Neutrals in games

General
#1

So in two consecutive games I am playing in - a neutral decision has rubbed me a little bit - I ain’t casting no shade but here is what I what happened and what I want to know:

a) neutral player says on t002 I am going to be with you guys - participates in buyouts and even “coordinates” army movements; never shared a turn or such but then - as he is passing my capital; jumps the mountain and hits me…ok fine

b) neutral player says on t002 I’m going to join you guys - joins the groupsite etc etc…then because the opposing side moved an agent or two into his capital and well…so I have my own opinion and like I say I ain’t casting shade on anybody…anyway he emails and says I’m going the other way now…and drops from the group site…ok fine too

So my question is simply this: is this becoming a trend as it was in the 90s when nobody shared shizzle with a neutral player until the icon changed?

I mean - even one other neutral said “hey I wish I had known blah blah blah…I might have joined the other side but i’m here now…”

…look before I get on a box and start something…if someone can help me understand…cause man…

#2

One thing you have in this game is reputation. People remember that stuff.

The general rule, IMHO… Once you’re sharing turn reports with a neutral, they’re on your side. If you got jumped by a neutral that wasn’t sharing turn reports with your team, then he got you good, and he’s a cunning player. If you’re sharing turn reports with someone and he joins the other side anyway, that’s much less cool, and he’s on his way to having a poor reputation in the game.

#3

What about neutrals who remain silent with one or both sides. How long until the torpedoes are fired by an alliance?

#4

Neutral was on the allegiance yahoogroup for 5 turns, his neighbours told him how many troops they had, dropped a ‘name’ agent in his capital - he decided to flip the other way and left the yahoogroup.

Wonder how much longer that game is going to last now…? Wonder how people are going to respond to this player in future games…?

#5

There is a good solution for this Dilemma, which I applied 20 years ago: just play grudge games or scenarios with pre-aligned neutrals.

#6

If the neutral isn’t engaging in diplomacy, they make themselves a target. After all, if they’re not an ally, they are a potential enemy. All they can rely on is that the nearby allied nations are probably too busy with their war effort against the other side. But if they’re not talking, properly paranoid players must assume the could declare for their enemies at any moment and launch an attack. Depends on how nervous the nearby nations are.

#7

Heh. No hard and fast rules here. Some players think all’s fair in love and war, but most the folks who hang around the game a while have a different take. Sounds like that was some pretty poor play.

I think of it as a spectrum of commitment from neutrals:

1) Clearly Enemy
 - icon is flipped, or they’re suddenly on your popcen, etc. ie, hard evidence

2) Neutral
 - May seem to be fraternizing with other team, or making potentially threatening moves, but no perfect evidence that’s the case

  • May be radio silence
  • Or they may answer your email, but there is no indication they’re joining you

3) Leaning in
 - They say they’re leaning towards joining your side, but haven’t made any commitments yet

  • They’ve shared limited info with your side, or coordinated on market activities, but haven’t made any commitments yet

4) Committed Ally
 - They’ve clearly, unequivocally committed to joining your side, but haven’t traded PDFs

  • They’ve traded PDF’s and/or been given access to group sites
  • They’ve flipped icons

I think for all reasonable and trustworthy players, once you go to step 4, you’re in. Your word is your bond - you can choose to make that not the case, in which case I can choose to remember that for a very long time. :slight_smile: Once a neutral commits to joining a side, trading PDF’s should happen right away. Any delay is a warning sign. And I’d say, once access has been granted to a group site, there’s no going back - way too much info has been shared at that point. Drop or pass off the position is something if really that wrong.

I think at the “Leaning in” stage is where a lot of the more typical misunderstandings happen though. One side thinks (maybe wishfully) a commitment has been made, while the other still thinks they’re a free agent to do whatever. I’ve certainly made mistakes in this zone. It’s good to try and be really really clear if you find yourself here. Heh.

And Neutral is just that neutral - anything can happen. Buyer beware.

Anyway, this is just my take on things and how I try to play the game. Sounds like you had a bum ride.

Adam

#8

Now that the game appears to be over, I want to give the view from the other side (I’m the owner of the aforementioned ‘name’ agent that dropped into the neutral-in-question’s capital to say hello). Please correct me anyone if I have anything factually incorrect, as I wasn’t personally involved in many of these negotiations; I’ll try to be general to keep the players anonymous:

  1. Neutral-in-question (I’ll call it Neutral1) tells Alliance1 they will join, early on (sounds like turn 2)
  2. Neutral2 had already shared turn sheets with Neutral1, and was undecided, but Neutral1 went ahead without permission and shared Neutral2’s turn sheets with Alliance1.
  3. Neutral2 doesn’t want to work with Neutral1, joins Alliance2.
  4. Alliance2 agrees to attack Neutral1 as a show of good faith and thanks for Neutral2 joining up (and because it was strategically sound).
  5. “Name” agent drops in Neutral1’s capital on turn 7, with a company, ready and able to whack several characters and pave the way for a large joint invasion the following turn.
  6. Neutral1 sends missives to Alliance2 about flipping to their side in exchange for not being destroyed.
  7. Alliance2 is skeptical due to above events, and fear a trap, so we decide to continue with the planned attack until the allegiance change order is actually executed (hard evidence of change).
  8. Neutral1 threatens to quit.
  9. Alliance1 ends the game (likely fearing that Neutral1 will share all their turn sheets with Alliance2, and not without reason).

Seems a sad end to what was shaping up as a fun game.

#9

For the record, Alliance2 did not receive any turn sheets from Alliance1. Not sure why they gave up the ghost. Game looks winnable by them to me.

#10

It was shaping up to be a cake walk. What was early on looking like a 4-1 neutral split and FP romp, which worried us about the DS quitting early… Turned around to be a 2-3 split against, along with a turncoat sneaking in and then leaving when he felt a pin prick of pressure.

FP started with 9 nations, for all intents and purposes - Noldo was a quiet newbie. 2 other newbies, a couple SS’s and drops (oh, he left? Um anyone going to play over there…?) and, well, the situations in a couple of areas were things that are …ahem…rarely seen. Gondor wasn’t going to take any DS Capitals with their current thrust. A very simple assessment as to whether they were going to be able follow up with what was coming from the South now…

Throw is a reasonable amount of anger, betrayal, etc. Neutral1 who left is not a newbie, either - many of us have played with him for years.

IF he stayed with his first group, it was looking like an interesting game, and by all accounts, even up 13 v 12, we considered ourselves in a bit of trouble, frankly. Him switching moved the needle well down the dial. Many of us were “Crappy, but let’s go~!” - alas, enough said they were taking their time and $$$ elsewhere, thanks and have a nice game and all that…

So watching the chances of winning plummet and the cost of participating in the event double, some of us did some pretty basic math, frankly. We couldn’t sell the unplayed nations that were leaving because, well, we would only have people we ‘like’ to offer them to…

#11

Brad, after all this years you still put up with that? I can’t help but notice a tinge of masochism in this…

#12

Bell curve… Play with/against some old friends here and there, meet the odd new person. Some are like “that”, but you find the odd diamond in the rough at the other end of the chart.

Don’t have the time to keep a Team together in high quality games. Don’t have the money to keep it small and play more than 2. You can rock in Gunboat but if 2 or 3 nations just bust up on your side, momentum will eventually break some other’s in the group and as you’re planning the ultimate demise of Gondor…you’re out-voted to quit… The same crap shoot, IMO, so might as well spend the time/dime with others to see if something else can come together out of it.

Sometimes it’s the challenge and other times it’s just the sheer entertainment value. Crash and Burn can amuse, frankly. One is also often surprised to see things spinning off into ignorant oblivion and…you end up winning… Raise eyebrows and shrug - there is simply more hilarity per $ here, providing your expectations are managed appropriately.

#13

Probably my Problem is that I have seen too much in this game to manage my expectations…
Anyway - a good Team doesn’t need that much time to keep together, that’s what it makes it good.

#14

Ah yes… Have had “good” teams before, led and been led. Then Bob get’s married for the third time, Larry get’s divorced fro the 4th time, Stan has his 3rd kid and Alex goes to Afghanistan… Things happen over time, teams “evolve”, etc. It would be nice if I had a good crew of middle aged civil servants with grown kids who all knew how to use a computer…

#15

Hello All from the Big Meanie Neutral - Easterlings Game 32.

We’ve all read the guides written in stone by the learned elders of this game.

I love playing 1650 and the Easterlings are usually thought of to be the 11th Dark Servant as they are screwed if they declare FP.

I admit I’ve always thought this, however I chose to go Freep by turn 10 as I’d seen it happen a few years ago when I was in a game as DS.

Neutrals can be attacked and destroyed by FP or DS so we have to use cunning, diplomacy and guile to stop this from happening.

The Neutral Corsairs amassed a fleet of warships which they sent north and then cried foul play against Southern Gondor when the fleet was destroyed. - Cunning and guile?

Yes I participated in buyouts as it helped my economy and yours, I also coordinated army movements so that we wouldn’t bounce against each other. - Diplomacy and guile.

So as a notice of my intent I attacked the Cloud Lord and the Long Rider!

Did it work?

Not really.

Yes I burned 3630 to the ground but you had a back-up, my other army was destroyed by the Long Rider and all my starting population centres are now under the control of the Dark Lieutenants and the Quiet Avenger (very shortly).

But I had FUN doing it!

#16

A FP Easties is fun - but yes, you have to last long enough to make an impact. I think I’ll sign up for #25 in 1650 ville - lots of Cloud burnings, but I’ve always wanted the BS capital~!