I’ve personally never understood the desire to affect all these administrative rules against using the Rules of the game in this scenario. I was under the impression the scenario was originated as a response to not wanting to talk to one’s annoying allies…what’s that got to do with doubling, et al…?
Brad
My 2pence worth… get rid of Dun and introduce Eas… mix the pairing around… take a look at the strengths of the pairs versus the strengths of the pairs they are facing.
Eot / Eas
NGo / Sin
Har / Nol
SGo / Nor
Art / Woo
Car / Dwa
WiK / BlS
Rhu / ClL
FiK / DkL
QAv / DrL
IcK / Cor
Dog / LoR
By eliminating Duns, you make the DS in NW very strong… giving them BlS and ClL makes for a fun encounter in the NW…
By including Eas, you weaken mordor… which might make LoR not concentrate on Nor so much as defend the back of mordor.
I couldn’t get rid of Har, as this completely unbalances the south. SGo has to commit lots to defend Har just to keep that nation going, so I think its a nicely balanced area of the map as is.
Catch you later…
Michael
Yeah, I like the suggestion of bringing in the Easterlings. It would spice the game up a bit.
Playing Rhu in 97 was a real pain because the FP just went for me and the WiK just stood by and watched for 14 turns. There was little my DkL position could really do to bail them out, without significantly weakening the their position.
So, yes, I like the idea of combining the Wik/Rhu because it forces them to work together against a less united FP and/or the idea of providing the Rhu with a MT down south would solve the problem too.
Some good feedback and a good discussion - thanks. Generally if you don’t want to play this format that’s fine with us - but for those that do keep it coming.
Okay some answers. Doubling - I’ve answered that in previous posts - it could be detrimental to your allies if you have already doubled their duos character already. It also opens up a whole can of worms on what is a simple rule at present (eg Shoglic 210ing Bolvag to get his Mage rank up). Note there are many instances where you can double characters (eg your own pc if unknown etc).
Giving out the dead nations - sounds fine.
Giving out new nation duos/triplets - fine. Both combined will imply inactive nations as well which might end games that are ready to end I think.
Ending a game - voting not sure when this would be done. Every turn? I don’t think something like that would work so would it be less often? If so when? Every 8 turns would not mean a lot of admin but I’m not a big fan of this. Some players just won’t bother - implicitly if they are playing they think the game is winnable it seems to me. We sometimes contact players if we think the game is over and not going to be fun for anyone but always leave the option open for them to continue if they want to (within the rules of the game).
Duos - my favourite is removing the Dwarves and giving the FP the Easterlings. That would ease the pressure on Rhudaur so it wouldn’t be so necessary to upgrade Rh. Also would mean that DrL wouldn’t need any extra support (and it’s a strng combo as it stands). I think the Dunlendings need to stay as FP to keep the option of tasty agents for FP. We could then remove the 1910/4217 fort as well (Rhun area safer for FP but still leaves Dilgul, NW safer for DS).
FP:
1/7
2/10
6/9
3/4
5/25
22/23
DS:
11/20
12/21
15/18
13/17
14/24
16/19
Seems fine to me as well. Feedback welcome (I think I’ve addressed most of the points but remind me if I’ve not). Note GB is a player designed concept and rules not us. I’m trying to modify what I see are problems with the format (due to feedback from players).
Clint
I personally do not think there are a lot of problems with the current Gunboat, but I have also only played one game. I still like tweaking the nations, especially getting rid of the Dwarves. This will make not only the North interesting, but Mirkwood as well. The Easterlings will really throw a whole new wrench into the mix. I think the play of the Easterlings becomes extremely important.
As a suggestion Clint, why don’t you allow one game where allies can double their allies, just to see how it works. I think it is pretty much a moot point as you will not run into your allies all that often with emissaries anyway.
I still think it is a must to announce new pairings/triplets, even if it lets both sides know who has been eliminated. You could always just assign the eliminated nation to a person. This tells only the person that the eliminated nation is assigned to that the nation is eliminated and not everyone, so there are drawbacks to that as well.
Dave, my earlier request to exchange pdf’s is not to end the game, but to find out just how bad off some of your allies are. I like the lack of communication, but it would still be nice to have some idea of what my allies are up to, and if they need some help. We would have sent out more money if we had known some of the nations were hurting so much.
Tim Huiatt
Waiting for the game to end in both of the GB games that I have been in was very tedious. I knew that the team I was on had effectively won the game about 7 turns before the game actually ended. Is there anyway that the victory requirements can be tweaked?
Dwarfs out and Easterlings in - involving the Easterlings still sounds cool. Yup, like that :o
Clint - I think you have to fix the end-of-game-criteria of GB. whatever the fix, you need to publish it before people sign-up for a particular GB game so that they know what they’re signing up for. In a game where it’s illegal and unethical to communicate with opponents or allies, it is essential that the rules establish how the game will end. I don’t think it is satisfactory the way it is right now and personally don’t want to play GB again until you fix this one item with an easy-to-understand rule.
So, here is the specific proposal for you or others to shoot holes in. If this isn’t good, then please propose something else. We need some firm way to end the game when we can’t talk to each other:
GB End-of-Game Rule
No more often than once per four turns, a player may request that their team vote to concede. Each surviving nation on the team gets one vote. If 2/3 or more of the surviving nations on the team vote to concede, the game ends. Votes are confidential (including which player requested the vote) and are solicited by ME Games. A “no-response” is considered to be a vote to continue play. The other team is not informed the vote is taking place unless the vote is successful, at which point all players are notified, the final turn is run, and the game ends. Additionally, if there is at any time a 3:1 advantage of surviving nations allegiance vs. allegiance, the game ends automatically.
People - please let ME Games know if the above is a good rule from your perspective or not. If not, what do you propose?
thanks for listening.
Dave
Additionally, if there is at any time a 3:1 advantage of surviving nations allegiance vs. allegiance, the game ends automatically.
Note this is slightly different and maybe needs alternate discussion. Otherwise I, as a player, would find that okay.
Something extra (bit of a plug). I allow the duo of nations to be run by 2 players (one each) players and would like to advertise that more. For some players running 2 nations is a financial difficulty so splitting the cost gets the same cost to play as normal.
Any other feedback on the suggested set of nations.
Clint (GM)
As to the FP duos…I like the option of dropping the Dwarves and adding Easterlings. As to FP combos…hmm, I see the 3/4 combo as weak…not from a military aspect, but from a “sucky characters” aspect. And you have the Sinda paired with NG. I’ve been out of the game for a few years now, and I haven’t really followed all the gunboat results, but I’m curious as to how NG fairs…is he always a low finisher? If this is the case, then pairing NG with the Sinda makes some sense. I would think that if you paired Arthedain/NG and Sinda/Eothraim it might make for more “playable” type duos. Also I think Jeppe put in a suggestion for Sinda/Harad…an intriguing combo to my tastes. Commenting on the FP duos…
1/7…good combo, keep together
2/10…weak/strong…not as weak with Easterlings playing now
5/25…ok combo, challenges at beginning, both should be in conflict with CL, Rhudaur…need to develop agents etc. interesting possibilities
My suggested alternatives to above:
3/23…Duns weak early to Rhudaur all out…Eothraim has MTs to spare, Eothraim could use agent support all game
4/6…Arthedain should be able to support later in game when NG is weak
9/22…Combining Sinda with Harad could actually make Sinda consider more active role down south. Strong/weak characters…weak/strong economies
could swap 4/5…put Cardolan with NG and Arth/Easterlings together.
Don’t have any major hardspots with the DS pairings. I due like the CL/Rhud and WK/DrkLtnt pairings…a lot! I’d play any of the DS combo’s…
As to doubling other nations characters…especially allies…I don’t see the harm Clint that it does to an ally. An ally my know his character is “doubled”, but it doesn’t “hurt” an ally per se…because we can’t otherwise take advantage of that “information”. But I don’t have a hard spot with this either way…
later
tony huiatt
How about ditch the Duns and give the Easters to NG?
This would take some pressure off of the WK and Rhu and allow NG to attack from both ends on Mordor, which could be kind of interesting (Axis and Allies anyone! :>)
How about ditch the Duns and give the Easters to NG?
Reasons given before - ie this removes a lot of agent potential from the FPs. Also weakens the NW for the FP (possibly too much).
Clint
I dont think it would weaken the FP that much, as it is the NW is overkill for the DS unless you end up with some luck or sub par opponents…like myself! :>
I dont think the Duns provide that much agent support. They can name at 40, but dont start with a decent agent so it puts them several turns behind the CL on this. THey do have tw decent mages who can locate agent artis for them, which the CL doesnt have, but the chances of them keeping those artis are fairly slim I think.
But anyway, I do like the idea of adding in the Easterlings and the WK/DkLT combo would be hot to take for a test drive! :>
Hey! Thats right. Shouldn’t Chris be making these decisions? After all, Gunboat was his artistic vision.
Breaking up FK/CL might be a bit iffy though. I ran this position in G97 and the FK certainly needed to CL hitters to help out and to provide cash for troops. Pairing the FK/BS might be a tough one with the Easterlings in the mix. So, maybe have the QA/BS run together, this way they can combine to fight the Easterling armies but are far enough apart as well. Good mix of mage and agent emmi action. Put the FK and Dog together?
But then to Devils Advocate myself… FK/Dog might be too much as well…yikes!! Too many nations in Mordor, too little room! :>
IMHO being able to double your allies is still a very clear delineation and does no discernible harm to your ally, 210 orders are not in the same category and allowing doubling does not mean there is any need to consider allowing other more clearly harmful orders.
What it does do is help information gathering and gives some guide as to an ally’s strategy and where you may help them. This is especially important in the Gunboat scenario. Also all the GB games I have been in have been influenced to one degree or another by dropped nations doubling allies is going to give you an early warning something is wrong and you may need to rethink your strategy. I have picked up nations that have been inactive for 4 turns and it is almost too late to do anything.
A suggestion for finishing a game earlier then the 3:1 ratio is a good idea but I can see a situation where a player asks for a vote to end the game the vote goes against them and they see it as the final straw and drop anyway leaving the rest of the team on an irrecoverable downward spiral. I think I would prefer something a little more finite to trigger the vote, eg if the ratio fell to 2:1 (excluding inactive nations) then the vote would be triggered.
Rhudaur/Dklt is fun. If you want a sae build position look elsewhere, if you want fun tick that box. 1910 as a fort should beef up Rhudaur enough.
Dwarves/Northmen mixes safety with danger. play it well and you can be fighting everywhere with a great character set.
Easterling/Northmen says goodbye Mordor. No BS/CL attacks to the North, Harad or defending Mordor gates as tehy will be fighting Easterlings. Why not just give the game to the Free T1 and save everyone some cash.
Harad /arth is designed so that the DS can pick on Harad. Stong Arthedain, weak harad.
As Clint says, the game is balanced, so why mess with it? Sure some positions are more challenging than others and some are more suited to building play. Pick the one that suits your style…
Make the 50 word communication, once every five turns or more so 6, 11, 22 etc as I always fail to notice I can do it or dont have time that turn.
Regards
Chris courtiour
The following was posted by Dave Holt:
GB End-of-Game Rule
No more often than once per four turns, a player may request that their team vote to concede. Each surviving nation on the team gets one vote. If 2/3 or more of the surviving nations on the team vote to concede, the game ends. Votes are confidential (including which player requested the vote) and are solicited by ME Games. A “no-response” is considered to be a vote to continue play. The other team is not informed the vote is taking place unless the vote is successful, at which point all players are notified, the final turn is run, and the game ends. Additionally, if there is at any time a 3:1 advantage of surviving nations allegiance vs. allegiance, the game ends automatically.
This seems like a good system to me. It gets my vote.
Exactly, doubling of allies should be allowed but for information purposes. Nothing else needs to be considered as an add-in. Not sure where any PC idea came from, that makes little sense.
I think listing the eliminated nations along with current nation combos each turn should be sufficient to make an informed decision regarding how your side is doing in the game. If you need to put in rule to stop bug hunts then that is fine.
I’ve taken Ed’s advice and chatted to Chris about the game design.
We came up with the following:
FP: (5th set of combos btw!)
1/4
2/8 (stays same)
3/7
5/9 (same)
6/23 (same)
10/22
DS:
11/20
12/21 (same)
13/15
14/24 (Also CL town @3428 goes to village, CL town @3629 goes to MT).
16/19 (same)
17/18
Forts @1910/4217
We decided not to go with the Easterlings as this would probably make Mordor too open to attack. The NW should be stronger now as should Harad so we think this is an overall improvement.
Diplos:
You can send a diplo to your entire team any time once in every 5 turns. So on any turn from turns 1-5 you can send a single diplo (when you want to), then 6-10, 11-15 (so on naming character turns for simplicity and as an aid to memory). Diplo 50 words long, hexes count as single word, BS (for Blind Sorcerer) would count as one word, one diplo for your whole set of positions allowed.
Doubling:
I personally don’t agree with this, but happy to go with what you guys want and so Doubling in the new games will be allowed on any characters you want.
Combos and Dead Nations:
Every 3 turns (or when we get the chance to update it) we’ll update the nation combos, Dead nations as well. Inactive nations will, by default, revealed but not specifically mentioned.
End game:
Ending the game, I’d like to change that a little. No more often than once per five turns (ie turns 1-5, 6-10, 11-15 etc), a player may request that their team vote to concede. Each surviving nation on the team gets one vote. If 2/3 or more of the surviving nations on the team vote to concede, the game ends. Votes are confidential (including which player requested the vote) and are solicited by ME Games. A “no-response” is considered to be a vote to continue play. The other team is not informed the vote is taking place unless the vote is successful, at which point all players are notified, the final turn is run, and the game ends.
Additional rules:
Additionally, if there is at any time there is a greater than 3:1 advantage of surviving nations allegiance vs. allegiance, the game ends automatically.
Otherwise pretty standard rules for GB.
Feedback?
Clint
Pairings look fine with me. The game seems relatively well balanced anyway as the dropouts probably determine the outcome more than the pairings. I look forward to playing in the next game.
Noldo/Harad is an interesting Combo and Probably a pretty good one. Thanks for incorporating the changes and trying things that you don’t agree with Clint.
Good luck to all and when does the next game start.
Tim Huiatt