Anyone got “real world” examples of nations that were not involved in wars in the beginning but joined it before their completion? Was looking for a “real world” comparison to MEPBM Neutrals.
The expression “true neutral” is bandied about a lot - WHAT does that mean…?? Switzerland is a “true neutral” because they stay that way. MEPBM neutrals do not stay that way - so they’re not “true”.
Wouldn’t the individual nation states choose their own actions based on their own best interests at the time? For some that is to move quickly. For others that is to move slowly.
Why do neutrals get disparaged for their timing all the time? What’s morally ‘wrong’ with deciding upon opening your Turn 0 that you are going to go this way or that? Why wait 5 turns? Why wait 10? What’s your motivation? Best team? Worst team? Most friends? Victory Conditions? Best Bribe? Most communications in the first 3 turns? The allegiance that writes the best poetry on the board? Is there a magic formula? Why do some neutrals do it “right” and others are “wrong”…?
Which begs the question: what are neutrals there for at all anyway???
There are a multitude of examples of nations that started neutral in a conflict and then joined an alliance part way through. The timing of entering to a conflict is set by political agenda and the will of the people.
I’ve got a better understanding of WWII than any other war so I’ll use some examples
-America in World War II were neutral until Japan attacked them. They passed a neutrality act 1935-1937
-England and France allowed Germany to take Austria and Sudtenland, only declaring war when Poland was invaded (Munich pact 1938)
-Japan enter the German/Italian alliance 1939 and signed the tripartitie pact with Italy and Germany in 1940
So it seems that the game mimics real life in that the prime catalysts for a neutral to join a war is
-the neutral gets attacked
-the neutral sees great gain in joining one side
-the neutrals believes to stay neutral is to the detriment of their country
Which leads to your final question, why are they in the game? I actually play more game without neutrals, but my G75 experiences with neutrals have been enjoyable. The prime reason for their existence imo is that they add a high degree of variablity to each game.
My main problem with neutrals, is that it’s very one-sided.
DS/FP NEED to diplo with neutrals, neutrals often (not allways), just sit back and let the two sides diplo them.
Also two neutrals are far to strong, with little weakness.
Harad and Corsairs should be much weaker, so they don’t swing balance like they do now, this will also give them more reason to diplo themselves.
Dunland has few enemies, but he’s not strong either. He shifts balance, but not in the degree that Harad/Corsairs do.
If Rhudaur and Dunland goes DS/FP, the game is not won/lost. But Harad and Corsairs going DS will be a HUGE blow to FP.
Easterlings is the best balanced neutral imo. If he goes DS he looses all northen holdings, if he goes FP, he gets hit in the south.
Playing a neutral should be hard, as it is now playing Harad/Corsairs is easy, unless the other part attacks you.
Staying with WW II:
Italy was neutral until it was obvious that Germany was going to defeat France. Thailand joined Japan after Pearl Harbor, then shifted to neutral again when it became obvious who was going to win the Pacific War. With equisite timeing, the Thais then became American allies shortly before Japan’s surrender.
Let me submit the Thais are the diplomatic champions of the 20th century. They made maximum use of two alien concepts incorporated into the Stassun/Feild game. These being “realpolitik” and “ambiguous environment”.
The conversion of this game into nothing but a ‘team’ game has eroded both realpolitik and ambiguous environment.
In your example with Thailand, they made use of concepts not even in the original Stassun/Fields game. That is, you can’t declare for one side then later “undeclare” or declare for the other alliance. Your example seems to show a limitation of the original game, not just the way you believe it’s currently being managed.
Indeed, the fact that any nations are allied at all indicates a failure of the game in general. Every nation should start out as a neutral and war should be waged based soley upon the victory conditions generated at the beginning of the game, with alliances made and broken as each nation sees fit.
Absolutely correct. Afterall, much of the epic consists of Gandalf’s diplomacy aligning (very roughly) independent states towards a common goal.
That any nation can come in 2nd or 3rd (in the Stassun/Feild original) shows how much a ‘realpolitik’ player can advance himself at the expense of the ‘team’ (which does not exists in the original). This is certainly closer to the Tolkien status of things than the “teams and fairplay” that seem to be the only things some persons can grasp.
Could you imagine what would happen to a player now within the circles if the Cloud Lord started to whack people and steal arts to satisfy his nations victory conditions? What if suddenly the Dog Lord started to lose his back-up to the emissaries of the QA? Ed you are correct about the evolvement of the game. SInce the very old days of index cards and phone calls to emails and yahoo it has devolved from a 25+ turn game or more to a 15 turn game at most, most games. Sometimes the split of the neutrals alone is enough to cause mass quiting. Only the die hards keep this game afloat. I wonder the average age of the player? Does it still appeal to the young?
Yes it is, that’s kinda what I’m saying. I imagine that there is a core of key players that just keep going from game to game to game. I went to a christmas party and ran into some old friends that I played a team game with back in the 90’s under GSI. They were amazed I still play. I still enjoy it and I’m still terrible:p We need the Hobbit movie made to get some fresh blood in here.
This doesn’t sound right. Every time I bring this up Clint says the business is doing well, new players are joining, and games aren’t taking longer to fill…
I still like the neutrals of 1650…never played 2950 (Saruman would be cool)…and regularly play neutrals in 4th age…
I made it a mission to play every position in the 1650 scenario…only have a few left…
I have been playing since I was 18 or so…am 36 now…
I think that most neutrals have some impact on the game but only in tandems working together do they make an overall significant impact…and timing is still a biggy…and folks do tend to start a new game when they see several neutrals go the other way…which I think a mistake…for one you can’t judge the player of the neutral nation…he/she might be great, might not be…they might have a great first punch…then nothing…second…so what if they do rock ya…stick to it and learn from it…one missed turn or a chance encounter or a real counter attack by your allies and whamo…you are back in it…
And for those who want: there was an all neutral 1650 game…and I’d play that in a heartbeat…I would even do that for a 4th age game…that could be cool b/c not many would know your setup…and the combinations could be interesting…
Brad is right on, no kingdoms. If someone wants to do an all neutral nation 4th Age game one or two week turn around I’m there. Could be a one or two nation set-up. That sounds like a game Ed Mills would be into. Anyone else?
