I liked this word, someone else used it, I don’t really know what it means, but why not, eh? (Canadian, see? I said “Eh?” at the end of a statement…)
No talking, No posting, No communication outside the Diplo emails sent between you and MEGames and MEGames and the nations you said to send it to.
Drops won’t be filled.
No posting of list of allies at the bottom of your turn results email. No names and no “Processed” or “Special Serviced”.
Basically, you get your turn files and send in your orders. Any diplomacy you send doesn’t get to the targeted player until the follow turn results.
Ed Mills - I’m throwing this open to you, I scratched the above off the top of my head - if you got onboard and finalized the rule set you can count me in as 1 of the X # of committed players required for Clint to open up the game as “Filling”.
Brad,
The word Luddite comes from the early 19th Centuary when Britain was industrialising. A certain portion of the textile workforce felt that industrialisation was going to takle away their jobs and as a result went around smashing up machinery to stop all this technical advancement. The name comes from a ficticious person Ned Ludd.
I used the term as the game idea is a reaction to the technological advances of the internet age.
Fraid this type of game is a bit hard core for me, and I busy anyway with the KS test. However I hope you and Ed can get the players together and have a good game.
How is this any different than any of these other games? Whether you’re talking game 75, 4th age, 1650, gunboat or any other variant of these, I don’t see how this approach is going to make it more gratifying for me. I’ve twice taken extended breaks for the same reason, DIPLOMACY. I don’t see how having a player drop and then not be told about it or not have the position replaced is supposed to make me feel good if I’m winning. If a player drops, everyone loses. If a player is SS everyone loses. If players don’t communicate, the game sucks.
Personally, I’m getting bored. I’m paying money to play and I expect to play in good games. I’m not a new player anymore and I expect the games I participate in to be of a higher level. For me, the issue is not the type or variant of how a game should be played, the issue is the commitment to playing a game you’ve entered. I cannot even get a 13 week game of UW going? Yet players will wait for months to enter a 1650 individual game and then see it end on T12. So, I’m at a loss for how another twist in a game is supposed to enlighten me.
You make good points Dan. I’m not in the least bit interested in Untold War. You’re not the least bit interested in a “silent” 1650.
There is 1 key difference between this game as written above (and it’s passed the Ed test because he’s posted without recommending any changes) and Game 75 is that in Game 75 you knew whether your allies were playing, as they’re nations and “Processed” or “Special Serviced” appeared on your turn email. You also, therefore, knew whether your allies were eliminated or not…
Is that enough to get another micro-variant going?
Now, join the 1 weeker, you’ve stockpiled enough money waiting for your UW, I’m sure you can play 2 nations…!!!
I’m actually fascinated by the idea of Ruggha and a ‘silent game’, I’m almost prepared to take on the other 23 positions just to enjoy the spectacle
“Hey Ed!”
“Yes Brad”
I think we’re surrounded…
Cheers
Winsten Wun Toof
PS I made it to the forum. If you’re short of numbers I’ll help Ed realise his dream… (probably should clarify - the MEPBM ‘no friends under any circumstances’ Marcel Marceau variant)
I’m with Dan there…
One GB I’m in, we have half the “team” doing diploes, and only 1 ally actually sends out usefull info.
The other I’m in we have 1-3 who don’t send out diploes.
Instead of being anoyed every 5 turns only, at lack of diploing, I would be anoyed every turn…
Dan: The Harley way of doing things causes short games. I have explained why in two mini-articles on the List entitled “Balanced Games” dated June 28 '08 and June 30 '08.
Hmm , Must be in the same Gunboats as me – but the players not communicating doesn’t bother me, as I understand they can do this if they want – would like a sit-rep if nothing else from every-player each 5 turns though – would give me an idea of what is going on at least !!
I loved the old game. I loved it because within the paradigm of inconvenient communication it required effort to forge a functional alliance within an allegiance. Given that most people were too lazy to do so, it conferred advantage on those who were. Also, the option to undermine allegiance members who were not supporting the allegiance’s victory was important so that they could not just sandbag for victory conditions with impunity.
The inconvenient communication train has left the station, but the threat of internecine conflict should be preserved to keep things reasonable.
Oddly, you’ve made the argument for the corporate style Team Game we have now - the more the nations can act as one, the more likely they’ll emerge victorious. Technology (yahoogroups, JO, instant communication, etc) help here, no? So, will you be playing for the pleasure of banging your head on the wall to forge an allegiance without all the convenience of how we regularly do it…? Kind of like trying to make a good martini on a camping trip…?
Which brings up some more rule options that Ed hasn’t added to here. Like shadow orders. Anything else?
It really isn’t odd. I intended the apparent paradox. Since there are no contradictions, only faulty premises, yes; if this game goes live I will seek to forge, by whatever inconvenient means are available (abiding honor-bound by the rules), a real team (in pen and paper and a few compuserve users - days I did everything I could in that medium to form precursors to the modern teams), while relishing the opportunity to undermine any lone wolf nation that does not serve the allegiance’s obvious objectives. I am Millsian by virtue of a belief in the unfettered autonomy of a nation, not by virtue of unrealistic, unenforceable, and unreasonable barriers to communication.
I think it was implicit that no shadow orders are possible. Also, it was not spelled out in your Luddite topic post, but it should be explicitly stated that all agent and emissary actions against a member of your own alliance are allowed. The old school game only restricted armies from attacking allied nations (please to see page 17 of the old rules for a very clear dlineation).
I’ve not read your articles. I rarely read anything related to mepbm games as just playing them takes up plenty of my time.
Though I don’t think it’s all Harley. I began playing with GSI before 1990 in an earlier game before ME made it’s debut, but 3x5 cards were common and GSI was running the show, yet most players did not use the cards. If I received 6 a turn, that was a great! Heck, I rarely ever sent cards. Maybe that’s why I lost so much back then. And I made many of the same mistakes then as I see in players now. In a nutshll the things I did not like in the 90’s still exist. I’m just able to cope better about the existing issues but the thing that bugs me the most now is finding a good game. Without making every game a grudge format, is there any way to get a game of experienced players only instead of a mix of newer players and veteran players? It’s just not as enjoyable beating a player that lacks understanding and strategy. I would much rather match wits against the best. That is my quest!
Ed, I’ve read your arguments on the forum for some time now and I understand what you are saying, I just don’t feel as strongly as to the “why” as you. Unfortunately, I cannot comment more as restrictions are on some games, which is another thing I don’t really like. But I’ll save that for later.
Back in the days when I first started playing I had one of the poster style maps pinned to my living room wall with all the pop centres and armies done in small square bits of paper and stuck on using blue tack. I used to ring up people and update the map with bits of information I picked up from them in the course of the conversation. Now I just use palantir, which is much more effective and less time consuming. So whilst I understand what Ed wants, I’d rather not go back to those days.
