Neutrals all one way

[blchezluis]

I do not know about the rest of the players of Middle Earth, but I
have a problem when too many, mainly when all the neutrals go one way
or the other. I find that it does not make for a balanced nor
enjoyable game. Many times I also realize that it is somewhat
predetermined as to which way a nation will change its allengiance
to. In other words if let us say for instance the Rhudar go free,
the Dunns for sake of staying in the game must also go free or
otherwise face anhilation. The Southern block going the same way
also makes for an unfun game. These two going dark spell doom for
the free early on, these two going free mean the QA is out of the
game. Is it me or does something need to be possibly done about this
when and IF, I do mean IF a new edition comes out.. I do not have
any suggestions right now other than this small band aid of please
all you neutral players out there think of game balance occasionally
also, beyond your own predetermined views.

B

[Laurence_G_Tilley]

blchezluis@aol.com wrote

I
have a problem when too many, mainly when all the neutrals go one way
or the other.

Now that little cynical man, who lives in the back of my head, and
whispers in my ear, suggests that your problem is greater when they go
"the other way" rather than your way.

In a recent game, one allegiance whined to the GMs because none of
the neutrals declared for them. When the situation was examined, it
transpired that it had not actually occurred to the grumblers that
someone on their team might perhaps have actually talked to the
neutrals, before they declared.

I've been in 2 games where all the neutrals went against us - in both
cases it was because the badly organised opposition made bad early
errors, and the team I was on was considered superior. The neutrals,
often experienced players, went against the strong team, in order to
bolster the shaken newbies and VP players, and try to ensure that the
games didn't fizzle out on turn 12. In both cases, these became long
(and therefore fairly) balanced games.

Regards,

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

[Harlequin_Games1]

Doesn't need a new edition to house rule this. Note we run pre-aligned
games for players who are particularly worried about an uneven game. We can
even do them as standard non-grudge games if there was player interest.

Clint

···

I do not know about the rest of the players of Middle Earth, but I
have a problem when too many, mainly when all the neutrals go one way
or the other. I find that it does not make for a balanced nor
enjoyable game. Many times I also realize that it is somewhat
predetermined as to which way a nation will change its allengiance
to. In other words if let us say for instance the Rhudar go free,
the Dunns for sake of staying in the game must also go free or
otherwise face anhilation. The Southern block going the same way
also makes for an unfun game. These two going dark spell doom for
the free early on, these two going free mean the QA is out of the
game. Is it me or does something need to be possibly done about this
when and IF, I do mean IF a new edition comes out.. I do not have
any suggestions right now other than this small band aid of please
all you neutral players out there think of game balance occasionally
also, beyond your own predetermined views.

B

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Aaruman]

What if you limited the change allegiance order? Say that if one allegiance currently
has 3 more nations than the other, NO neutral could declare for that allegiance. (Call
it an Allegiance Delta or AD.) That way, it would encourage those neutrals who like to
fence sit entirely too long to declare earlier, or end up not getting the side they
wanted because the AD went against their preferred allegiance.
  As for someone who waits too long, (AD goes bad on them), and absolutely doesn't want
to declare for an allegiance (maybe the undesirable allegiance has been rude), then
that neutral could simply play out the game as a neutral, and still work against the
offending allegiance. Of course, they may not win (unless in a 4th Age game), because
the bad allegiance may end up losing more and more nations, making the AD even worse
and precluding ever joining the good allegiance. But that would be the price of
waiting too long to declare.
  This probably wouldn't affect too many games, as many of the neutrals I've played
with like to balance the game somewhat anyway. But it would eliminate those "all 5
neutrals declare DS/FP and end the game way soon" games.

Mike

···

------Original Message-----
-From: Middle Earth PBM Games [mailto:me@MiddleEarthGames.com]
-Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 3:37 PM
-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
-Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Neutrals all one way
-
-
-Doesn't need a new edition to house rule this. Note we run pre-aligned
-games for players who are particularly worried about an uneven game. We can
-even do them as standard non-grudge games if there was player interest.
-
-Clint
-
-> I do not know about the rest of the players of Middle Earth, but I
-> have a problem when too many, mainly when all the neutrals go one way
-> or the other. I find that it does not make for a balanced nor
-> enjoyable game. Many times I also realize that it is somewhat
-> predetermined as to which way a nation will change its allengiance
-> to. In other words if let us say for instance the Rhudar go free,
-> the Dunns for sake of staying in the game must also go free or
-> otherwise face anhilation. The Southern block going the same way
-> also makes for an unfun game. These two going dark spell doom for
-> the free early on, these two going free mean the QA is out of the
-> game. Is it me or does something need to be possibly done about this
-> when and IF, I do mean IF a new edition comes out.. I do not have
-> any suggestions right now other than this small band aid of please
-> all you neutral players out there think of game balance occasionally
-> also, beyond your own predetermined views.
->
-> B

[Harlequin_Games1]

It might, unfortunately cause, the all 5 change Earlier though. I agree
this might work but note in the book all the Neutrals went DS and the FPs
had no choice but to go for the One Ring victory...

Lots of variations on these rules could be done - what would be acceptable,
fair and make a good game though?

Clint

What if you limited the change allegiance order? Say that if one

allegiance currently

has 3 more nations than the other, NO neutral could declare for that

allegiance. (Call

···

it an Allegiance Delta or AD.)

[Laurence_G_Tilley]

Breaks one of the fundamental rules of good games design. It's not
internally consistent. If they're neutrals, they're neutrals - independent
tribes who have not made their minds up at the start of the war. You
can't just drop in an artificial mechanism to improve game balance if it
conflicts with the plot and internal "truths" of the fantasy world. That's
one of the reasons why 1650 is so strong, and 4th age is such a
travesty.

If Norway, Switzerland and Spain start as neutrals in a WW2 game,
and you suddenly drop in a rule that says "If two of them declare for the
Allies, the third must declare for the Axis", then you reduce the game,
because there's no logic for the rule within the story line.

Regards,

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

···

Aaruman <aaruman@orions.net> wrote

What if you limited the change allegiance order?

[Aaruman]

-From: Laurence G. Tilley [mailto:laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk]
-Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 6:05 PM

···

------Original Message-----
-
-That's -one of the reasons why 1650 is so strong, and 4th age is
-such a travesty.

  Says you. I (and many other players I know) MUCH prefer 4th Age to 1650. Rather than
playing the same game with the same nations, same PCs, and same characters over and
over and over again, you get to play the nation you want to play. And with the advent
of the agent limited games, 4th Age is even more fun to play.
  Granted, if you play the Noldo all the time (or Sinda or Gondor or Corsairs, etc.)
then 1650 is going to be great fun. But I pity (literally) the poor soul who gets
stuck with the Northmen (or Woodmen, etc.). Unless you're one of those types who likes
to play BIG underdogs just for the fun of getting your head kicked in.
  1650 may be more popular, but it's also the recommended game for NEWBIES, and that
pretty much says it all.

Mike

[Aaruman]

Before I get any replies to this, let me just apologize to any newbies out there. I
didn't meant to put you down. I was just pointing out that 1650 is recommended for
people just learning the game because it's a bit easier. In fact, I'd recommend this
for anyone new to the game myself. However, 4th Age is more involved, and more
complicated, (which for me means more enjoyable). That's the point I was trying to
make in comparing 1650 to 4th age.

Mike

[Laurence_G_Tilley]

Yes, I know, and I was baiting you and your ilk here. But there was
also a more specific context in which I said it, apart from the generalised
slagging of 4th age - that of internal consistency. In 4th age IIRC
there's the possibility of a "neutral victory", and some rule which says
that if a neutral hasn't declared by turn X, then he can't declare. There's
no logic to that within the story line of the game, and it's a good example
of what goes wrong when game designers forget that principle.

Regards,

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

···

Aaruman <aaruman@orions.net> wrote

-That's -one of the reasons why 1650 is so strong, and 4th age is
-such a travesty.

      Says you. I (and many other players I know) MUCH prefer 4th Age to
1650.

[Dunsters]

Mike,

as a newbie, I take no offense - hope my fellow beginners feel the same.
What this debate has shown me, is the fundamental differences between the
games.

I'm currently cutting my teeth on a 1650 game, making some horrendous
mistakes but learning a lot, especially with you guys help. Getting close
to the point of starting another game - again 1650 as there is more web
based support out there - but with the intention that, from playing in 2
games together, I'll learn enough to maybe play in one of the other
scenarios.

Had this debate not taken place, I don't think I'd of been in a good enough
situation to make an informed judgement about what that 3rd game should be;
as it is, I am beginning to understand the nuances so, I certainly haven't
been offended by the remark and have really enjoyed reading the posts.

From a newbie then, thanks for the debate, and keep it going.

Cheers

Simon

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Aaruman <aaruman@orions.net>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 8:08 AM
Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] To each (scenario) his own

Before I get any replies to this, let me just apologize to any newbies out

there. I

didn't meant to put you down. I was just pointing out that 1650 is

recommended for

people just learning the game because it's a bit easier. In fact, I'd

recommend this

for anyone new to the game myself. However, 4th Age is more involved, and

more

complicated, (which for me means more enjoyable). That's the point I was

trying to

make in comparing 1650 to 4th age.

Mike

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Harlequin_Games1]

Yes the different scenarios have different followings. The style of each of
the games is different. Luckily we can offer games in each style.

The major strengths that I see for 1000 vs 1650 is that 1000 offers greater
variety. Both 1000 and 1650 have the the Major nations (N/SK and Noldo
etc). I think the tactics in 1650 is stronger than in 1000 - shows in the
teams that are available I would guess. I would still advise players to
stick with 1650 or 2950 (if they prefer a slower game with better character
base), with 1000 having more control over the nation you play.

Clint

···

-
-That's -one of the reasons why 1650 is so strong, and 4th age is
-such a travesty.

[Pontus_Gustavsson]

Aaruman's suggestion is good, but a bit harsh in my opinion, because
if a neutral misses his chance, he can never join the team he
prefers.

Why not simply limit the maximum number of nations one side can have
to 12, so that it is possible for a team that has lost three or more
of its nations early because of drop-outs, newbie mistakes, DrL gang-
up etc to recruit all five neutrals (if they have the diplomatic
skills necessary and the neutrals wish to preserve the game balance).
That way, a full ten-nation-team will never be able to recruit more
than two neutrals, until they get a nation eliminated, which keeps
the game more balanced. If both sides are equally decimated, the
better diplomats deserve the neutrals.

There will hopefully be a run in the early game for the best team,
and when that one is full, the rest of the neutrals will have to join
the other side, or join the full team by waiting for a nation to be
eliminated.

This would give a neutral player who accidentally misses his chance
to join the team he prefers another chance later, instead of having
him drop the game because he has to go solo without a chance to win,
or join a team that may have been rude to him. The drawback is that
it may keep the remaining neutrals from declaring if the other side
is totally hopeless, but I've never thought of that as a great
concern. If the leading team doesn't want a neutral to cruise to
victory late in the game by joining their team, they have all the
chances in the world to put him out of the game before he does, or
just take out a few of his pop centres to make clear he isn't welcome
in the team.

I personally like the unpredictable nature of standard MEPBM, so I'll
probably stick to the good ol' type of games, but it could be a
variant for those who want neutrals, but don't want them all to join
the same side in the beginning, and ruin the balance. Just a thought.

/Pontus Gustavsson

···

On 8 Jul 2001, at 16:44, Aaruman wrote:

What if you limited the change allegiance order? Say that if one
allegiance currently
has 3 more nations than the other, NO neutral could declare for that
allegiance. (Call it an Allegiance Delta or AD.) That way, it would
encourage those neutrals who like to fence sit entirely too long to
declare earlier, or end up not getting the side they wanted because
the AD went against their preferred allegiance.
As for someone who waits too long, (AD goes bad on them), and
absolutely doesn't want
to declare for an allegiance (maybe the undesirable allegiance has
been rude), then that neutral could simply play out the game as a
neutral, and still work against the offending allegiance. Of course,
they may not win (unless in a 4th Age game), because the bad
allegiance may end up losing more and more nations, making the AD even
worse and precluding ever joining the good allegiance. But that would
be the price of waiting too long to declare.
This probably wouldn't affect too many games, as many of the neutrals
I've played
with like to balance the game somewhat anyway. But it would eliminate
those "all 5 neutrals declare DS/FP and end the game way soon" games.

Mike

------Original Message-----
-From: Middle Earth PBM Games [mailto:me@MiddleEarthGames.com]
-Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 3:37 PM
-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
-Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Neutrals all one way
-
-
-Doesn't need a new edition to house rule this. Note we run
pre-aligned -games for players who are particularly worried about an
uneven game. We can -even do them as standard non-grudge games if
there was player interest. - -Clint - -> I do not know about the rest
of the players of Middle Earth, but I -> have a problem when too many,
mainly when all the neutrals go one way -> or the other. I find that
it does not make for a balanced nor -> enjoyable game. Many times I
also realize that it is somewhat -> predetermined as to which way a
nation will change its allengiance -> to. In other words if let us
say for instance the Rhudar go free, -> the Dunns for sake of staying
in the game must also go free or -> otherwise face anhilation. The
Southern block going the same way -> also makes for an unfun game.
These two going dark spell doom for -> the free early on, these two
going free mean the QA is out of the -> game. Is it me or does
something need to be possibly done about this -> when and IF, I do
mean IF a new edition comes out.. I do not have -> any suggestions
right now other than this small band aid of please -> all you neutral
players out there think of game balance occasionally -> also, beyond
your own predetermined views. -> -> B

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Harlequin_Games1]

Like it but... We could run a game with these rules in them if you wanted.
?

Clint

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Pontus Gustavsson <pontus@gustavsson.net>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 11:28 PM
Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] Neutrals all one way

Aaruman's suggestion is good, but a bit harsh in my opinion, because
if a neutral misses his chance, he can never join the team he
prefers.

Why not simply limit the maximum number of nations one side can have
to 12, so that it is possible for a team that has lost three or more
of its nations early because of drop-outs, newbie mistakes, DrL gang-
up etc to recruit all five neutrals (if they have the diplomatic
skills necessary and the neutrals wish to preserve the game balance).
That way, a full ten-nation-team will never be able to recruit more
than two neutrals, until they get a nation eliminated, which keeps
the game more balanced. If both sides are equally decimated, the
better diplomats deserve the neutrals.

There will hopefully be a run in the early game for the best team,
and when that one is full, the rest of the neutrals will have to join
the other side, or join the full team by waiting for a nation to be
eliminated.

This would give a neutral player who accidentally misses his chance
to join the team he prefers another chance later, instead of having
him drop the game because he has to go solo without a chance to win,
or join a team that may have been rude to him. The drawback is that
it may keep the remaining neutrals from declaring if the other side
is totally hopeless, but I've never thought of that as a great
concern. If the leading team doesn't want a neutral to cruise to
victory late in the game by joining their team, they have all the
chances in the world to put him out of the game before he does, or
just take out a few of his pop centres to make clear he isn't welcome
in the team.

I personally like the unpredictable nature of standard MEPBM, so I'll
probably stick to the good ol' type of games, but it could be a
variant for those who want neutrals, but don't want them all to join
the same side in the beginning, and ruin the balance. Just a thought.

/Pontus Gustavsson

On 8 Jul 2001, at 16:44, Aaruman wrote:

> What if you limited the change allegiance order? Say that if one
> allegiance currently
> has 3 more nations than the other, NO neutral could declare for that
> allegiance. (Call it an Allegiance Delta or AD.) That way, it would
> encourage those neutrals who like to fence sit entirely too long to
> declare earlier, or end up not getting the side they wanted because
> the AD went against their preferred allegiance.
> As for someone who waits too long, (AD goes bad on them), and
> absolutely doesn't want
> to declare for an allegiance (maybe the undesirable allegiance has
> been rude), then that neutral could simply play out the game as a
> neutral, and still work against the offending allegiance. Of course,
> they may not win (unless in a 4th Age game), because the bad
> allegiance may end up losing more and more nations, making the AD even
> worse and precluding ever joining the good allegiance. But that would
> be the price of waiting too long to declare.
> This probably wouldn't affect too many games, as many of the neutrals
> I've played
> with like to balance the game somewhat anyway. But it would eliminate
> those "all 5 neutrals declare DS/FP and end the game way soon" games.
>
> Mike
>
> ------Original Message-----
> -From: Middle Earth PBM Games [mailto:me@MiddleEarthGames.com]
> -Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 3:37 PM
> -To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
> -Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Neutrals all one way
> -
> -
> -Doesn't need a new edition to house rule this. Note we run
> pre-aligned -games for players who are particularly worried about an
> uneven game. We can -even do them as standard non-grudge games if
> there was player interest. - -Clint - -> I do not know about the rest
> of the players of Middle Earth, but I -> have a problem when too many,
> mainly when all the neutrals go one way -> or the other. I find that
> it does not make for a balanced nor -> enjoyable game. Many times I
> also realize that it is somewhat -> predetermined as to which way a
> nation will change its allengiance -> to. In other words if let us
> say for instance the Rhudar go free, -> the Dunns for sake of staying
> in the game must also go free or -> otherwise face anhilation. The
> Southern block going the same way -> also makes for an unfun game.
> These two going dark spell doom for -> the free early on, these two
> going free mean the QA is out of the -> game. Is it me or does
> something need to be possibly done about this -> when and IF, I do
> mean IF a new edition comes out.. I do not have -> any suggestions
> right now other than this small band aid of please -> all you neutral
> players out there think of game balance occasionally -> also, beyond
> your own predetermined views. -> -> B
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
> To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
> http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[taurnil]

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Middle Earth PBM Games" <me@M...> wrote:

Doesn't need a new edition to house rule this.

This attitude is one of the best things about the MEPBM Games regime.
One thing we Yanks often complained about with GSI and DGE was their
dogged inflexibility. You seem constantly to be looking for ways to
accommodate player desires wherever practical. I say three cheers for
the Welshmen!

Mark

[Harlequin_Games1]

We're a regime - cool.

Clint

PS Thanks - note we do try to help - can't always.

···

> Doesn't need a new edition to house rule this.

This attitude is one of the best things about the MEPBM Games regime.
One thing we Yanks often complained about with GSI and DGE was their
dogged inflexibility. You seem constantly to be looking for ways to
accommodate player desires wherever practical. I say three cheers for
the Welshmen!

Mark

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Laurence_G_Tilley]

lol. Well we could find other words for you

Regards,

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

···

Middle Earth PBM Games <me@MiddleEarthGames.com> wrote

We're a regime - cool.

[MPinsono]

If you don't like running with neutrals free to declare either way, go
into games with predeclared neutrals. They work quite well and have
been the most challenging ones I've been involved in. Yup, games
where a bunch of neutrals go one way are quick and lopsided. So are
ones where the Noldo and Northern Gondor are run into the ground, or
where the Witch-King and Dragon Lord go bankrupt on turn 5.

cheers,

Marc

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Middle Earth PBM Games" <me@M...> wrote:

Like it but... We could run a game with these rules in them if you

wanted.

?

Clint
From: Pontus Gustavsson <pontus@g...>
To: <mepbmlist@y...>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 11:28 PM
Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] Neutrals all one way

> Aaruman's suggestion is good, but a bit harsh in my opinion,

because

> if a neutral misses his chance, he can never join the team he
> prefers.
>
> Why not simply limit the maximum number of nations one side can

have

> to 12, so that it is possible for a team that has lost three or

more

> of its nations early because of drop-outs, newbie mistakes, DrL

gang-

> up etc to recruit all five neutrals (if they have the diplomatic
> skills necessary and the neutrals wish to preserve the game

balance).

> That way, a full ten-nation-team will never be able to recruit

more

> than two neutrals, until they get a nation eliminated, which keeps
> the game more balanced. If both sides are equally decimated, the
> better diplomats deserve the neutrals.
>
> There will hopefully be a run in the early game for the best team,
> and when that one is full, the rest of the neutrals will have to

join

> the other side, or join the full team by waiting for a nation to

be

> eliminated.
>
> This would give a neutral player who accidentally misses his

chance

> to join the team he prefers another chance later, instead of

having

> him drop the game because he has to go solo without a chance to

win,

> or join a team that may have been rude to him. The drawback is

that

> it may keep the remaining neutrals from declaring if the other

side

> is totally hopeless, but I've never thought of that as a great
> concern. If the leading team doesn't want a neutral to cruise to
> victory late in the game by joining their team, they have all the
> chances in the world to put him out of the game before he does, or
> just take out a few of his pop centres to make clear he isn't

welcome

> in the team.
>
> I personally like the unpredictable nature of standard MEPBM, so

I'll

> probably stick to the good ol' type of games, but it could be a
> variant for those who want neutrals, but don't want them all to

join

> the same side in the beginning, and ruin the balance. Just a

thought.

>
> /Pontus Gustavsson
>
>
> > What if you limited the change allegiance order? Say that if

one

> > allegiance currently
> > has 3 more nations than the other, NO neutral could declare for

that

> > allegiance. (Call it an Allegiance Delta or AD.) That way, it

would

> > encourage those neutrals who like to fence sit entirely too long

to

> > declare earlier, or end up not getting the side they wanted

because

> > the AD went against their preferred allegiance.
> > As for someone who waits too long, (AD goes bad on them), and
> > absolutely doesn't want
> > to declare for an allegiance (maybe the undesirable allegiance

has

> > been rude), then that neutral could simply play out the game as

a

> > neutral, and still work against the offending allegiance. Of

course,

> > they may not win (unless in a 4th Age game), because the bad
> > allegiance may end up losing more and more nations, making the

AD even

> > worse and precluding ever joining the good allegiance. But that

would

> > be the price of waiting too long to declare.
> > This probably wouldn't affect too many games, as many of the

neutrals

> > I've played
> > with like to balance the game somewhat anyway. But it would

eliminate

> > those "all 5 neutrals declare DS/FP and end the game way soon"

games.

> >
> > Mike
> >
> > -From: Middle Earth PBM Games [mailto:me@M…]
> > -Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 3:37 PM
> > -To: mepbmlist@y…
> > -Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Neutrals all one way
> > -
> > -
> > -Doesn't need a new edition to house rule this. Note we run
> > pre-aligned -games for players who are particularly worried

about an

> > uneven game. We can -even do them as standard non-grudge games

if

> > there was player interest. - -Clint - -> I do not know about the

rest

> > of the players of Middle Earth, but I -> have a problem when too

many,

> > mainly when all the neutrals go one way -> or the other. I find

that

> > it does not make for a balanced nor -> enjoyable game. Many

times I

> > also realize that it is somewhat -> predetermined as to which

way a

> > nation will change its allengiance -> to. In other words if let

us

> > say for instance the Rhudar go free, -> the Dunns for sake of

staying

> > in the game must also go free or -> otherwise face anhilation.

The

> > Southern block going the same way -> also makes for an unfun

game.

> > These two going dark spell doom for -> the free early on, these

two

> > going free mean the QA is out of the -> game. Is it me or does
> > something need to be possibly done about this -> when and IF, I

do

> > mean IF a new edition comes out.. I do not have -> any

suggestions

> > right now other than this small band aid of please -> all you

neutral

> > players out there think of game balance occasionally -> also,

beyond

> > your own predetermined views. -> -> B
> >
> >
> > Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
> > To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
> > http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
> To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
> http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

···

----- Original Message -----
> On 8 Jul 2001, at 16:44, Aaruman wrote:
> > ------Original Message-----
>
>