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!
Well personally I was pleased to hear Adrian's "no" contribution to the
debate! At least one more sane man in Middle Earth! ;-0
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.
That does happen, though quite occasionally. I can't however see how
you can use it as an argument for giving out neutral names to neutrals.
If Eas is jumped early by a Kamikaze Nor, then Eas should be screaming
injustice to the DS, not to, say Rhu or Cor. I could see how you might
use the above paragraph as an argument for giving out neutral details to
all, and FP/DS details to the neutrals. Personally, I would not support
that though.
Nations who are neutral on turn 0 are those who have not made an ethical
decision regarding the war. They should be deemed not to have
established war time alliances, not the diplomatic arrangements
necessary to fight together. On the very rare occasions that a neutral
is attacked on turn 1, a flurry of diplomacy should take place, and a
neutral who hasn't bothered (or deliberately planned not to for his own
nefarious purposes) should suffer accordingly.
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.
I disagree. In my games, neutrals are hardly ever attacked until they
attack first, or until fairly strong evidence comes to light that they
are about to go "the other way". I would say that most experienced
players work hard to court the neutrals, and would not attack them.
It's in games of inexperienced players, or games where you have a "lone
wolf" member that neutrals get attacked early. Then there's the neutral
who doesn't declare all the way through. Sure, he gets attacked, who
wants a guy who stays neutral all the way through, then declares and
takes all the VPs? If that's who you mean by the "true neutral", then
sure, mostly everyone hates 'em.
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
···
Gavinwj <gavinwj@compuserve.com> wrote