New GB

General
#1

With 97 and 14 recently ending I’ll be starting up a new GB game. Thing is should we change the format?

My personal opinion is that both sides are even (both sides win about evenly). Both sides have duos that are weaker than others - how could we address that and keep both nations even in level of desirability to play?

Clint (GM)

To get the ball rolling: My own take; I personally think that Cor/Har should be swopped back (ie Cor FP, Ha DS)- Harad is just a dead man walking IMO. The idea originally was to get a navy battle - well that works somewhat but at the expense of Harad being nuked by QA/Cor and Mordor attack weakened (good/bad?). One way to slow that down would be to have the Easterlings instead which would be interesting (especially if FP) and lose one of the Cor/Har combo.

One suggestion that I personally am not a fan of is WK/Rh being a combo. It’s either very strong or very weak for the Angmar region.

Maybe giving Rhudaur some of it’s allied duos pcs would be a help there?

NM/Dwarves I find a tad monotonous to play - although by the end of GB14 I had around 5k HC for the dwarves with the Conjure mounts item that made it easier (tried Mages for the dwarves - the info spells were actually very useful). So personally I’d be happy to see the FPs changed around a bit. (I’ve not really got any suggestions at present for this though).

IK/LR seems very strong but the FK/CL combo also seems to do very well. Maybe because it can support each other in Mordor and SG gets embroiled elsewhere? Duns never (admittedly from minimal info) seem to assist the NG - seems wrong that.

Diplomacy: Another option - trade PDFs/XML. On Turn X you get to send your current pdf & XML to another nation (or 2 nations) - no other information allowed. (Say every 7 turns). Diplomacy and limited forms don’t seem to work (most players just stop sending diplos or miss their turn). Or use the forum for chatting? Or keep it the way it is?

Set-up: Spend starting gold/ or points on nations you want to duo up with?

Feel free to start chucking out ideas.

Clint (mostly player)

#2

I think giving Harad back to the dark servants is a bad Idea. As southern gondor I go straight for Harad and without cloud lord agent support it would be toast in a very short time frame. Northern Gondor will figure out he gets no help and he will blow the bridge. Just my opinion. If Southern Gondor does not help Harad as a free people, those are probably the games that the dark servants win. Again, just my opinion. If Southern Gondor, Northern Gondor and the Corsairs all strike Harad on turn one, then the Dragon Lord and Harad are dead by turn ten and the nation drops. A lot harder to root out Corsairs then Harad.

After playing gb14, I would be in favour of swapping pdf’s every few turns. Fortunately we had the Arthedain with the palantir’s which we used every turn so it helped us with some idea of what was going on.

I like the idea of bringing the easterlings into play, but that would also change the balance of the game a lot. Interested to here what other vetern gunboat players have to say as I have only played in one gunboat game.

tim huiatt

#3

Hi guys,

For exactly the same reasons as Tim, I too don’t like the idea to change the Harad back to the FP. The stronger Corsairs as DS balances the game more.

I see Tim’s point (in the other thread) about the WK/Rhudaur combination, even with the coordination advantage it would still be very hard and then there would be no point in Mordor to retreat to if it went wrong.
How about changing to a WK+CL combination and FK+BS combination? This would give some agent aid to the WK and indirectly to Rhudaur, plus it would ease up the pressure on NG which is a very difficult position right now, even if the Duns help out.

BTW Clint’s idea of giving Rhudaur some of it’s allied duos (DLieu) pcs does work (I handed 3622 to Rhudaur at the earliest opportunity in GB game 14) if only to keep the Rhudaur alive, but it comes at the cost of a weaker Dark Lieutenants.

Easy to imagine Dwarves+Northmen is not an exiting combination. What do you guys think about combining Dwarves+Sinda and Cardolan+Northmen?

I like the suggestion in the other thread that when nations get picked up the new pairing should be announced. The other side knowing that a nation is picked up shouldn’t change the game. But I also think that in future GB games neighbouring nations should not be allowed to pick up a dropped nation.

With regards to “diplomacy” I am neither pro or against, I like it fine the way it is but adding the change to send turn+xml to a nation of your choice every some many games might make an interesting change.

Not sure Clint what you meant by “Set-up: Spend starting gold/ or points on nations you want to duo up with?”

Cheers,
Alain

#4

As previously stated, I think Corsairs needs to be DS and Harad FP. it’s relatively well balanced with SG to help Harad. The other way around and Harad is toasted quickly by Corsairs/SG. I’ve seen it both ways, and it’s darn ugly with Harad as the DS.

I have a lot of thoughts about GB. It’s incredibly fun to play. But “winning” needs to have different meanings. I very much respect what Alain said about playing Rhu/DkL. He did the best he could in incredibly difficult circumstances. That counts as something in my book. And I am most sorry that I didn’t prevent the army from landing on the DkL capital. another hindsight mistake of CL’s agents… sigh…

Let’s look at the regions:
Harondor:
DS Corsairs & QA vs. FP Harad & SG is relatively well balanced
NW:
this is a big problem area. Rhu/WK playing against DW/Noldo/Arth/Card & maybe some Dun help is very very tough. Especially with Rhu/WK being different players
Mirkwood:
Sinda & Woodmen & EO vs. Dragon Lord is also tough on the DS
NE:
LR vs. Northmen should be advantage LR, especially with EO probably going against Mordor & DrgL
Mordor:
early battles should be roughly a draw. Then it’s up to CL to take out enough NG armies so that NG has to blow the bridge. When DrgL is out of Mirkwood, SInda, EO & Woodmen can all come down and pressure the North Gate. I don’t see how CL can be focused on helping WK. there aren’t enough resources and it’s a very far distance away. If CL sends a bunch of agent power NW, there’s going to be FP armies running around in central Mordor quickly… Game over dude!

But GB as a format has a big problem for the DS. The character war is more difficult in GB than it is in regular 1650 for DEFENSE. It’s probably not much more difficult when used on offense. as a nation duo can do the recon & intel needed to send agents out on the offense. But to use agents for defense, you need to catch the incoming armies BEFORE they reach their targets.

How to fix the GB imbalance? I have 2 different proposals:

  1. Mordor needs more beef at the start. More economy & more starting armies. If Mordor can come out fighting, instead of being on its heals vs. NG/EO, then that would counter balance the FP significant advantage in the NW. Then it might make sense to pair CL with WK…
  2. Signficantly beef up Rhu/WK. This might be even better. It’d be better for the Cardolan & Arthedain nations to actually have a challenge (And I think Tim/Tony played great - I’m not trying to detract from their excellent play)… I agree with Tim - I can’t imagine how a competent FP team could fail to nuke WK & Rhu in the current scenario.

Another GB problem is “how to end the game?” Maybe there should be a clear “victory condition” established at the beginning? I’m sorry Alain didn’t like me quitting in 14, but I did it because if I was on the other side, I’d have wanted the DS to resign so a new game could start up. There was no way for the DS to win when I quit (IMO). The one ring was at the bottom of the sea of rhun. If it was achievable, then heck, I’d have kept going and tried for a one ring victory (very difficult given all the FP curse squads, but worht trying).

I totally agree that any changes to nation pairings should be broadcast to all players. Arth/Card is even more unfair that CL/BS (which was very helpful in information gathering for CL)

Finally, Tim suggests exchanging .pdfs. I’d like to better understand what problem specifically Tim is wanting to solve with this idea. I think it really runs the risk of taking away the mystery of the unknown and the urgent need for discovery that gives such a nice edge to the current GB game. If the idea is to help figure out that indeed, the game is now over, I think we should come up with a different solution. If it’s a different problem, I’d like to hear more from Tim.

just some thoughts. Overall I enjoyed the game immensely.
Dave

#5

Dave, thanks for your comments.

The idea of beefing up Rhu/WK at the start of the game appeals to me. How would you see that? An extra MT somewhere in Mordor? Stronger starting armies? More starting gold? Give each of them one of the lost agent artifacts? Boost one of the characters? Let these 2 nations choose between one or more of these at game start?
What do other players think about this?

Regarding the ending of the game a possible idea for discussion:

  • Before turn 20 the game is not lost unless there is a 3 to 1 advantage between the number of playing nations
  • After turn 20 any player can ask his team to vote, if more then 2/3 of the players agree to quit then the game is over, if not it continues untill another nation is eliminated and then a new vote can be asked. If the game gets to a 2 to 1 advantage ME games automatically asks for a vote. If the game gets to 3 to 1 advantage it is automatically over.

Perhaps it should be announced to the team only (not to the opposing side) if a nation is eliminated?

Cheers,
Alain

#6

I’ve played 5 GB’s now and I think the results have been fairly even. One of the most significant deciding factors in my opinion is dropped nations you can’t legislate against this happening but due to the nature of the game it can be a lonely experience and it maybe easier to drop without a team to encourage you to stay.

948’s are an effective way of telling your team you are alive and kicking, but I would like to be told if any nations on my team were alive but inactive.

You are not allowed to take offensive actions against your own team and that includes doubling their known characters and their unknown characters unless they are on your PC’s. I would drop this rule it does your team members no harm, allows you to gauge who is still in and who is inactive as well as being an invaluable source of information. Or if you wanted to go a little further I would go so far as to allow each player to select one character from each of their allies combinations who starts as doubled.

I agree with being told if nation combinations change as it can have a critical affect on your strategy and make it ineffective if you didn’t know that Nation A had a new wealthy and seemingly invulnerable co-partner.

With respect to changes to combo’s, may be some of the suggestions are influenced by particular events and strategies from one game. For example Harad is not a no-hoper if SG decides to go south. Conversely the Dragon/Corsair combo no longer looks impregnable. Rhudaur may be a whipping boy but if Arth and Card focus on him then the BS has time to get the Agent & Curse arties up to the NW that makes the WK a real obstacle.

Maybe a Cloud Lord / Rhudaur and Fire King / Dark Lieutenant combination may work better. It would also relieve NG a bit more and he will need it if it becomes a more regular move for SG to go south rather then help him out in the gap.

Apart from Rhudaur I think the other exposed nation is actually the Northmen, they have in all 5 games been in the first 3 FP nations to get knocked out as neither they or the Dwarves have much response to LR/IK agents and the LR hidden capital. The Noldo/Sinda/Duns tend to get forget about the east. I would therefore suggest changing the NM partner to either Noldo or Sinda.

Just some thoughts

#7

[QUOTE=Woody

You are not allowed to take offensive actions against your own team and that includes doubling their known characters and their unknown characters unless they are on your PC’s. I would drop this rule it does your team members no harm, allows you to gauge who is still in and who is inactive as well as being an invaluable source of information. Or if you wanted to go a little further I would go so far as to allow each player to select one character from each of their allies combinations who starts as doubled.

[/QUOTE]

Don’t forget you can’t name characters after dead enemy either. All this ,and more, offends someone’s sense of Englishness.

#8

Clint, et. al.,

I can see how the Northmen/Dwarves would seem to be limited. Characters aren’t great etc. Militarily inclined, no other real bennies, can’t counter agent actions readily…

I think the CL and Rhudaur would be a great combination to help out the NW. Put the Drk Ltnts with FK, or put BS with FK and put Drk Ltnts with WK (now THAT would be a fun duo…).

As to FP duos…my two cents worth…

SG/Woodmen
Noldo/Northmen
Harad/Duns
NG/Sinda
Eothraim/Arthedain
Cardolan/Dwarves

#9

but due to the nature of the game it can be a lonely experience and it maybe easier to drop without a team to encourage you to stay.

948’s are an effective way of telling your team you are alive and kicking, but I would like to be told if any nations on my team were alive but inactive.

Yes a big factor is that players if they take a hit give up the ghost and move onto pastures greener more readily in GB (there’s less team spirit and loyalty). That’s the nature of GB I think. I use the 948 to find out if key pcs are still there sometimes. Note you have to be aware of attempting to communicate in any way - it’s not allowed.

Games are pretty even so beefing up the DS I don’t think is needed. There are weaker duos on both teams.

Point taken on Harad as DS. What about lose Harad and have KE as FP?

SG/Woodmen
Noldo/Northmen
Harad/Duns
NG/Sinda
Eothraim/Arthedain
Cardolan/Dwarves

I quite like this idea. I would swop Harad for KE though as basically in most games the Harad is out of play very quickly. (As quickly as the Rhudaur nation).

Rhudaur suggestion: What about having a MT from the Corsairs? It changes the balance appropriately IMO.

What about DS combos? If you can put up the full 6 split that would be good.

I also like the advertising of new duos. It came up before - slight disadvantage is that it implies that other nations are dead. So I’d suggest the full normal listing at game start and then amend that as time goes on (would add a bit of confusion to the mix keeping the mystery of GB).

Not sure about the doubling being allowed. It’s technically to stop enemies but standard play has found out another method. I sometimes double my own characters so if suddenly it was no longer there then I’d see that as an enemy action etc. It also starts blurring the line and what is pretty much a clear cut ruling and might open up an entire can of fish. Eg Vrish coming along to PC Bolvag and Bolvag dying… Ouch. Both cases have an implicit consent in them (implication of diplomacy) so could be awkward to rule.

Agor y genau, urghhh, dw i’n Cymraeg Ed dim Saesneg, diolch yn fawr. :wink:

Thanks

Clint

#10

I very much like the idea that any player can ask hist team to vote to concede (rob would have to do the solicitation). I think that if 2/3 or more of the nations (not players) surviving vote to quit, the game should end. that’s a great idea. I don’t see why you’d have to limit it to after turn 20 though. It should be the whole game. if 2/3 of the nations at any point want to concede, well, that’s pretty compelling.

Regarding beefing up Rhu/WK - i think they need more firepower in the NW. Maybe another MT each would be an interesting experiment. There’s already a recognition that Rhu’s backup needs fortification. bump 2109 to a MT/tower and 1905 to a MT/tower. That would be interesting to experiment with…

#11

these pairings look good to me. We are talking about 1650, right? I’m confused by clint mentioning KE… I think it’d be an interesting experiment game to have easterlings as FP and no Harad. It would shore up Northmen, provide some back pressure on Mordor, and put significant pressure on SG.

#12

Agor y genau, urghhh, dw i’n Cymraeg Ed dim Saesneg, diolch yn fawr. :wink:

Thanks

Clint

Mae’n gas geni cymraeg… (is that right? forgotten most of it) :smiley:

Imran.

#13

After thinking about the duos for FPs…I have better suggestions. Looking above, I’m not to thrilled about the EO/Arth, Cardo/Dwarves combinations. A better set would be with dropping of Duns and adding Easterlings as follows:
Noldo/Northmen
Cardolan/Sinda
SG/Eothraim
Arth/Easterlings
Harad/Dwarves
NG/Woodmen

I think any of those combinations would be very playable…Harad/Dwarves may be a weak link…and NG/Woodmen would be a challenge as well.

As to DS…the current pairing are ok…but I’d like to “strengthen” the NW by pairing the CL with Rhudaur. Other combinations could be…

WK/Drk Ltnts…very strong combination
BS/FK
Dog/QA
IK/LR
Corsairs/DragL

To help assist with the change by adding Easterlings to the FP, I would give the LR the Drag Lord MT at 3822. Give Rhudaur the LR MT at 3929, and start the Dragon Lord with a Corsair MT. This helps the DS in the NW by making Rhudaur “not eliminatable” as early as he currently gets blasted, and saves the transfer orders later…It also puts a little more pressure on the FPs Cardolan and Arthedain, who I think should still win if the Noldo/Dwarves/Woodmen give even just the littlest bit of help. With CL supporting Rhudaur, I think it would add the element of agent “worry” to Cardolan/Arthedain…and make it a little easier on NG from that aspect.

My two cents worth…I’d play ANY of the combinations listed above…and that’s what makes me think this might be better than the current arrangement…albeit IMHO

later

tony huiatt

#14

FP pairings as suggested above:
SG/Woodmen
Noldo/Northmen
Harad/Duns
NG/Sinda
Eothraim/Arthedain
Cardolan/Dwarves
I like this combination but replacing the Harad by the Easterling could work as well.

DS Pairings based on some of the above susgestions:
WK/DarkL
Rhu/CL
FK/BS
QA/DogL
IK/LR
DrL/Cor

Combined with these pairings I would suggest to beef up Rhudaur a little by making 1908 a Town/Tower instead of a Town and 2208 a MT/Fort instead of a Town/Tower, that should let Rhudaur hold out longer.
I also like the suggestion that one of the Corsairs MT’s (2339?) is transferred to the Dragon Lord.

Alain

#15

You are right, there should be no reason to limit it.

Clint/Rob, what do you guys think of this?

#16

Hello gentlemen

I have only played one grudge game and it is still running, so my observations may be based on inexperience. However I have the following comments/suggestions (which I guess is limited to 1650).

Duos/Nations: Somebody mentioned pairing DkLt with FK. That sounds like the sure way to get an in-penetratable Mordor to me, or at least west Mordor. And a south with a DS Corsair and QA and no FP Harad doesn’t sound nice either in my ears. Pairing WK and DkLt sounds like a VERY strong combo in all respects. But again, some will be strong and some weak. The DS success would maybe be too much decided if an incompetent/unenthusiastic/dropper player would get this….
Easterling back in game instead of Duns or Harad: Wouldn’t FP suffer greatly in the agent/info war from loosing Duns? However I enjoy the idea about bringing Easterlings into play as FP. What about replacing Easterling with a FP nation e.g. dwarfs? Would that be possible? My suggestion would be:

SG/Woodmen
Noldo/Northmen
Harad/Sinda
NG/Duns
Eothraim/Arthedain
Cardolan/Easterlings

WK/BS
Rhu/DarkL
FK/CL
QA/DogL
IK/LR
DrL/Cor

Comments on alternative from standard GB combos:
Noldo/Northmen: I think it is hard to find a suitable partner for NM that can help them military without pairing it with Eo or dwarfs. However, I would think that pairing it with Noldo would be the best?
Harad/Sinda: Harad needs a strong partner. With the Sinda navy and 2325 the player would be able gain an upper hand in the naval combat and keep Corsairs more anxious regarding his own lands. Combined with Sindas agents this would help Harad. Only minus is Sinda’s lack of a back-up capital for Harad that is not hidden. I am most thrilled by my FP combos, I think DS a hard, especially now with BS facing Easterlings….

Beefing up/change set-up: Even though I do not feel strongly on the matter, I see this as the never-ending story if we start this. There are stronger and weaker combos, which ones are which are more or less subjective.

Doubling: I just don’t see the point why it is not allowed to double allied nation chars. I REALLY think this should be allowed in ALL aspects! Why is this illegal in the first place?

Communication: Clint says that the limited communication is not used. This surprises me because I would definitely use it. I think the diplos should be limited to e.g. once every 5 turns, only e.g. 50 words and perhaps only to one or two other players. All should go through ME. Maybe should the diplos be held back on turn to lessen the immediate impact they otherwise would have.

Announcing dead/inactive/new combos: I definitely think dead nations should be announced as they are now (is it two turns after the nation dies?). However, as I understand it, is a nation has not been picked up after 4 turns of inactivity, it is not considered playable anymore? (read that somewhere). If it is like that for GB, I definitely think such nations should be considered dead nations in all respects. The difference in an inactive and a dead nation is close to none-existing to me.

Game ended:

I really like this one. I think that is a very good idea!

Dropped nations: I would really like there to be some kind of penalty for doing this unless it is done as surrendering (at least then there is not a VERY good reason like disease or death involved). However, I just cannot think of any way or system to do it, so I guess we just have to hope for people’s conscience.

Those were the words.

  • Jeppe
#17

Jeppe:
I think someone is trying to prove to a second person that they are also a Proper English Gentleman. I remeber when this was done–I beleive the term is “logrolling”.
Ed
(no gentleman and proud of it)

#18

I don’t understand what you mean?

  • Jeppe
#19

This game was designed and intended to be an amoral Real Politik. Thus international or non-national, since ethics does not app;y. Alien/national ethical systems are being applied to it. Specifically, English sporting values.

#20

Per a recent email from Rob, when the pairings change during the course of the game, the new duos or trios are suppose to be listed. There was strong support for this some months back. Unfortunately there are some games where no dead nations are announced hence a duo becoming a trio does not get announced and someone on the other side most likely pays a price for this.

I think you should be able to double anyone period, this would at least let you take the pulse of the game. I am not in favor of limited diplomacy but I do think active nations/combos should be listed every turn and there should be no restrictions on doubling. In my view, doubling an ally should give you enough intel.

I am wasting money in game right now that is over though one side does not know this.

If the standard is better than 3 to 1 and one nation is playing 3 nations then game goes on. To me 6-9 versus 3 is pretty much of waste of money barring a big disparity in skill.