We are in the process of updating the accounts program. What would you
like to see on that? Would you also want to have Neutrals able to see the
addresses of other Neutrals in the game at game start and as the game
develops?
Thoughts very welcome on this - we cannot almagamate it to the ME main
program at present.
Thanks
Clint
I would very much like that. As it is, all self-respecting neutrals must get
in touch with the other neutrals anyway, and it would make life much easier if
you got the addresses with the first turn. Instead of sending diplos with my
e-mail address on them, I could mail them directly, which saves work for
Harlequin Games, for me and makes the neutral a more interesting power.
/Pontus Gustavsson
SAS/ALLSORTS skrev:
We are in the process of updating the accounts program. What would you
like to see on that? Would you also want to have Neutrals able to see the
addresses of other Neutrals in the game at game start and as the game
develops?
SAS/ALLSORTS wrote:
Would you also want to have Neutrals able to see the
addresses of other Neutrals in the game at game start and as the game
develops?
Absolutely. Definitely. Vital.
Gavin
SAS/ALLSORTS schrieb:
We are in the process of updating the accounts program. What would
you
like to see on that? Would you also want to have Neutrals able to see
the
addresses of other Neutrals in the game at game start and as the game
develops?
YES YES YES
Okay I get the the message... 
Thanks will do that. Any programmers out
there want to do it?
We have several quotes - anything from free to �1500. Somewhere inbetween
would be cool.
Clint
> We are in the process of updating the accounts program. What would
> you
> like to see on that? Would you also want to have Neutrals able to see
> the
> addresses of other Neutrals in the game at game start and as the game
> develops?
>
YES YES YES
No! Not under any circumstances. The whole point of being a neutral,
is that you can opt not to communicate, for a while, you can act
independently, you can negotiate and double-cross, or you can be a
menacing silent unknown quantity. You can attack early yet still remain
anonymous. You can use the "alias" facility on the turnsheets to effect
(there are few other circumstances where you can).
Conscious that 3 people have already replied "yes", I'm not sure that
they have fully thought it through. The neutrals are not meant to be an
alliance in 1650 or 2950. In game terms, why would the Rhudaur be able
to have easy diplomatic exchanges with the Easterlings, before he can
contact his neighbours?
Neutral nations are meant to be individuals, you should not encourage
them to block together. When this has happened in the past, it has
totally unbalanced the game.
You could argue a much better case for giving out all 25 contact
addresses to all, than you can for giving the neutrals' to the neutrals.
The only advantage it would have, is to make things a little bit easier
for those who are too idle to send paper diplos or post contact details
here. For that, would you lose all of the diplomatic foreplay that
being an anonymous neutral offers? PLEASE don't do it.
-0-
I would like to see (and so would MANY others) a clearer indication for
"got SS". Like "held" when the orders were submitted and processed, but
not paid for, "got SS" appearing ONLY when that's true because orders
were not received.
-0-
I'd like it to generate a warning in bold type, or a large font when
funds are low. For example, when
funds < 3.90 x my number of games
a big reminder "LESS THAN TWO WEEKS' FUNDS REMAINING". OR send me a
pre-addressed envelope & payment slip by post at that time. OR best of
all, drop the credit card surcharge 
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
SAS/ALLSORTS <allsorts@compuserve.com> wrote
We are in the process of updating the accounts program. What would you
like to see on that? Would you also want to have Neutrals able to see the
addresses of other Neutrals in the game at game start and as the game
develops?
Laurence G. Tilley wrote:
for those who are too idle to send paper diplos or post contact details
here. For that, would you lose all of the diplomatic foreplay that
being an anonymous neutral offers?
Who are you calling "idle"? There's an inherent one turn delay in your
scheme. Oh, and nice of you to assume that all players have access to this
list or even want to be on it...
As for "diplomatic foreplay"...
You're arguing in one set of posts for more realism, yet here you want 5 out
of the 25 nations to have leaders that nobody knows how to contact?! If
there's one thing national leaders know (except George W), it's who their
counterparts are. That was true even in the European Middle Ages.
It bears repeating; in my first game as a neutral with GAD, we all got a
list of the other neutrals at the beginning. We only got it once in the
game, by the way. It should be obvious why.
Gavin
Laurence G. Tilley wrote:
Neutral nations are meant to be individuals, you should not encourage
them to block together. When this has happened in the past, it has
totally unbalanced the game.
On what do you base these assertions?
Gavin
Not so. For starters, a Dark Ages analogy is more accurate.
International relations are restricted to near neighbours, and those
with whom there exists religious or hereditary links. The mid Anglo-
Saxons for example had plenty of reason to talk to the Vikings. They
could not do so however unless a Viking army chose to talk to them, that
is on Viking terms, and they could not do so at all in winters, or years
when the Vikings were not campaigning.
By the late AS period, communications could be undertaken with Hungary
and Rome*, but not easily with Viking and tribal societies as near as
Ireland, and not with India nor China, despite the fact that trade goods
and legends moved both ways.
* And note that when they sent an Ambassador to Rome, he usually came
back about a year later - see your one turn's delay.
China successfully sealed itself off from all diplomatic contact, for
several centuries, even well into the modern age.
Neutral nations should have the right to chose to exclude ambassadors.
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
Gavinwj <gavinwj@compuserve.com> wrote
You're arguing in one set of posts for more realism, yet here you want 5 out
of the 25 nations to have leaders that nobody knows how to contact?! If
there's one thing national leaders know (except George W), it's who their
counterparts are. That was true even in the European Middle Ages.
Games in which 4 or 5 neutrals all declared the same way, because they
had been talking to each other more that to their neighbours. I think
(memory ropey) that the last time I saw this personally was in game 74.
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
Gavinwj <gavinwj@compuserve.com> wrote
Neutral nations are meant to be individuals, you should not encourage
them to block together. When this has happened in the past, it has
totally unbalanced the game.On what do you base these assertions?
I am sorry I did not realise I asked for comments on credit card payments...
As for your other comments interesting points. Anyone else feel the same
way? I have got the SS vs Low Funds issue in the Specificications.
Also the Low funds issue will be BOLDLY addressed with appropriate
warnings...
Clint (amused)
No! Not under any circumstances. The whole point of being a neutral,
is that you can opt not to communicate, for a while, you can act
independently, you can negotiate and double-cross, or you can be a
menacing silent unknown quantity. You can attack early yet still remain
anonymous. You can use the "alias" facility on the turnsheets to effect
(there are few other circumstances where you can).Conscious that 3 people have already replied "yes", I'm not sure that
they have fully thought it through. The neutrals are not meant to be an
alliance in 1650 or 2950. In game terms, why would the Rhudaur be able
to have easy diplomatic exchanges with the Easterlings, before he can
contact his neighbours?Neutral nations are meant to be individuals, you should not encourage
them to block together. When this has happened in the past, it has
totally unbalanced the game.You could argue a much better case for giving out all 25 contact
addresses to all, than you can for giving the neutrals' to the neutrals.
The only advantage it would have, is to make things a little bit easier
for those who are too idle to send paper diplos or post contact details
here. For that, would you lose all of the diplomatic foreplay that
being an anonymous neutral offers? PLEASE don't do it.-0-
I would like to see (and so would MANY others) a clearer indication for
"got SS". Like "held" when the orders were submitted and processed, but
not paid for, "got SS" appearing ONLY when that's true because orders
were not received.-0-
I'd like it to generate a warning in bold type, or a large font when
funds are low. For example, whenfunds < 3.90 x my number of games
a big reminder "LESS THAN TWO WEEKS' FUNDS REMAINING". OR send me a
pre-addressed envelope & payment slip by post at that time. OR best of
all, drop the credit card surcharge
Just on turn one then? Or throughout the game?
Clint
It bears repeating; in my first game as a neutral with GAD, we all got a
list of the other neutrals at the beginning. We only got it once in the
game, by the way. It should be obvious why.Gavin
Game 16 mate... And Game 39 (dirty Neutral that I am in that game!)
Lot of co-ordination in that. From the GM point of view I have seen quite a
few players as Neutrals ally up before the game. More importantly they
often chat to each other a lot and discuss the game. So contact details are
desirable under those circumstances. Just wondering what the feel is? (Had
a number of contacts asking for this addition to the file.) Also just
because you have the contact details does not mean that you have to use them
and you can choose the privacy option - we have had a single player use that
one...
Clint
>> Neutral nations are meant to be individuals, you should not encourage
>> them to block together. When this has happened in the past, it has
>> totally unbalanced the game.
>
>On what do you base these assertions?
Games in which 4 or 5 neutrals all declared the same way, because they
had been talking to each other more that to their neighbours. I think
(memory ropey) that the last time I saw this personally was in game 74.Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley wrote:
Neutral nations are meant to be individuals, you should not encourage
them to block together. When this has happened in the past, it has
totally unbalanced the game.On what do you base these assertions?
Games in which 4 or 5 neutrals all declared the same way, because they
had been talking to each other more that to their neighbours.
That's not the fault of the neutrals, it's the fault of the neighbours. No?
Gavin
Harlequin Games wrote:
Just on turn one then? Or throughout the game?
Clint
It bears repeating; in my first game as a neutral with GAD, we all got a
list of the other neutrals at the beginning. We only got it once in the
game, by the way. It should be obvious why.
It was just with the start. The reasoning for not continuing was that once
you declared, you moved onto the DS/FP list. It would be a touch difficult
to convince your fellow neutrals you hadn't turned if your details wandered
off the neutrals list.
Gavin
Often yes, not always. But you've come away from my original point - it
is not wise to _encourage_ the neutrals to club together from turn 0.
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
Gavinwj <gavinwj@compuserve.com> wrote
On what do you base these assertions?
Games in which 4 or 5 neutrals all declared the same way, because they
had been talking to each other more that to their neighbours.That's not the fault of the neutrals, it's the fault of the neighbours. No?
Hi Gavin.
It seems to be this way. FP know FP addresses, DS know DS'. The Neutrals
everyone knows who they are via the rulebook. But we don't know who to
contact. That's because they're Neutral. The Neutrals are scattered all
over the map, they can build up their power base un-acosted by either
side for being Neutral. They can contact either side or other Neutrals
easily, using cards or telling GM's to pass their e-mail on to relevant
target. The FP and DS have organisation, But the Neutrals don't need
this because No one bothers Neutrals. Neutrals are TOO important to
winning for either side. Neutrals when they NEED to talk to other
Neutrals can find their addresses off of the relevant side they plan to
Switch to.
Cheers Adrian.
Gavinwj wrote:
Harlequin Games wrote:
> Just on turn one then? Or throughout the game?
>
> Clint
>> It bears repeating; in my first game as a neutral with GAD, we all got a
>> list of the other neutrals at the beginning. We only got it once in the
>> game, by the way. It should be obvious why.It was just with the start. The reasoning for not continuing was that once
you declared, you moved onto the DS/FP list. It would be a touch difficult
to convince your fellow neutrals you hadn't turned if your details wandered
off the neutrals list.Gavin
Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
I would very much like that. As it is, all self-respecting neutrals must
get
in touch with the other neutrals anyway, and it would make life much
easier if
you got the addresses with the first turn. Instead of sending diplos with
my
e-mail address on them, I could mail them directly, which saves work for
Harlequin Games, for me and makes the neutral a more interesting power./Pontus Gustavsson
SAS/ALLSORTS skrev:
> We are in the process of updating the accounts program. What would you
> like to see on that? Would you also want to have Neutrals able to see
the
> addresses of other Neutrals in the game at game start and as the game
> develops?
>
RD: Yes, I too vote in favour of this.
Richard.
Laurence G. Tilley wrote:
But you've come away from my original point - it
is not wise to _encourage_ the neutrals to club together from turn 0.
Why not? As game 22 proved, they have it tough sometimes... (You just knew
that was going to resurface, didn't you? )
Gavin
Adrian Grant Baker wrote:
The FP and DS have organisation, But the Neutrals don't need
this because No one bothers Neutrals.
Ha ha ha! You have got to be joking! I've been in games where the first
order of business was, " Let's take xxx out of the equation before they turn
yyy". My teammates preferred to aliena te the neutrals rather than risk
seeing them go to the other side. And they were experienced players.
Which is another argument for giving out the names. Some players, despite
playing neutrals, have a penchant for the DS and tend to turn that way asap.
If I'm playing a fellow neutral, I'd find that information useful. Just as
seeing Diego on my contact sheet tells me I've got a solid player on my team
who knows what he's doing.
Which brings up the final point. If you play a neutral as a neutral, you get
stomped because very few players are prepared to trust a true neutral in
this game. Sad state of affairs, but true.
Gavin