Hey Gixxer,
You should of joined game 68 where we are all neutrals.
Ian
Its a pack of greedy slimeballs with a herd mentality. Real garbage people.
cj
Ha, Ha, Ha,
must be a joke.
Hey MAN what do you mean ?
Game 68 or the Neutrals at all ?
Have Fun !
Gixxxer
Hmm which do I mean. I can’t remember 
The thing with being a Neutral is convincing the teams that you are !
These days it is assumed that experienced players join any game with a pre conceived agenda.
I play in a team regularly but I play as a Neutral in my “individual” games but try convincing the Free or Dark of that, whichever side you don’t join ( and it varies, honest ) is sure that you were never going to.
In reality my decision is firstly based on game circumstances, victory conditions, diplomacy etc and then on the final offer. A neutral Nation can’t give itself away after all. For the record I’ve played Rhudaur, Easterling and Dunland twice each and gone each way with each Nation, although I will admit some Declarations are better for certain Nations than others. Must try the Southern Nations next although I’m well allergic to navies !
As I am playing in one of the games that was alluded to I thought I would throw my 2 cents in. We have had two of the neutrals (Rhu and Dun) jump early together to the DS. (It looked very organised) The diplomatic effort of the freeps (myself included) was well, feeble, according to the remaining neutrals and they were not at all happy with the calls from some of the Free players that insisted that some of them “were required” to go Free for game balance. I have to agree with the neutrals, I would not like to feel I have to join a team because that’s what is concidered to be fair. They want to be on a winning side also. We were just starting to make some inroads on the diplomacy front (after much coaching from the remaining neutrals) when the SGon player in a fit of deluded, paranoid insanity then attacked Harad, one of the remaining neutrals. What was looking like being a really good game has all but been ruined by the actions of one moron. (Not a neutral) The free were pushing up hill with a 12-10 split with the remaining 3 in a block sitting on the fence giving us Freeps the chance to prove to them we were worth joining. Now we are fighting 9-12 while the remaining three have agreed to stay neutral while they BBQ SGon (which was very kind of them) I guess what I’m trying to say is it only takes one Dill to put an entire game into a Pickle.
Regards Herman
Woodies 64
Sinda 68
Corsairs 33
Sure, neutrals should be allowed to make their own decision as to who they join.
But they can’t operate in a vacuum. And I think we are all about having improving the quality of the games - in my mind, we want to avoid easy wins.
If Duns & Rhu have gone dark and Harad and Corsairs are beating up SG, this is going to have an impact on the game balance. All other things being equal, the freep are going to have to play a great game (and the DS a poor game) to have any chance of winning. And even if they do well in the interim, they (the freep) will have to pray the harad/corsairs still don’t go dark at the end of the day.
In the old days, these type of games would continue on regardless - but mainly because not everyone in the game knew what was unfolding. Unlike now.
Of course, some players enjoy the challenge of being behind the eight ball, some I suspect orchestrate this very situation. You see it occasionally when a side will alienate all neutrals and try for a 15-10 win. Can be a fun game for the ten, everyone else is probably not so sure. Plus you can learn alot from losing a game too, some people are into that too, the more pain they incur, the happier they are! (read typical aussie here)
Personally, I like to see the neuts as game balancers to a large extent. Again, the game has moved on to what is was years ago. Without having seen (and I don’t collect) any evidence (mainly because Harley don’t have a record YET of all the games played), I would hazard a guess that you hardly see any come-from-behind wins anymore and that more than likely the team with the majority of the neuts did win the game. Reasons include filling dropped positions is alot easier with no time penalties plus any team these days can keep nations in play - again this is a big change from how the old games were played (which i think everyone keeps harping on about). If they did come from behind, you can bet dropped positions on the other side NOT being filled was a main reason.
Maybe Gixxers’ idea of fixed limits isn’t too bad and would do more good than harm i.e. max of 3 neuts to one side. In my mind this will avoid all those neuts who declare for which ever side is doing well - seems like a just penalty in that by sitting on the fence too long, your choice will be made - by the other neuts who have already declared.
Hey Schultzy, how many bloody games are you in right now? You better have room for one more soon…
What happens to the other 2 neuts when the first 3 go early? They signed up to play their own game with their own choice.
Brad
No, the 10-10-5 game is exactly that. Steve A mentioned remaining neutral the entire game - as is his right. 12-12 Grudge, Gunboat, and 12-12 Open games (might become more common) satisfy those who dislike neutrals so much as to refuse to play with them. Let’s not control human behaviour any more then necessary.
BUT, if the Declaration Police decide to inplement such a system, I’d argue for max of 4 neuts, giving at the worst, 14-11. I’d also argue that in the event of this occurance, the remaining neutral “got” something for the automatic move - ie, automatic 175 without having to issue, and a number of automatic 185’s (All to Disliked? All down 1 level? A random number of 185’s? A set number of 185’s, as you know there are 14 enemy nations, give 7…? 10…?) that sort of thing. 3-2 will end up with too much forcing when maybe not necessary, complaints that 3 guys got their 175’s off too fast, being forced to join a team because you failed to 175 for the Other team, etc. My last Corsairs game, a 50 failed the 175 3 turns in a row…
Brad