> Players won't like a purely random allocation. Why? Because it deprives them of -any- element of choice.
Who says that choice is an integral part of the set up...?
Personally I think it is an integral part of the set-up choice. As an example your choice to play in a Gunboat 2950 or the Wotr variant game and then sending me a list and comments also about the viability of specific nation choices in GB 2950. Different players like different styles of gaming and we'd like to support that. ME has enough variety in it that it can actually support all these different styles of play - the heroic sacrifice, the general, the manipulator, the strategist, the economist etc. Each nation has its strengths and weaknesses and players like to choose nations that they enjoy playing those particular strengths that they like and avoid the nations that they don't like.
On the other hand we can't offer an exact nation that would suit each player (and 1000 certainly doesn't but makes some attempts to) which is a shame. Hence I need players to be flexible sometimes.
It seems to me that those advocating a system of choices are actually advocating a system whereby they can be more than a little selfish: the
"either we play with my ball or I'll take it away" philosophy.
Exactly and with less choice more players will indeed pick up their ball and walk away. Rightly so. We've got to be able to offer the right mix of choice and service, and get a wage packet at the end of the day.
"The random allocation is totally fair given that not all nations are equal and therefore there will always be a pecking order, which implies that some
nations will not be chosen except under a certain level of duress. Other nations are almost always on a player's list."
Fair but not enjoyable - and that's what players pay for to have fun. Actually most nations get at least one player picking them in 25 nations - it's when they don't (eg game 9 with 8 players specifying only one nation and a few more specifying a couple only) where the system breaks down.
Clint
