systems. Alas and alack, we have what we have and all things considered, as in my "get over it" rant re: neutral whining, I suspect we both agree that whatever the powers that be might consider prudent policy, the game we play is still fun enough to continue playing regardless....!
Cheers,
Brad
DrakaraGM@aol.com wrote:
Brad --
I think one of the points that you may be missing is that with an Alliance type assumption, not all of the "allies" needs to be of the same "allegiance". In GSI-run 4th Age games, I was in some games where players from different Allegiances worked together to win, as an alliance that crossed Allegiance boundaries -- but do that under MEGames' stewardship and as soon as other players realize what is happening they cry foul and half of them drop in protest. Game 142 is a recent case in point.
Now, I may not be as rabid as Ed in wanting the "good old days of GSI" to return -- but there are some points he has made about the way the game has changed that are indeed valid. For example, one of the ways that MEGames makes "teams" much more likely than "alliances" is by publishing all the contact info on your "teammates" from day 1, in the frontsheet. The default assumption they are making here is that all the players of the same Allegiance WILL work together -- closely or otherwise. And that may be a perfectly reasonable assumption in 1650 and 2950, as ONLY FP or DS can win -- but less so in 4th Age c. 1000, because one of the REASONS for the development of 4th Age to begin with was that many players WANTED the option to (a) attack nations of the same allegiance who were being obstructionist or whatever and (b) ally with (in terms of alliance-type play) nations of other allegiances. In 4th Age there are ways to win that do not require an allegiance victory. Under GSI, it was
more effort for players to contact each other, but it was actually feasible for players to contact the people they WANTED to work with -- regardless of allegiance! Again, more useful for "different" types of 4th Age alliances, since there are ways to win that do not depend on specifically having to win as an Allegiance.
The same underlying assumption is made with nation replacement. If a nation drops, other players of the same allegiance are given the option to pick up that nation, REGARDLESS of who that nation may actually have been working with. I have been in one 4th Age game where a single FP nation was working with the DS, originally joining them as a matter of national survival but basically commiting itself to the long-term success of the DS team. Both DS and FP were fighting Neutrals, in northern and southern campaign areas that were essentially separate. The DS were winning their battles in the south and the Neutrals there were falling, while the Neutrals in the north were winning against the FP. But the DS, especially given one FP ally, were doing so well that through extensive negotiations -- yes, actual diplomacy -- the Neutrals (of which I was one) and surviving FP in the north settled their differences and banded together to face the threat from the southern DS and their lone FP ally.
The game was VERY balanced at that point, in terms of number of nations on each side, economic power, character power -- it was a very challenging game. Then the lone FP who was working with the DS dropped. MEGames offered the position to the other FPs in the game -- and of course my allies among the FP could hardly turn it down. MEGames assumption -- that the FP nation that dropped should be picked up by the FP remaining -- BROKE that game. The enemy had essentially, through MEGames' normal policy, not only lost one of their allies, but that ally was suddenly working for our side -- and instead of a balanced game, we had 2 more nations than they did. A game that had seen a lot of triumphs and tragedies, and some very intricate diplomacy, died a couple turns later when the DS found out what had happened and dropped in disgust -- and I don't blame them. Bad enough that their ally had dropped without telling them -- but to have the nation suddenly be their enemy instead was the last
straw.
Similarly, in a game where it is past turn 12, and some Neutrals were working with the other Allegiances but just did not change their icons, a Neutral nation working with one allegiance dropped -- the position was offered to other Neutral players (under the assumption that since the Neutrals could no longer change Allegiance that they must by definition be trying to win as Neutrals) -- and a Neutral player working with the opposite allegiance picked up the position. Again, essentially, a nation switched sides not due to the original player's actions but due to the GMs' replacement policy.
Another assumption that MEGames makes that is NOT what GSI did is "victory". Under MEGames, if you are in the "losing" allegiance, you CANNOT place 1st, 2nd or 3rd in terms of "victory". However, under GSI, the Allegiance that won automatically had its best nation get 1st place, BUT 2nd and 3rd place went to the two nations from the rest of the active nations that had the highest VP scores -- regardless of Allegiance. So for instance a nation that was still Neutral in 1650, or a nation of the "losing" Allegiance, could not WIN -- take 1st place -- but it COULD take 2nd or 3rd place. Yes, we played a game where VCs actually mattered. Nations on the losing side who were still active on the last turn -- whether the side "dropped" to allow the enemy a legitimate victory or whether by doing the One Ring -- were eligible to place 2nd or 3rd.
So for example in 4th Age you might have a group of nations from across the Allegiances who were working towards a strategic victory. Technically, when a non-Kingdom satisfies the strategic victory requirements, that nation's Allegiance wins -- with no guarantee that the nation who got got those pop centers would win, place or even show, although getting the 200 extra vps for the two Kingdom capitals, and having all those extra pop centers, certainly makes it likely. Anyway, such an alliance might well claim the top three spots -- if that nation does take 1st place, then its allies regardless of allegiance would be eligible for 2nd and 3rd place. And if it doesn't take 1st place, one of its allies of the same Allegiance might -- and other allies of other Allegiances would still be allowed to claim 2nd or 3rd, as would the nation that satisfied the conditions. However, under MEGames' rule that nations not of the "winning Allegiance" cannot win, place or show, regardless of their
scores such nations would NOT be allowed to be in the top three officially.
Clearly, the default assumption that GSI made was that players could, and sometimes would, engage in what other players might consider unorthodox alliances -- and that was part of the game. It is a lot less a part of the game under MEGames, because the default assumption there is that nations of a specific Allegiance will always want to work with each other as a team and that nations of different Allegiances (including Neutrals after turn 12 in 4th Age games when they can no longer change allegiance) will always be enemies.
Or at least, that is how it appears to me, and I have been around for a while...and played in a lot of games... -- Ernie Hakey III
-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Brunet
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:47:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] Loss of diplomacy
There's no difference between "Alliance" and "Team" game. Same game, same
program, same rules. It's the people who play the game who made it a "Team"
game - in the never ended quest for greater efficiences yeilding greater results
- winning. The more cohesively the "Alliance" can coordinate the available
orders and resources of the available characters/nations/pops etc, the "more"
they will "collectively" be able to do.
When the FP coordinate their camp placement while the DS emissaries bump into
each other, the FP get more pops. When the FP coordinate their arty searching,
while various DS nations each attempt to locate and "steal" artifacts from each
other, the FP end up with more artifacts that can drastically affect the balance
of power. When the FP "Team" supports their poorer and harder hit allies, the
blunt the attempts of the more disorganized DS "Alliance". You can go on and
on.
It's simply how the players themselves have evolved the game. End up with a
group of "Alliance" players against a more "Team" oriented group, and the "Team"
will win 9 times out of 10. All those "Alliance" players can only gripe and
complain about their "allies" and point fingers at each other, because it's
certainly never "their" fault that they lost, generally missing the point
entirely. As the game goes on, some players begin to realize that if the
"Alliance" doesn't emerge victorious, THEY won't "win" their glorious Victory
Point race. And they begin to rationalize greater cooperation with allies to
that point that eventually, they too evolve into "Team" players. Same game,
same program, same rules. Play, learn, adjust, repeat.
Brad
John Choules wrote:
Playing the game from an "alliance" standpoint is an
interesting view worth some thought. You and Kevin
are two of many that probably share that view. Why
not sign-up a game that meets your needs. Rather than
a "team" concept from the start do it as an alliance.
In fact, the Circa 1000 format would allow that very
easily.
Also, as others have stated, there could be an all
neutral game. You could have a "Kings Peace" (thank
you Sam) for say, the first three turns, to form
alliances with up three, four or five nations.
JCC
--- Ovatha Easterling wrote:
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"
>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
>
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
[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
[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
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
According to the way GSI ran things, there was only one "winner" in terms of players winning -- i.e. the player who got 1st place. You could not "win" -- i.e. get 1st place -- unless your Allegiance was victorious. HOWEVER, GSI gave "winner's certificates" to the TOP THREE.
Okay understood - not sure what the certificate means but.. .
So you quote the rulebook as saying "All surviving members will have their Vps totaled ... and the highest combined total on the winning SIDE (GSI's emphasis again there) is the winning nation." And that is exactly what GSI meant -- the nation with the most VPs on the side that "won" is the winning nation, i.e. gets 1st place, and all the rewards that go with it. BUT that does NOT mean that 2nd and 3rd placeHAD to also be of that same Allegiance!!! I can dig up multiple final standings that show 2nd and 3rd place going to nations which were NOT on the winning side -- they nonetheless got certificates etc. I have lots of back issues of Whispers where they showed standings in the Hall of Heroes -- if you look through them you WILL see games that ended with nations of the other allegiance getting 2nd or 3rd place.
Fair point.
But the way you at MEGames do things, you make sure that ALL the nations on the non-winning side are prevented from getting any standings at all. You "xx" out all the nations of the "losing" side for the final standings. I have sheets from GSI which show the final standings and on which nations of the losing side which were still active on the last turn -- even if they conceded victory on that last turn -- were NOT "xx" out of the standings. Usually they did not place or show -- but they were allowed to if their VPs were high enough.
This is just GSI's software so I'm not sure why it's like that as it's the same software they were using (same computers!). I only got to play with GSI once so haven't got the breadth of experience that some of you guys have here.
So, do I need to bring up specific games from GSI days, with national standings and VP totals as the "winners" -- meaning win, place and show nations, 1st, 2nd and 3rd place finishers -- that show members of different allegiances on the same scoreboard?
No thanks. I understand more clearly now.
I'll be happy to do so. Though I don't have access to an international fax.
No need the number in the states we have provided is local rate for you guys.
Essentially, what you do at MEGames is redefine "all surviving members" -- you cou
nt as eliminated all members of the losing side or sides. GSI counted any nations that were active on the last turn of the game -- even if their activity was limited to conceding victory to the enemy -- as "surviving members". That is why they need to specify that the highest total on the winning side is the winning nation -- because there WERE surviving nations on other sides as well!
Generally our system is based on the way that Allsorts run it. We've only updated that so no doubt there's a clash there. If players are picky over this then I agree we do do things slightly differently (allocate of 2nd and 3rd). I'll chat to Stu (he's off today) as he's got some comments to make about this all as well.
Clint
As for 142 and 41, I know that we won the game because our "team"
kicked the shit out of the opposition. I am sure by MEG's definition
that was a loss and draw but I care little of that.
Not by our definition but by the rules - that's what I'm trying to explain. You have won a victory by your definition and that's perfectly fine with me. For example: game 79 ended for our team, it's our first Grudge game loss but we played the best we've ever done and we're happy with our "victory" there (kudos to Brian's team for playing well and sometimes superbly btw). If you want to change the definition of a victory then see below.
PS I think "traitor" is the wrong term. In FA anything goes or at least it use to under GSI.
*** Not anything goes - that's another point. There are rules on how you can win and how you can lose. I've tried to present them. What you want is something different to the rules.
Now that is possible but in that situation
1) everyone should be aware joining that game what is the situation - eg that allegiances are fluid etc.
2) appropriate number of players need to be available - ie it's a variant to the normal rules.
I'm more than happy to run such a game, if that's what you want, but there's some legacies of GSI's tenure that need to be addressed - some misunderstandings of points in the game and what our policy is when joining a game. I really urge players to read the house rules and address points before hand (like we're doing here). We would consider changing policy if
1) Players want it (I don't feel that they do - we had lots of complaints and some permanent dropped players due to the situation in the traitor FP game we had for example)
2) the policy changed to is clear.
Clint
One of the things that is an underlying assumption made by both players and GMs is "what does a win actually consist of". As I see it, there are two levels of victory.
The first level of victory is the Allegiance victory. Most "wins" consist of one Allegiance proving victorious. On that Allegiance, the highest scoring nation also "wins" as an individual nation -- i.e. places 1st in the standings. Other nations of that Allegiance can consider themselves as PART of the winning Allegiance -- so they "win" in one respect -- but that does not mean they are guaranteed to have a place in the top three. Technically, the nation in 1st place is the ONLY actual "winner" of the game in terms of a specific individual -- but all the members of that Allegiance can feel that they are winners, because they are part of an Allegiance that won.
The second level of victory is individual placement in the top three. By definition, for a nation to "win" the game, it must place 1st, which means (in most games) that it must be the highest scoring nation of its Allegiance. But 2nd and 3rd place are (or WERE, under GSI) open to ALL nations, whatever other two nations still active in the game scored the highest in vps. And even though their Allegiance may have lost, a nation that manages to place 2nd or 3rd, I think, has at least as much right to consider itself a "winner" on an individual basis as any nation in the winning Allegiance that did NOT manage to make the top 3.
In the Olympics, winning the silver or bronze is not anywhere near as satisfying as winning the gold -- but it sure beats the heck out of placing 4th!
Anyway, both of those levels of victory are built into the game and described in the rulebook. But the way GSI closes a game somehow forces the first to have dominance over the second. Somehow -- as Clint indicated in an earlier response -- something that MEGames does, perhaps inherited from Allsorts' way of doing things -- is different than the way GSI did things, because nowadays the only nations that ever make the top three are the ones that are on the winning Allegiance. Perhaps Stu can shed some light on how GSI wrapped up their games in a manner which allowed "losing" nations to place in the top three. I know it happened, not every game but often enough so that it was always a possibility.
In my personal view, whether you call it a "win" or not, scoring in the top 3 is a noteworthy accomplishment. In games where I am a willing and even eager part of a Allegiance-based team, I am happy for the team to win, whether or not I place in the top 3 -- i.e. I am happy to simply know that I contributed to the team victory and am one of the "winning" nations on that Allegiance. But in a game where I end up being part of a multi-Allegiance alliance, as it were, the only way to measure "victory" is (a) have one of the members of the
Anyway, I do think that the top three should still be open to members of the opposition, as it was "in the old days". I think a victory is all the sweeter when you have games that end with all three top slots filled by your allies because the opposition didn't have any remaining nations with enough vps to take a place there. But a game that ends because the opposition got disgusted with the game for some other reason and conceded even though they had the most powerful nations is not as satisfying a victory. Although that then leads to the whole "what are vps worth anyway?" discussion that again is split between those who want to see only team play vs those that enjoy the challenge of helping the side win while still doing well as an individual nation. I can see the arguments for both sides -- basically, there are groups of players on both sides who enjoy the game enough to keep playing even though the two sides have different styles.
The thing of it is, the "team" style of play is demonstrably superior in terms of achieving an Allegiance victory, assuming a level playing field in terms of technical skills on both sides -- so by definition, those who play that way, if they really don't care about individual victory, should more often end up "winning" as an Allegiance, and one of their nations WILL be in 1st place, winning the game, compared to an Allegiance that functions more like an Alliance than a Team. However, some players DO prefer to play in a more selfish or non-communicative style, and that is their prerogative. And if the top 3 is not that important to "team" players, but does matter to the more self-oriented players, why not allow them some sort of recognition? As a team player, I would not mind seeing worthy opponents who finally bowed to the inevitable -- perhaps a couple of powerful nations conceding to a multitude of lesser nations -- being recognized through placing 2nd or 3rd. And as a team player, I also would not mind having my enemies playing selfishly while my team worked towards an Allegiance victory! In such a case I don't mind being a small part of the winning side, rather than a big part of the losing side. In such a case, I think MORE players can feel a sense of accomplishment and enjoy playing. Most players do not play to lose, of course -- and I have seen competent loners defeat organized but lesser skilled players on occasion too, so the selfish style of play does not guarantee a loss by any means.
Many of us -- and I consider myself a fair team player in most games -- learned our playing style in the early days of GSI, and some of the original atmosphere has no doubt crept into our very subconscious and influences the way we play to this day. I also enjoy games where I mostly go my own way -- and despite not being as active a teammate as some of the members of my Allegiance might like, simply due to competence I constribute mightily to the win. In such games I may not "give" much to my allies but neither do I "need" much from them. In some games that may simply be because I am isolated but have few neighbors and can thus simply deal with my local situation on my own. In others it may be because I get off on the wrong foot with my allies -- might not be anybody's fault, just a mismatch of pesonalities or styles -- and even though I may not want to work closely with them I still am working for the side. And in still others, I find myself more sympatico with members of other Allegiances than with those on my own side -- and they feel the same way -- so we decide to take on the world as a small collection of rebels and outcasts... Note that playing the latter way is a lot tougher these days when everyone on your side has your email address from turn 1...but it does occasionally happen.
Had the game originated with a "team only" approach, they probably would have structured the vps differently, or else they would have made only members of the winning Allegiance eligible for any rewards or recognition. GSI did many things I didn't necessarily agree with, and one of them in fact was the emphasis on vps -- but I grew to accept and then enjoy them. Even so, my advice to novice players was ALWAYS of the form "pay no real attention to the individual VCs -- they mostly serve as a distraction from the real need to work with your allies to win as an Allegiance." Yep, even in the days of GSI, I didn't worry that much about individual VCs. I would be happy, near the end of a game we were already winning, to "trade" stuff in order to help others get their individual VCs and perhaps get some of my own, but it was more for flavor than substance. I would never ask an ally to retire a powerful character simply because he was on my list -- BUT if the ally happened to get that character killed in a foolish challenge or unfortunate encounter, I might not have mourned its loss as much as I should have. I would happily trade pop centers so that VCs could be satisfied -- or allow an ally to capture an enemy pop center rather than doing so myself if it was on his "list" -- but I wouldn't waste time transferring stuff before the camp limit was hit, or allow an enemy to keep his pop center for multiple extra turns just to allow someobne else to take it, nor request any such favors myself -- plenty of time to transfer later if it seems to matter.
But I DO like the basic underlying vp method -- placement in 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. for armies, pop centers, characters, and wealth. I enjoy seeing who places where in each category, and trying to figure out just what GSI had in mind. Even after all these years, I still don't know the specifics of how they rated stuff, other than wealth which is trivial to determine of course.
Anyway, as usually I run on at too great a length... -- Ernie III
-----Original Message-----
From: ME Games Ltd <me@MiddleEarthGames.com>
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:35:35 +0100
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Winning the game
As for 142 and 41, I know that we won the game because our "team"
kicked the shit out of the opposition. I am sure by MEG's definition
that was a loss and draw but I care little of that.
Not by our definition but by the rules - that's what I'm trying to
explain. You have won a victory by your definition and that's perfectly
fine with me. For example: game 79 ended for our team, it's our first
Grudge game loss but we played the best we've ever done and we're happy
with our "victory" there (kudos to Brian's team for playing well and
sometimes superbly btw). If you want to change the definition of a victory
then see below.
PS I think "traitor" is the wrong term. In FA anything goes or at least it
use to under GSI.
*** Not anything goes - that's another point. There are rules on how you
can win and how you can lose. I've tried to present them. What you want
is something different to the rules.
Now that is possible but in that situation
1) everyone should be aware joining that game what is the situation - eg
that allegiances are fluid etc.
2) appropriate number of players need to be available - ie it's a variant
to the normal rules.
I'm more than happy to run such a game, if that's what you want, but
there's some legacies of GSI's tenure that need to be addressed - some
misunderstandings of points in the game and what our policy is when joining
a game. I really urge players to read the house rules and address points
before hand (like we're doing here). We would consider changing policy if
1) Players want it (I don't feel that they do - we had lots of complaints
and some permanent dropped players due to the situation in the traitor FP
game we had for example)
2) the policy changed to is clear.
Clint
Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Obviously I don't really care what MEG's thinks about most
things. I play the game for own goals.
The FP was not a traitor. He joined the game with me with the intent
of nuking the NK. As it turned MEG botched my setup. I had FP listed
on pdf, had elves for character pics, good aligned artifacts but
there were too many FP and not enough DS and my nation number was
listed among the DS. I agreed to become a DS because it would have
taken about a month to get the game restructured per an email from
Clint. Everyone that had an opinion voiced no opposition to this. I
sent an email to MEG stating that I would work the FP who I joined
the game regardless of what my icon showed.
MEG made the initial mistake; MEG took the easiest fix available (My
DS army would have been able to pick up ents, eagles and so on). MEG
knew before turn 1 was processed that there would cross allegiance
duo working together.
MEG is culpable as anyone for what happened in 142 though in my
opinion 142 was the way FA was supposed to be played. It was the way
most of the GSI FA games were played at least from 3 through 33,
which I believe was my last.
The lesson I take from this it play only neutrals in non-grudge/GB
games
Steve
>As for 142 and 41, I know that we won the game because our "team"
>kicked the shit out of the opposition. I am sure by MEG's
definition
>that was a loss and draw but I care little of that.
Not by our definition but by the rules - that's what I'm trying to
explain. You have won a victory by your definition and that's
perfectly
fine with me. For example: game 79 ended for our team, it's our
first
Grudge game loss but we played the best we've ever done and we're
happy
with our "victory" there (kudos to Brian's team for playing well
and
sometimes superbly btw). If you want to change the definition of
a victory
then see below.
PS I think "traitor" is the wrong term. In FA anything goes or at
least it
use to under GSI.
*** Not anything goes - that's another point. There are rules on
how you
can win and how you can lose. I've tried to present them. What
you want
is something different to the rules.
Now that is possible but in that situation
1) everyone should be aware joining that game what is the
situation - eg
that allegiances are fluid etc.
2) appropriate number of players need to be available - ie it's a
variant
to the normal rules.
I'm more than happy to run such a game, if that's what you want,
but
there's some legacies of GSI's tenure that need to be addressed -
some
misunderstandings of points in the game and what our policy is
when joining
a game. I really urge players to read the house rules and address
points
before hand (like we're doing here). We would consider changing
policy if
1) Players want it (I don't feel that they do - we had lots of
complaints
and some permanent dropped players due to the situation in the
traitor FP
--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, ME Games Ltd <me@M...> wrote:
game we had for example)
2) the policy changed to is clear.
Clint
Hi Folks
Sorry to hear that someone has lost interest, maybe it'll come to us all
eventually.
I've not read all the threads that followed this message but I must say that
I too miss the diplomacy. I play mostly gunboat games these days and one
reason is that non-gunboat games have lost something in the diplomacy area.
There was a time when a fair proportion of players played for the fun of it
first and winning second. Now a substantial majority of players seem to be
interested only in winning and drop as soon as things start to go against
them. Neutrals are asked to join a side but maybe by only one or two people
on a team. Most of the members of the "teams" just ignore them and drop if
too many neutrals join the other "team".
On the other hand, I could be turning into a grumpy old bugger who looks at
the good old days through rose coloured glasses.
David
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