Should a neutral leaving a game be able to have his
nation picked up by a player from one of the
allegiances?
I'm waffling. In one of my games, a neutral just gave
his position to the enemy. It's not a surprise, but
part of me feels no undeclared neutral should be able
do that. Until he flips those icons, he's neutral, no
matter what he's said or done.
But another part of me understands that neutrals often
effectively join a side a few (or several) turns
before declaring. In two other current games, our
sides are coordinating closely with neutrals who plan
to declare soon, and to lose them under new players
would severely disrupt our teams.
What do you think? Is it fair for a departing neutral
to hand over his nation to one of the allegiances?
Dan
···
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
It's a tricky one, but on balance, and having seen the situation more than once, I should say yes. It is appallingly unfair when one has worked hard to court a neutral and he drops short of declaring. It also spoils the position for any later player who might want to align differently, if data has been shared with one allegiance. It's different very early in the game, so I think there should be a balanced house rule along the lines of "From turn 10 onwards a dropping Neutral may specify an 'declaration intent' and a player from that allegiance may be allowed to play that nation".
Should a neutral leaving a game be able to have his
nation picked up by a player from one of the
allegiances?
I'm waffling. In one of my games, a neutral just gave
his position to the enemy. It's not a surprise, but
part of me feels no undeclared neutral should be able
do that. Until he flips those icons, he's neutral, no
matter what he's said or done.
But another part of me understands that neutrals often
effectively join a side a few (or several) turns
before declaring. In two other current games, our
sides are coordinating closely with neutrals who plan
to declare soon, and to lose them under new players
would severely disrupt our teams.
What do you think? Is it fair for a departing neutral
to hand over his nation to one of the allegiances?
If he does it for game balance reasons, I'd say it's justifiable:
he's trying to make sure that everyone else has a fun game even
if he's left.
If he's doing it to screw the other allegiance because they were
nasty to him, that's also justifiable: they forced him into the
allegiance.
If he's already joined one side but hasn't actually flipped his
icon (I carefully distinguish between the two actions -- sometimes
a neutral has committed himself long before the formality of the
icon flip!), then it's probably justifiable.
If he's just doing it for random chaos, or for some out-of-game
reason, then I don't think it's justifiable.
That cover all the bases?
Tony Z
···
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 09:26:31AM -0700, D N wrote:
What do you think? Is it fair for a departing neutral
to hand over his nation to one of the allegiances?
--
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me --
As he died to make men holy let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on! --Julia Ward Howe
