Neutrals

mepbmlist
#1

From: John Stagoll <john.stagoll@airservices.gov.au>

I for one like the idea of the 5 neutral nations.

I think there is a time and a place. for a grudge game, the prealigned
is definately the way to go, leaves no doubts as to who's on your side
and solves alot of problems plus opens the game right up. I'm in one
of those right now (g34) with the Easterlings out, Rhu and Harad DS
and I'm sure we will see unprecedented destruction (by the DS!) in
that one :wink:

Are the harad DS ? I felt that only went dark since he was threatened with
nasty DS agent attacks on his crash-hot characters (I almost got a heart
attack when I saw the level of their main agents and emissaries - and the
last time that happened was when I was the Noldor). I don't even think the
Harad in G34 has done a single attack on the free nations (those small naval
battles were attacks on him, and hence they don't count).

for a solo game (is there such a thing?) I reckon neutrals can be fun
to recruit and threaten to submission :slight_smile: But as even solo games tend
to become team games (most people have email so its easy to get in
contact) so you have the real risk, which everyone hates, of a
powerful neutral declaring one way to win the game rather than game
balance.

I'm man enough to state that I've no desire to join the alamo. If i'm a
neutral, then I'm joining the side I think gives me the best enjoyment. I
won't be joining the weakest side just because they are the weakest side.

Everyone recognises the move for what it is and sure the guy
gets to place 1 or 2 but it suxs. It wrecks the game, people use any
old excuse to drop and $100 in game fees has gone down the drain. I'm
also in one of those games and at the end of it, you wonder why you
bothered wasting money on the game.

We talking 1650 or 2950 here ? I think the actions of the neutrals in 2950
are slighty different as they can afford to not declare at an early stage.

But some 1650 neutrals (rhudaur comes to mind) need to declare (at least
secretly) very early.

In the books these nations were self serving. Although when they did

join in the wars they usually weren't to friendly with the free
peoples. Harad and Corsairs did not always get involved in the wars of
middle earth and when they did it was because they either hated the
Dunadan or to fight against an oppressor -sometimes at the suggestion
of Sauron. The Easterling's attacked Rhovanion and NG because they
were a nomadic people forced out of the east by wars.

hah hah if we went by the books, ALL the neutrals would be DS :slight_smile: As a
freep lover, I would hate to see that.

If we went by the book, I want to see Galadriel's picture, and then see
Celeborn's stats (wise he was not - but then I still liked Tolkien having
them being de-factos, since I don't remember them getting married)

Diplomacy especially with the neutrals is a major part of the game.

Sending notes especially misleading ones i.e. sending the Rhudaur a
note from the Cardolan that they must declare on turn 3 or face the
consequences, when you are playing the Dog Lord is one of the fun
aspects. Especially when Dendra gets a call from a Enion to tell you
he will be marching on Cardolan imminently!! Dodgy maybe but perfectly
legitimate.

I for one would never send a private message to one nation when I pretend to
be another (but I do admit to lying in some messages). In oz, all private
messages need to have the senders nation, so you can't put in a fake sender
to fool someone. Not sure what Clint's rules are about messages like that
(thats a hint for him to reply), but I think he won't pass on messages with
incorrect sender names.

You could email the player direct. But if he is stupid enough to not realise
the emails are all wrong, then I think he might not be that much of an asset
to your side.

Of course I've put in messages in the Deft side that don't have my name, but
I've never pretended to be another person.

hah hah that's rich. personally I would be outraged if that happened
and the neutral acted upon it, obviously shows he was never a real
neutral in the first place as he would have been in contact with BOTH
teams.

Another disagreemeent between stags and I ? I still think it VERY GOOD for a
neutral to talk to BOTH teams. In my books, playing one off against another
is a valid action for a neutral.

thanks
m

Having said that I'm all for ganging up on a neutral who decides to

declare on turn 30 when the game is nearly up just so they can win.

turn 30? must be 2950 :slight_smile:

Well our FA games don't seem to get past turn 20 before the rich south
steamroll the cold north.

thanks
m

···

Stags.