I’ve been thinking about the rule that caused he end of the game. The thing is, the neutrals start with only 6 nations. If the Kingdom’s didn’t receive a +1 to each toward the count, the current rule about game ending when one team has more nations than the other two put together would disadvantage the neutrals too much.
Normally in two-allegiance GB, the game is over once one team has a ratio of 3:1 in nation numbers, as I understand it.
Without penalizing the neutrals for starting with fewer nations, what other game-end conditions would you propose? Personally I’d like something other than requiring a strategic victory.
Regarding the second issue of having one player be given the dropped nations, again I would ask what would you propose in the event of something similar happening, i.e. one of the neutrals playing 3 nations dropped. I don’t know if Clint made an effort to find a replacement but FA players are fewer. Let’s assume he did but didn’t find anyone. So what would you propose in that situaiton; should those nations be dropped, in which case the other neutral may as well drop too? Or the game put on hold until a new player is found? It is a bad situation with no desirable way to handle it. I hated it that the same player got to pick up the positions and therefore be able to wipe out my northern nation. But I can’t think of any other way for it to be handled.
I do think that in such situations, I would like to see a special email going out explaining what happened, to all players, as it is easy to overlook the way the grouping are expressed in the front sheet. And though I appreciate Clint’s point that some GB players are playing GB because they don’t want the communication and coordination of a regular game, but the players should be each given the choice in that case whether they want to be put in touch with their allies.
All that said, I think we have either 3 or 4 players interested in taking on a 3-nation game, and we need 8 in total. Know anyone else?