Clint,
Can we start recruiting for the next 1 wk 1650 game? I’m on the DS side in the current one (ME 87) and the dang Fat Lady is singing. Game is all but done.
Christopher L. Scherrey 
For the record, I want in the next 1 wk 1650 game or barring that any 1 wk ME game coming up.
Count me out !!
Bah, it isn’t that is it a one week game that is causing the games to end so early just an unbalanced game. Happens in the 2 week games as well.
-Christopher
A 3-2 neutral split is unbalancing? I find that hard to believe.
John
would be great if could get a 3-2 split , so far in both one weeks has been a 4-1 split – in current game Easterlings has made it plain that he wants to remain a neutral and that is his right – but this helps the freeps more then evils as any pop he takes off the evils hurts alot more then the free losing one of there"s
So, what turn is the current 1-week game up to?
Game 87 just ran Turn 5. WK bankrupted himself, Morannon burned, Rhu/Harad/Corsairs Free, Dun suiciding as DS and the Easterlings have abstained.
Turn 5 and for all practical purposes – Over
Heh. Another 1-week bites the dust before it even gets out of the gate. Was it full of noobs again? Or what happened?
Check out the Game 87 thread for more details…
What are you talking about?
It was a 3-1 split!
Game 87 is very much not over at present and will continue to run. As for another 1wk game get in touch via email if you’re interested.
Clint (GM)
Yep, isn’t over!
Clint,
Are you saying you would consider running another one weeker while this one is still going?
That would be great!
People need to chime in on this one.
Don’t see why he wouldn’t if 25 people get in touch with him via e-mail as he stated or at the very least he can start a list for the next one weeker if you contact him – but game 87 shall go on for a couple more turns , till the freeps take most of us out !!
I treat 1wk games as somewhat variants. There’s clearly a player base for 1 game, but two - I’m not so sure. Like I said get in touch, off this list as a request to join on this list doesn’t often mean that that player will actually start-up, if you’re serious about playing in such a format. So far I’ve got ZERO players contact me.
Clint
Clint it may pay to vet the neutrals a little more in the 1 weekers. If you make sure they have a few games under their belts before handing them all the power the games will run a bit longer I think. Most vets will seriously take game balance into account before declaring, therefore game length will be longer. Most inexperienced players want the win and will side with the team that’s doing the best, which is understandable when you want to get a few wins on the board. JMO
Herman
Actually, from what some people tell me, Clint does vet the neutrals…not sure if it’s for the same reasons you mention though Andrew…
I think we need to start man handling the neutrals more. If a neutral is be just plain greedy and focusing VP or a win for their own good we should put them out. Both sides. If there was some punishment for the terrible play dealt out by the alliagned teams maybe over time it would decrease. I always like it when the free gut the Easterlings right away since they almost always go dark. I don’t understand why the other neutrals act like they were attacked. That is a nuance of the game I dislike. JMO;)
Neutrals are just that. The rules for playing a neutral is that they must not be aligned to any players in the game, allied in any way before starting. They are then allowed to follow the VCs if they want to - and that’s what some of them are interested in. So they are fully vetted in that manner. Some are interested in playing for their own position (and generally you get more in that area, due to the nature of playing a Neutral I suspect) and some are looking for a good game be it winning side or balancing the game. I can’t, nor should I, force a player to pick a side I think. That’s the pre-aligned Neutral games that have been touted on the list.
Note often players who join their first game play a Neutral, to get a feel for the game. I push to get them to play an alligned nation, my basic reasoning is that they have a better game, learn the “ropes” so-to-speak more thoroughly that way.
Clint (GM)
As a player if a Neutrals wants a VC that’s fine by me as an aligned player to give it to them. The teams ends up with one more neutral, the position joins your side and is now a part of the team, and more importantly the opposition doesn’t get them. If I have to mortgage my nation to get a neutral on the team then generally I take that option…
Clint (player)