Open Games:mandatory competetive balance?

mepbmlist
#1

I like the idea of the "Dedicated" or "Veteran" game, whichever
nomenclature you prefer. It seems a fairly workable solution to one of
the competitive imbalance issues.

The other one, Neutral declarations being too decisive, is a bit
trickier. I'm personal fine with how Neutrals currently operate in
MEPBM. More diplomacy and less belly-aching IMHO would be a better
solution. However, sometimes things don't play out fair, no matter how
much you or your team has tried to recruit a Neutral to your cause.

Why not institute in pre-approved games a mandatory competetive balance?
What I mean by this is that Neutrals would be required to join alliance
in a fair and balanced way. If one Neutral decided to go DS, the next
Neutral MUST go FP. Then no other Neutral would be allowed to Change
Allegiance until a Neutral, any Neutral, had joined the FP to restore a
competetive balance. For example, they Rhudaur player decides on turn 1
they want to go Evil and does so. On turn 2 the Dun player decides that
they also want to go DS. They would not be allowed to sucessfully issue
the Change Allegiance order until one of the other three Neutrals went
FP. If no other Neutral went FP, then all the Neutrals would be unable
to join the DS until one joined the FP. After the 2nd Neutral had joined
the FP, the 3rd Neutral would be required to join the DS. This would
continue until 5th Neutral was the only one left, who would then decide
on their own which side it wished to join.

This would guarantee at worst a 0-1 split or ideally, a 3-2 split.
Dropped Neutral positions wouldn't be that affected because the
remaining Neutrals would still have to follow the competetive balance
rule. If only 4 are left it goes 2-2, if only 3 left, 2-1. Diplomacy
would still be vital to recruiting a Neutral to make sure you'd get the
one you'd want to join, and would possible develop further amongst
Neutrals themselves as they may negotiate who'll join whom. The Neutrals
themselves should be informed on their turn results when a Neutral
joined an alliance, and also possibly make it impossible to do
Downgrades or Upgrades to any nation until the balance is restored.

I feel this to be and entirely fair way to the respective alliances to
keep the playing field even. It may be somewhat unfair and overbearing
to the Neutrals, but a game like this would be set up with the knowledge
that this would be the rules for that game, and individual player would
be given the option to play it or a regular game.

Chris Guerra

···

--
  Chris Guerra
  leonidas@fastmail.fm

#2

Re: Newts.

Looks like it's dead horse kicking contest week both here and on forum :-).

Forcing the hands of newts once is a very bad idea, it doesn't promote any further cooperation bewteen a side and the newt it just forced to join in. Barring very specific circumstances, if happened once to me in a FA game(which was a very peculiar game with both kingdoms having to end up on different sides), a open game should let newts decide which side they like to join. Beside what if turn 12 happens and one get stuck?, not a very smart commercial move. I know some of you wouldn't mind, but then again that would beg the question why have newts in the first place if the side cannot cope with the results?. What of the "too much chess like" complain?.

As for "how much effort sided" put into recruting newts, I'd suggest you try to talk to them once the game is done and passions calmed; you'd be surprised to find what the newt has to say.

If newt are "so" important in games, it'd be better to rebalance their setup both in term of funds/troops/SNA so the effect would not be so important in a game outcome. For 2950 making everyone, in effect, as powerful as ... the Rhun would'nt affect the sided and might do the tirck. Harley has code now, it may workl in the long term.

Didier

···

From: "Chris Guerra" <leonidas@fastmail.fm>
Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [mepbmlist] RE: Open Games:mandatory competetive balance?
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 18:53:42 -0700

I like the idea of the "Dedicated" or "Veteran" game, whichever
nomenclature you prefer. It seems a fairly workable solution to one of
the competitive imbalance issues.

The other one, Neutral declarations being too decisive, is a bit
trickier. I'm personal fine with how Neutrals currently operate in
MEPBM. More diplomacy and less belly-aching IMHO would be a better
solution. However, sometimes things don't play out fair, no matter how
much you or your team has tried to recruit a Neutral to your cause.

Why not institute in pre-approved games a mandatory competetive balance?
What I mean by this is that Neutrals would be required to join alliance
in a fair and balanced way. If one Neutral decided to go DS, the next
Neutral MUST go FP. Then no other Neutral would be allowed to Change
Allegiance until a Neutral, any Neutral, had joined the FP to restore a
competetive balance. For example, they Rhudaur player decides on turn 1
they want to go Evil and does so. On turn 2 the Dun player decides that
they also want to go DS. They would not be allowed to sucessfully issue
the Change Allegiance order until one of the other three Neutrals went
FP. If no other Neutral went FP, then all the Neutrals would be unable
to join the DS until one joined the FP. After the 2nd Neutral had joined
the FP, the 3rd Neutral would be required to join the DS. This would
continue until 5th Neutral was the only one left, who would then decide
on their own which side it wished to join.

This would guarantee at worst a 0-1 split or ideally, a 3-2 split.
Dropped Neutral positions wouldn't be that affected because the
remaining Neutrals would still have to follow the competetive balance
rule. If only 4 are left it goes 2-2, if only 3 left, 2-1. Diplomacy
would still be vital to recruiting a Neutral to make sure you'd get the
one you'd want to join, and would possible develop further amongst
Neutrals themselves as they may negotiate who'll join whom. The Neutrals
themselves should be informed on their turn results when a Neutral
joined an alliance, and also possibly make it impossible to do
Downgrades or Upgrades to any nation until the balance is restored.

I feel this to be and entirely fair way to the respective alliances to
keep the playing field even. It may be somewhat unfair and overbearing
to the Neutrals, but a game like this would be set up with the knowledge
that this would be the rules for that game, and individual player would
be given the option to play it or a regular game.

Chris Guerra
--
   Chris Guerra
   leonidas@fastmail.fm

#3

I like the idea of the "Dedicated" or "Veteran" game, whichever
nomenclature you prefer. It seems a fairly workable solution to one of
the competitive imbalance issues.

You're talking about 2 different proposals as one here. I'd like to know
if people think one, or the other is viable, and which is preferable. The
proposal for "dedicated games" is that players have to make certain
promises regarding communication and not dropping upon sign up. The
"veteran games" proposal is that all surviving players at the end of an
open game get given a "veteran's ticket" which they can use for entry into
occasionally run "veterans' open games".

The other one, Neutral declarations being too decisive, is a bit
trickier. I'm personal fine with how Neutrals currently operate in
MEPBM. More diplomacy and less belly-aching IMHO would be a better
solution. However, sometimes things don't play out fair, no matter how
much you or your team has tried to recruit a Neutral to your cause.

Why not institute in pre-approved games a mandatory competetive balance?

I agree with your opening paragraph, and therefore don't understand why you
then go on to propose a scheme to control the neutrals. I also thought
Didier answered you well: If you control neutral declarations, they aren't
neutrals any more. I wouldn't want to play a neutral that was going to get
forced. I also agree with him that if neutrals were a problem, then the
answer would be to nobble their set ups - but I don't think that neutrals
are the problem.

[]
   Laurence G.Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

<http://www.buav.org/campaigns/primates/index.html>
Zero Option - end the use of primates in research

http://www.buav.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

···

At 02:53 28/05/2005, Chris Guerra wrote:

#4

Laurence,

My mistake, I thought they were one in the same, just the nomenclature
was different. Having been corrected, I must say that I believe the
"dedicated" game is not as viable as the "veteran" game. I think most
players in MEPBM while not necessarily requiring, almost ceratinly
prefer, some structure to free-form play. Asking everyone to be in a
"best behaviour" mode while playing a "dedicated" game, where they would
be unable to quit a game because of a gentlemen's/women's agreement
prior to playing is dicey. Allowing players to play a "veteran" game,
where they have in some way earned the right to play in while still
having the option to quit if they choose, seems much more realistic.

As for the competetive balance rule I proposed, I believe I have the
right to suggest a specific game change as long is it seems fair.
Whether or not I'd agree to play with such a rule is immaterial, as it
would be purely optional to begin with. I stand by my proposal as
something to be entertained and discussed and not discounted out of
hand.

Chris Guerra

···

On Sat, 28 May 2005 11:11:42 +0100, "Laurence G. Tilley" <lgtilley@morespeed.net> said:

At 02:53 28/05/2005, Chris Guerra wrote:
>I like the idea of the "Dedicated" or "Veteran" game, whichever
>nomenclature you prefer. It seems a fairly workable solution to one of
>the competitive imbalance issues.

You're talking about 2 different proposals as one here. I'd like to know
if people think one, or the other is viable, and which is preferable.
The
proposal for "dedicated games" is that players have to make certain
promises regarding communication and not dropping upon sign up. The
"veteran games" proposal is that all surviving players at the end of an
open game get given a "veteran's ticket" which they can use for entry
into
occasionally run "veterans' open games".

>The other one, Neutral declarations being too decisive, is a bit
>trickier. I'm personal fine with how Neutrals currently operate in
>MEPBM. More diplomacy and less belly-aching IMHO would be a better
>solution. However, sometimes things don't play out fair, no matter how
>much you or your team has tried to recruit a Neutral to your cause.
>
>Why not institute in pre-approved games a mandatory competetive balance?

I agree with your opening paragraph, and therefore don't understand why
you
then go on to propose a scheme to control the neutrals. I also thought
Didier answered you well: If you control neutral declarations, they
aren't
neutrals any more. I wouldn't want to play a neutral that was going to
get
forced. I also agree with him that if neutrals were a problem, then the
answer would be to nobble their set ups - but I don't think that neutrals
are the problem.

[]
   Laurence G.Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

<http://www.buav.org/campaigns/primates/index.html>
Zero Option - end the use of primates in research

http://www.buav.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

--
  Chris Guerra
  leonidas@fastmail.fm

#5

Anyone like this idea?

Clint

···

Why not institute in pre-approved games a mandatory competetive balance?
What I mean by this is that Neutrals would be required to join alliance
in a fair and balanced way. If one Neutral decided to go DS, the next
Neutral MUST go FP. Then no other Neutral would be allowed to Change
Allegiance until a Neutral, any Neutral, had joined the FP to restore a
competetive balance. For example, they Rhudaur player decides on turn 1
they want to go Evil and does so. On turn 2 the Dun player decides that
they also want to go DS. They would not be allowed to sucessfully issue
the Change Allegiance order until one of the other three Neutrals went
FP. If no other Neutral went FP, then all the Neutrals would be unable
to join the DS until one joined the FP. After the 2nd Neutral had joined
the FP, the 3rd Neutral would be required to join the DS. This would
continue until 5th Neutral was the only one left, who would then decide
on their own which side it wished to join.

This would guarantee at worst a 0-1 split or ideally, a 3-2 split.
Dropped Neutral positions wouldn't be that affected because the
remaining Neutrals would still have to follow the competetive balance
rule. If only 4 are left it goes 2-2, if only 3 left, 2-1. Diplomacy
would still be vital to recruiting a Neutral to make sure you'd get the
one you'd want to join, and would possible develop further amongst
Neutrals themselves as they may negotiate who'll join whom. The Neutrals
themselves should be informed on their turn results when a Neutral
joined an alliance, and also possibly make it impossible to do
Downgrades or Upgrades to any nation until the balance is restored.

I feel this to be and entirely fair way to the respective alliances to
keep the playing field even. It may be somewhat unfair and overbearing
to the Neutrals, but a game like this would be set up with the knowledge
that this would be the rules for that game, and individual player would
be given the option to play it or a regular game.

Chris Guerra
--
  Chris Guerra
  leonidas@fastmail.fm

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

****************************************************************
                 ME Games Ltd
         me@middleearthgames.com
         www.middleearthgames.com

UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP
         Tel 029 2091 3359 12-6.30 Weekdays
         Fax 029 2062 5532 24 hours

US: PO Box 680155, Marietta, GA 30068-0003
         Tel 770 579 6813 EST Weekdays
         Fax 503 296 2325
****************************************************************

#6

I think it would promote terrible diplomacy with the
allegiances. Why work at it? You'll get at least 2 of
3.

JB

···

--- ME Games Ltd <me@MiddleEarthGames.com> wrote:

Anyone like this idea?

Clint

>Why not institute in pre-approved games a mandatory
competetive balance?
>What I mean by this is that Neutrals would be
required to join alliance
>in a fair and balanced way. If one Neutral decided
to go DS, the next
>Neutral MUST go FP. Then no other Neutral would be
allowed to Change
>Allegiance until a Neutral, any Neutral, had joined
the FP to restore a
>competetive balance. For example, they Rhudaur
player decides on turn 1
>they want to go Evil and does so. On turn 2 the Dun
player decides that
>they also want to go DS. They would not be allowed
to sucessfully issue
>the Change Allegiance order until one of the other
three Neutrals went
>FP. If no other Neutral went FP, then all the
Neutrals would be unable
>to join the DS until one joined the FP. After the
2nd Neutral had joined
>the FP, the 3rd Neutral would be required to join
the DS. This would
>continue until 5th Neutral was the only one left,
who would then decide
>on their own which side it wished to join.
>
>This would guarantee at worst a 0-1 split or
ideally, a 3-2 split.
>Dropped Neutral positions wouldn't be that affected
because the
>remaining Neutrals would still have to follow the
competetive balance
>rule. If only 4 are left it goes 2-2, if only 3
left, 2-1. Diplomacy
>would still be vital to recruiting a Neutral to
make sure you'd get the
>one you'd want to join, and would possible develop
further amongst
>Neutrals themselves as they may negotiate who'll
join whom. The Neutrals
>themselves should be informed on their turn results
when a Neutral
>joined an alliance, and also possibly make it
impossible to do
>Downgrades or Upgrades to any nation until the
balance is restored.
>
>I feel this to be and entirely fair way to the
respective alliances to
>keep the playing field even. It may be somewhat
unfair and overbearing
>to the Neutrals, but a game like this would be set
up with the knowledge
>that this would be the rules for that game, and
individual player would
>be given the option to play it or a regular game.
>
>Chris Guerra
>--
> Chris Guerra
> leonidas@fastmail.fm
>
>
>
>Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
>To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
>Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

****************************************************************

                 ME Games Ltd
         me@middleearthgames.com
         www.middleearthgames.com

UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP
         Tel 029 2091 3359 12-6.30 Weekdays
         Fax 029 2062 5532 24 hours

US: PO Box 680155, Marietta, GA 30068-0003
         Tel 770 579 6813 EST Weekdays
         Fax 503 296 2325

****************************************************************

______________________

john_h_briggs@yahoo.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

#7

Anyone like this idea?

Yes, but I think the first three neutral declaring should be able to
do so freely, while the two remaining should be forced towards
balancing the game. This way you would encourage early declaration
and possibly add a dimension to the neutral-neutral diplomacy. The
effect would also be a weakening of the neutrals.

And another idea: What if players (winners and loosers) that had the
lowest dropping rate got priority when choosing nations. Not
counting players who give, lets say, 2 turns notice or find a
replacement player themselves.
Cheers
Skage

>Why not institute in pre-approved games a mandatory competetive

balance?

>What I mean by this is that Neutrals would be required to join

alliance

>in a fair and balanced way. If one Neutral decided to go DS, the

next

>Neutral MUST go FP. Then no other Neutral would be allowed to

Change

>Allegiance until a Neutral, any Neutral, had joined the FP to

restore a

>competetive balance. For example, they Rhudaur player decides on

turn 1

>they want to go Evil and does so. On turn 2 the Dun player

decides that

>they also want to go DS. They would not be allowed to sucessfully

issue

>the Change Allegiance order until one of the other three Neutrals

went

>FP. If no other Neutral went FP, then all the Neutrals would be

unable

>to join the DS until one joined the FP. After the 2nd Neutral had

joined

>the FP, the 3rd Neutral would be required to join the DS. This

would

>continue until 5th Neutral was the only one left, who would then

decide

>on their own which side it wished to join.
>
>This would guarantee at worst a 0-1 split or ideally, a 3-2 split.
>Dropped Neutral positions wouldn't be that affected because the
>remaining Neutrals would still have to follow the competetive

balance

>rule. If only 4 are left it goes 2-2, if only 3 left, 2-1.

Diplomacy

>would still be vital to recruiting a Neutral to make sure you'd

get the

>one you'd want to join, and would possible develop further amongst
>Neutrals themselves as they may negotiate who'll join whom. The

Neutrals

>themselves should be informed on their turn results when a Neutral
>joined an alliance, and also possibly make it impossible to do
>Downgrades or Upgrades to any nation until the balance is

restored.

>
>I feel this to be and entirely fair way to the respective

alliances to

>keep the playing field even. It may be somewhat unfair and

overbearing

>to the Neutrals, but a game like this would be set up with the

knowledge

>that this would be the rules for that game, and individual player

would

···

>be given the option to play it or a regular game.
>
>Chris Guerra
>--
> Chris Guerra
> leonidas@f...
>
>
>
>Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
>To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
>Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
****************************************************************
                 ME Games Ltd
         me@m...
         www.middleearthgames.com

UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP
         Tel 029 2091 3359 12-6.30 Weekdays
         Fax 029 2062 5532 24 hours

US: PO Box 680155, Marietta, GA 30068-0003
         Tel 770 579 6813 EST Weekdays
         Fax 503 296 2325
****************************************************************

#8

Well.... this has been debated pretty thoroughly in the past.

I guess what I'd like to see is increased difficulties for a Neutral to flip
icons.
Thus the first two to flip for allegience X can do it pretty easily. The
next guy has a really tough time of it. The last two find it nearly
impossible. This 1) Encourages diplomacy 2) Earlier Neutral declaration and
3) injects a sense of danger if you are a fence sitter.

Dunno. My two cents...
Jeffery A. Dobberpuhl

···

-----Original Message-----
From: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com]On
Behalf Of ME Games Ltd
Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2005 2:16 PM
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] RE: Open Games:mandatory competetive balance?

Anyone like this idea?

Clint

>Why not institute in pre-approved games a mandatory competetive balance?
>What I mean by this is that Neutrals would be required to join alliance
>in a fair and balanced way. If one Neutral decided to go DS, the next
>Neutral MUST go FP. Then no other Neutral would be allowed to Change
>Allegiance until a Neutral, any Neutral, had joined the FP to restore a
>competetive balance. For example, they Rhudaur player decides on turn 1
>they want to go Evil and does so. On turn 2 the Dun player decides that
>they also want to go DS. They would not be allowed to sucessfully issue
>the Change Allegiance order until one of the other three Neutrals went
>FP. If no other Neutral went FP, then all the Neutrals would be unable
>to join the DS until one joined the FP. After the 2nd Neutral had joined
>the FP, the 3rd Neutral would be required to join the DS. This would
>continue until 5th Neutral was the only one left, who would then decide
>on their own which side it wished to join.
>
>This would guarantee at worst a 0-1 split or ideally, a 3-2 split.
>Dropped Neutral positions wouldn't be that affected because the
>remaining Neutrals would still have to follow the competetive balance
>rule. If only 4 are left it goes 2-2, if only 3 left, 2-1. Diplomacy
>would still be vital to recruiting a Neutral to make sure you'd get the
>one you'd want to join, and would possible develop further amongst
>Neutrals themselves as they may negotiate who'll join whom. The Neutrals
>themselves should be informed on their turn results when a Neutral
>joined an alliance, and also possibly make it impossible to do
>Downgrades or Upgrades to any nation until the balance is restored.
>
>I feel this to be and entirely fair way to the respective alliances to
>keep the playing field even. It may be somewhat unfair and overbearing
>to the Neutrals, but a game like this would be set up with the knowledge
>that this would be the rules for that game, and individual player would
>be given the option to play it or a regular game.
>
>Chris Guerra
>--
> Chris Guerra
> leonidas@fastmail.fm
>
>
>
>Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
>To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
>Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
****************************************************************
                 ME Games Ltd
         me@middleearthgames.com
         www.middleearthgames.com

UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP
         Tel 029 2091 3359 12-6.30 Weekdays
         Fax 029 2062 5532 24 hours

US: PO Box 680155, Marietta, GA 30068-0003
         Tel 770 579 6813 EST Weekdays
         Fax 503 296 2325
****************************************************************

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

#9

If I was an allegiance player and the LAST neutrals to move were to be forced or virtually so to a team, I"d prefer THAT neutral, the one that sat and built...to one I had to rush into the game with his (besides Rhudaur) crappy starting armies and a whole host of capital orders to wade through before being able to help my cause. Nope, distinctly anti-diplomacy this kind of move.

There is nothing to be done about neutrals. Player education is the only hope, as the only operable methods of running the game are WITH neutrals or WITHOUT (12v12 starting open set up). Nothing inbetween would be acceptable, IMHO.

Brad Brunet

Well.... this has been debated pretty thoroughly in the past.

I guess what I'd like to see is increased difficulties for a Neutral to flip
icons.
Thus the first two to flip for allegience X can do it pretty easily. The
next guy has a really tough time of it. The last two find it nearly
impossible. This 1) Encourages diplomacy 2) Earlier Neutral declaration and
3) injects a sense of danger if you are a fence sitter.

Dunno. My two cents...
Jeffery A. Dobberpuhl

···

"Jeffery A. Dobberpuhl" <attorney@lakenet.com> wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com]On
Behalf Of ME Games Ltd
Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2005 2:16 PM
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] RE: Open Games:mandatory competetive balance?

Anyone like this idea?

Clint

>Why not institute in pre-approved games a mandatory competetive balance?
>What I mean by this is that Neutrals would be required to join alliance
>in a fair and balanced way. If one Neutral decided to go DS, the next
>Neutral MUST go FP. Then no other Neutral would be allowed to Change
>Allegiance until a Neutral, any Neutral, had joined the FP to restore a
>competetive balance. For example, they Rhudaur player decides on turn 1
>they want to go Evil and does so. On turn 2 the Dun player decides that
>they also want to go DS. They would not be allowed to sucessfully issue
>the Change Allegiance order until one of the other three Neutrals went
>FP. If no other Neutral went FP, then all the Neutrals would be unable
>to join the DS until one joined the FP. After the 2nd Neutral had joined
>the FP, the 3rd Neutral would be required to join the DS. This would
>continue until 5th Neutral was the only one left, who would then decide
>on their own which side it wished to join.
>
>This would guarantee at worst a 0-1 split or ideally, a 3-2 split.
>Dropped Neutral positions wouldn't be that affected because the
>remaining Neutrals would still have to follow the competetive balance
>rule. If only 4 are left it goes 2-2, if only 3 left, 2-1. Diplomacy
>would still be vital to recruiting a Neutral to make sure you'd get the
>one you'd want to join, and would possible develop further amongst
>Neutrals themselves as they may negotiate who'll join whom. The Neutrals
>themselves should be informed on their turn results when a Neutral
>joined an alliance, and also possibly make it impossible to do
>Downgrades or Upgrades to any nation until the balance is restored.
>
>I feel this to be and entirely fair way to the respective alliances to
>keep the playing field even. It may be somewhat unfair and overbearing
>to the Neutrals, but a game like this would be set up with the knowledge
>that this would be the rules for that game, and individual player would
>be given the option to play it or a regular game.
>
>Chris Guerra
>--
> Chris Guerra
> leonidas@fastmail.fm
>
>
>
>Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
>To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
>Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
****************************************************************
ME Games Ltd
me@middleearthgames.com
www.middleearthgames.com

UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP
Tel 029 2091 3359 12-6.30 Weekdays
Fax 029 2062 5532 24 hours

US: PO Box 680155, Marietta, GA 30068-0003
Tel 770 579 6813 EST Weekdays
Fax 503 296 2325
****************************************************************

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#10

Anyone like this idea?

Clint

RD: Not as proposed, no. But I would say that if the first three neutrals
to declare all go to one side, the other two should automatically be made to
join the other.

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "ME Games Ltd" <me@MiddleEarthGames.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2005 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] RE: Open Games:mandatory competetive balance?

>Why not institute in pre-approved games a mandatory competetive balance?
>What I mean by this is that Neutrals would be required to join alliance
>in a fair and balanced way. If one Neutral decided to go DS, the next
>Neutral MUST go FP. Then no other Neutral would be allowed to Change
>Allegiance until a Neutral, any Neutral, had joined the FP to restore a
>competetive balance. For example, they Rhudaur player decides on turn 1
>they want to go Evil and does so. On turn 2 the Dun player decides that
>they also want to go DS. They would not be allowed to sucessfully issue
>the Change Allegiance order until one of the other three Neutrals went
>FP. If no other Neutral went FP, then all the Neutrals would be unable
>to join the DS until one joined the FP. After the 2nd Neutral had joined
>the FP, the 3rd Neutral would be required to join the DS. This would
>continue until 5th Neutral was the only one left, who would then decide
>on their own which side it wished to join.
>
>This would guarantee at worst a 0-1 split or ideally, a 3-2 split.
>Dropped Neutral positions wouldn't be that affected because the
>remaining Neutrals would still have to follow the competetive balance
>rule. If only 4 are left it goes 2-2, if only 3 left, 2-1. Diplomacy
>would still be vital to recruiting a Neutral to make sure you'd get the
>one you'd want to join, and would possible develop further amongst
>Neutrals themselves as they may negotiate who'll join whom. The Neutrals
>themselves should be informed on their turn results when a Neutral
>joined an alliance, and also possibly make it impossible to do
>Downgrades or Upgrades to any nation until the balance is restored.
>
>I feel this to be and entirely fair way to the respective alliances to
>keep the playing field even. It may be somewhat unfair and overbearing
>to the Neutrals, but a game like this would be set up with the knowledge
>that this would be the rules for that game, and individual player would
>be given the option to play it or a regular game.
>
>Chris Guerra
>--
> Chris Guerra
> leonidas@fastmail.fm
>
>
>
>Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
>To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
>Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
****************************************************************
                 ME Games Ltd
         me@middleearthgames.com
         www.middleearthgames.com

UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP
         Tel 029 2091 3359 12-6.30 Weekdays
         Fax 029 2062 5532 24 hours

US: PO Box 680155, Marietta, GA 30068-0003
         Tel 770 579 6813 EST Weekdays
         Fax 503 296 2325
****************************************************************

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

#11

Only if there was a third alternative. I mean instead of going Good
or Evil a neutral can declare his aliegance as "Neutral" and
automatically have all "Good" and "Evil" nations downgraded to
disliked. He would then still have to be able to downgrade each
nation to hated.

Thus you could get a team of "Neutrals" playing as well.

Ian

Anyone like this idea?

Clint

>Why not institute in pre-approved games a mandatory competetive

balance?

>What I mean by this is that Neutrals would be required to join

alliance

>in a fair and balanced way. If one Neutral decided to go DS, the

next

>Neutral MUST go FP. Then no other Neutral would be allowed to

Change

>Allegiance until a Neutral, any Neutral, had joined the FP to

restore a

>competetive balance. For example, they Rhudaur player decides on

turn 1

>they want to go Evil and does so. On turn 2 the Dun player

decides that

>they also want to go DS. They would not be allowed to sucessfully

issue

>the Change Allegiance order until one of the other three Neutrals

went

>FP. If no other Neutral went FP, then all the Neutrals would be

unable

>to join the DS until one joined the FP. After the 2nd Neutral had

joined

>the FP, the 3rd Neutral would be required to join the DS. This

would

>continue until 5th Neutral was the only one left, who would then

decide

>on their own which side it wished to join.
>
>This would guarantee at worst a 0-1 split or ideally, a 3-2 split.
>Dropped Neutral positions wouldn't be that affected because the
>remaining Neutrals would still have to follow the competetive

balance

>rule. If only 4 are left it goes 2-2, if only 3 left, 2-1.

Diplomacy

>would still be vital to recruiting a Neutral to make sure you'd

get the

>one you'd want to join, and would possible develop further amongst
>Neutrals themselves as they may negotiate who'll join whom. The

Neutrals

>themselves should be informed on their turn results when a Neutral
>joined an alliance, and also possibly make it impossible to do
>Downgrades or Upgrades to any nation until the balance is

restored.

>
>I feel this to be and entirely fair way to the respective

alliances to

>keep the playing field even. It may be somewhat unfair and

overbearing

>to the Neutrals, but a game like this would be set up with the

knowledge

>that this would be the rules for that game, and individual player

would

···

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, ME Games Ltd <me@M...> wrote:

>be given the option to play it or a regular game.
>
>Chris Guerra
>--
> Chris Guerra
> leonidas@f...
>
>
>
>Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
>To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
>Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
****************************************************************
                 ME Games Ltd
         me@m...
         www.middleearthgames.com

UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP
         Tel 029 2091 3359 12-6.30 Weekdays
         Fax 029 2062 5532 24 hours

US: PO Box 680155, Marietta, GA 30068-0003
         Tel 770 579 6813 EST Weekdays
         Fax 503 296 2325
****************************************************************

#12

This is a subject that comes up among neutrals in many games: "if
only we didn't have to join either side." "what if we take on one
side, wipe them out and then join that side and wipe out the other
side" This is usually followed by someone remembering that if one
side goes under, the game is over.

I like the "neutral to the end option." I also wonder what would
happen to the game if only the first four neutral could declare, the
last one to declare couldn't win the game (but oh boy could they
influence it).

Kevin

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, "ianetchells2003"
<ianetchells2003@y...> wrote:

Only if there was a third alternative. I mean instead of going

Good

or Evil a neutral can declare his aliegance as "Neutral" and
automatically have all "Good" and "Evil" nations downgraded to
disliked. He would then still have to be able to downgrade each
nation to hated.

Thus you could get a team of "Neutrals" playing as well.

Ian

> Anyone like this idea?
>
> Clint
>
>
> >Why not institute in pre-approved games a mandatory competetive
balance?
> >What I mean by this is that Neutrals would be required to join
alliance
> >in a fair and balanced way. If one Neutral decided to go DS,

the

next
> >Neutral MUST go FP. Then no other Neutral would be allowed to
Change
> >Allegiance until a Neutral, any Neutral, had joined the FP to
restore a
> >competetive balance. For example, they Rhudaur player decides

on

turn 1
> >they want to go Evil and does so. On turn 2 the Dun player
decides that
> >they also want to go DS. They would not be allowed to

sucessfully

issue
> >the Change Allegiance order until one of the other three

Neutrals

went
> >FP. If no other Neutral went FP, then all the Neutrals would be
unable
> >to join the DS until one joined the FP. After the 2nd Neutral

had

joined
> >the FP, the 3rd Neutral would be required to join the DS. This
would
> >continue until 5th Neutral was the only one left, who would

then

decide
> >on their own which side it wished to join.
> >
> >This would guarantee at worst a 0-1 split or ideally, a 3-2

split.

> >Dropped Neutral positions wouldn't be that affected because the
> >remaining Neutrals would still have to follow the competetive
balance
> >rule. If only 4 are left it goes 2-2, if only 3 left, 2-1.
Diplomacy
> >would still be vital to recruiting a Neutral to make sure you'd
get the
> >one you'd want to join, and would possible develop further

amongst

> >Neutrals themselves as they may negotiate who'll join whom. The
Neutrals
> >themselves should be informed on their turn results when a

Neutral

> >joined an alliance, and also possibly make it impossible to do
> >Downgrades or Upgrades to any nation until the balance is
restored.
> >
> >I feel this to be and entirely fair way to the respective
alliances to
> >keep the playing field even. It may be somewhat unfair and
overbearing
> >to the Neutrals, but a game like this would be set up with the
knowledge
> >that this would be the rules for that game, and individual

player

···

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, ME Games Ltd <me@M...> wrote:
would
> >be given the option to play it or a regular game.
> >
> >Chris Guerra
> >--
> > Chris Guerra
> > leonidas@f...
> >
> >
> >
> >Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
> >To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
> >Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ****************************************************************
> ME Games Ltd
> me@m...
> www.middleearthgames.com
>
> UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP
> Tel 029 2091 3359 12-6.30 Weekdays
> Fax 029 2062 5532 24 hours
>
> US: PO Box 680155, Marietta, GA 30068-0003
> Tel 770 579 6813 EST Weekdays
> Fax 503 296 2325
> ****************************************************************

#13

I understand under the rules as they stand the game would be over
but what i'm saying is that by using order 175 to state that you
are "neutral" you won't be able to change to "good" or "evil" later
in the game. Thus if you kick one side out then there are still 2
different aliegences in the game. The game would then end with the
last aliegence left.

Your second idea could be fun :slight_smile: But whats to stop both sides from
just pummling that last neutral?

Ian

This is a subject that comes up among neutrals in many games: "if
only we didn't have to join either side." "what if we take on one
side, wipe them out and then join that side and wipe out the other
side" This is usually followed by someone remembering that if one
side goes under, the game is over.

I like the "neutral to the end option." I also wonder what would
happen to the game if only the first four neutral could declare,

the last one to declare couldn't win the game (but oh boy could they

influence it).

Kevin

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, "ianetchells2003"
<ianetchells2003@y...> wrote:
> Only if there was a third alternative. I mean instead of going
Good
> or Evil a neutral can declare his aliegance as "Neutral" and
> automatically have all "Good" and "Evil" nations downgraded to
> disliked. He would then still have to be able to downgrade each
> nation to hated.
>
> Thus you could get a team of "Neutrals" playing as well.
>
> Ian
>
>
> > Anyone like this idea?
> >
> > Clint
> >
> >
> > >Why not institute in pre-approved games a mandatory

competetive

> balance?
> > >What I mean by this is that Neutrals would be required to

join

> alliance
> > >in a fair and balanced way. If one Neutral decided to go DS,
the
> next
> > >Neutral MUST go FP. Then no other Neutral would be allowed to
> Change
> > >Allegiance until a Neutral, any Neutral, had joined the FP to
> restore a
> > >competetive balance. For example, they Rhudaur player decides
on
> turn 1
> > >they want to go Evil and does so. On turn 2 the Dun player
> decides that
> > >they also want to go DS. They would not be allowed to
sucessfully
> issue
> > >the Change Allegiance order until one of the other three
Neutrals
> went
> > >FP. If no other Neutral went FP, then all the Neutrals would

be

> unable
> > >to join the DS until one joined the FP. After the 2nd Neutral
had
> joined
> > >the FP, the 3rd Neutral would be required to join the DS.

This

> would
> > >continue until 5th Neutral was the only one left, who would
then
> decide
> > >on their own which side it wished to join.
> > >
> > >This would guarantee at worst a 0-1 split or ideally, a 3-2
split.
> > >Dropped Neutral positions wouldn't be that affected because

the

> > >remaining Neutrals would still have to follow the competetive
> balance
> > >rule. If only 4 are left it goes 2-2, if only 3 left, 2-1.
> Diplomacy
> > >would still be vital to recruiting a Neutral to make sure

you'd

> get the
> > >one you'd want to join, and would possible develop further
amongst
> > >Neutrals themselves as they may negotiate who'll join whom.

The

> Neutrals
> > >themselves should be informed on their turn results when a
Neutral
> > >joined an alliance, and also possibly make it impossible to do
> > >Downgrades or Upgrades to any nation until the balance is
> restored.
> > >
> > >I feel this to be and entirely fair way to the respective
> alliances to
> > >keep the playing field even. It may be somewhat unfair and
> overbearing
> > >to the Neutrals, but a game like this would be set up with

the

···

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Brown" <mornhm@s...> wrote:

> --- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, ME Games Ltd <me@M...> wrote:
> knowledge
> > >that this would be the rules for that game, and individual
player
> would
> > >be given the option to play it or a regular game.
> > >
> > >Chris Guerra
> > >--
> > > Chris Guerra
> > > leonidas@f...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
> > >To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
> > >Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
> > >
> > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >

****************************************************************

> > ME Games Ltd
> > me@m...
> > www.middleearthgames.com
> >
> > UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP
> > Tel 029 2091 3359 12-6.30 Weekdays
> > Fax 029 2062 5532 24 hours
> >
> > US: PO Box 680155, Marietta, GA 30068-0003
> > Tel 770 579 6813 EST Weekdays
> > Fax 503 296 2325
> >

****************************************************************

#14

This is all quite funny. Really. A thread was started because of the perception that the Open Game quality is deteriorating. And we end up with neutral bashing.

Consider the possibility that anyone who believes they like neutrals, but are only offering up ideas and/or options, are really neutral bashing also. Consider the possibilty that there are only 2 options, as I've previously mentioned and nobody has addressed:

1) Neutrals as is, end of discussion full-stop.
2) No Neutrals, open 12v12 setups.

Anything, I ask you to consider that Anything that isn't #1 is, for all intents and purposes, simply a precursor to #2. No gray area will ever be agreed to amongst the player base in significant numbers to warrant implementation, and even IF it were to be, it and all possible gray area ideas are somewhere between #1 and #2. Once you start, there's rarely any going back. Move off the #1 Point on the line and you are simply closer to and now have movement in the direction of, and therefore momentum towards, #2.

My point? Unless you agree with the statement "I believe we should elminate neutrals from MEPBM", then you reply with a "Leave the neutrals alone!" or simply avoid any/all discussion of ideas/possiblities completely.

Thanks for your reading,

Canadian Brad
Neutral

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#15

> Anyone like this idea?

Yes, but I think the first three neutral declaring should be able

to

do so freely, while the two remaining should be forced towards
balancing the game. This way you would encourage early declaration
and possibly add a dimension to the neutral-neutral diplomacy. The
effect would also be a weakening of the neutrals.

No - I do not like this idea. I think players that sign up as
neutrals in open games prefer to choose which side to join. By
dictating which side a particular neutral must join is contrary to
the spirit of the neutral nation. Simply stated, it is not fun.
There are options for players to join no neutral games, why force
this on the "open" game.

Open games serve a purpose in this gaming market! Open games permit
individual players to experiment with other nations - don't tinker
with them.

I think the bigger issue here is developing and encouraging "new"
players. Some large corporations assign mentors or a "buddy" to help
new hires navigate the system. Perhaps we can develop a list of
individuals willing to act as mentors to new players or establish a
new player forum - council of elrond - where new players can ask
questions, request advice, without fear of retribution.

Chris M.

···

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, "Skage Hem" <skage@g...> wrote:

#16

Mentoring has been suggested often, and I think it's taken place formally
on more than one occasion. Your newbie forum idea is interesting, but I'm
not sure how it would work in practice - it would need experienced players
to be on board answering questions, without being in any of the games
concerned. I think that could be problematic, and I'm not really sure that
it has advantages over what IMO should be the "natural relationship" of
newbies coming onto an allegiance alongside experienced players, and
receiving advice within the bounds of the team's confidential e-mailing
arrangements - unless perhaps you are suggesting that there are not enough
experienced or helpful players in the open games.

You're about the 4th person though to have been talking in terms of what
one tagged "New player education." I think we could usefully review that
here. Perhaps Clint, or a recently new player could remind us of exactly
what advice/guidelines are currently sent out to a new player upon
commencing their first game of ME?

[]
   Laurence G.Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

<http://www.buav.org/campaigns/primates/index.html>
Zero Option - end the use of primates in research

http://www.buav.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

···

At 18:17 01/06/2005, Chris M. wrote:

I think the bigger issue here is developing and encouraging "new"
players. Some large corporations assign mentors or a "buddy" to help
new hires navigate the system. Perhaps we can develop a list of
individuals willing to act as mentors to new players or establish a
new player forum - council of elrond - where new players can ask
questions, request advice, without fear of retribution.

#17

>I think the bigger issue here is developing and encouraging "new"
>players. Some large corporations assign mentors or a "buddy" to help
>new hires navigate the system. Perhaps we can develop a list of
>individuals willing to act as mentors to new players or establish a
>new player forum - council of elrond - where new players can ask
>questions, request advice, without fear of retribution.

Player Mentors are cool. I know it works well for Legends (there's a group of around 4 players that are available on the phone and email and give out advice). If you'd like your details given out and be a player mentor get in touch.

You're about the 4th person though to have been talking in terms of what
one tagged "New player education." I think we could usefully review that
here. Perhaps Clint, or a recently new player could remind us of exactly
what advice/guidelines are currently sent out to a new player upon
commencing their first game of ME?

With Bofa we have a player mentor asigned (and playing) to each team. That works well.

Clint

···

At 15:13 01/06/05, you wrote:

At 18:17 01/06/2005, Chris M. wrote:

#18

Will gladly be a player mentor for someone else out their.

tim huiatt

···

From: ME Games Ltd <me@MiddleEarthGames.com>
Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] New Player education
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 00:09:17 -0700

At 15:13 01/06/05, you wrote:
>At 18:17 01/06/2005, Chris M. wrote:
> >I think the bigger issue here is developing and encouraging "new"
> >players. Some large corporations assign mentors or a "buddy" to help
> >new hires navigate the system. Perhaps we can develop a list of
> >individuals willing to act as mentors to new players or establish a
> >new player forum - council of elrond - where new players can ask
> >questions, request advice, without fear of retribution.

Player Mentors are cool. I know it works well for Legends (there's a group
of around 4 players that are available on the phone and email and give out
advice). If you'd like your details given out and be a player mentor get
in touch.

>You're about the 4th person though to have been talking in terms of what
>one tagged "New player education." I think we could usefully review that
>here. Perhaps Clint, or a recently new player could remind us of exactly
>what advice/guidelines are currently sent out to a new player upon
>commencing their first game of ME?

With Bofa we have a player mentor asigned (and playing) to each team. That
works well.

Clint

#19

No not at all, someone who signs on in an open game as a
neutralshould have the complete freedom to make their own choice of
which side to join. They should not be forced by the game master or
any rule.

Brad

Anyone like this idea?

Clint

>Why not institute in pre-approved games a mandatory competetive

balance?

>What I mean by this is that Neutrals would be required to join

alliance

>in a fair and balanced way. If one Neutral decided to go DS, the

next

>Neutral MUST go FP. Then no other Neutral would be allowed to

Change

>Allegiance until a Neutral, any Neutral, had joined the FP to

restore a

>competetive balance. For example, they Rhudaur player decides on

turn 1

>they want to go Evil and does so. On turn 2 the Dun player decides

that

>they also want to go DS. They would not be allowed to sucessfully

issue

>the Change Allegiance order until one of the other three Neutrals

went

>FP. If no other Neutral went FP, then all the Neutrals would be

unable

>to join the DS until one joined the FP. After the 2nd Neutral had

joined

>the FP, the 3rd Neutral would be required to join the DS. This

would

>continue until 5th Neutral was the only one left, who would then

decide

>on their own which side it wished to join.
>
>This would guarantee at worst a 0-1 split or ideally, a 3-2 split.
>Dropped Neutral positions wouldn't be that affected because the
>remaining Neutrals would still have to follow the competetive

balance

>rule. If only 4 are left it goes 2-2, if only 3 left, 2-1.

Diplomacy

>would still be vital to recruiting a Neutral to make sure you'd

get the

>one you'd want to join, and would possible develop further amongst
>Neutrals themselves as they may negotiate who'll join whom. The

Neutrals

>themselves should be informed on their turn results when a Neutral
>joined an alliance, and also possibly make it impossible to do
>Downgrades or Upgrades to any nation until the balance is restored.
>
>I feel this to be and entirely fair way to the respective

alliances to

>keep the playing field even. It may be somewhat unfair and

overbearing

>to the Neutrals, but a game like this would be set up with the

knowledge

>that this would be the rules for that game, and individual player

would

···

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, ME Games Ltd <me@M...> wrote:

>be given the option to play it or a regular game.
>
>Chris Guerra
>--
> Chris Guerra
> leonidas@f...
>
>
>
>Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
>To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
>Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
****************************************************************
                 ME Games Ltd
         me@m...
         www.middleearthgames.com

UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP
         Tel 029 2091 3359 12-6.30 Weekdays
         Fax 029 2062 5532 24 hours

US: PO Box 680155, Marietta, GA 30068-0003
         Tel 770 579 6813 EST Weekdays
         Fax 503 296 2325
****************************************************************

#20

No not at all, someone who signs on in an open game as a
neutralshould have the complete freedom to make their own choice of
which side to join. They should not be forced by the game master or
any rule.

Brad

RD: I agree.

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "kingoftherill" <kingoftherill@yahoo.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 9:30 AM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Open Games:mandatory competetive balance?

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, ME Games Ltd <me@M...> wrote:
> Anyone like this idea?
>
> Clint
>
>
> >Why not institute in pre-approved games a mandatory competetive
balance?
> >What I mean by this is that Neutrals would be required to join
alliance
> >in a fair and balanced way. If one Neutral decided to go DS, the
next
> >Neutral MUST go FP. Then no other Neutral would be allowed to
Change
> >Allegiance until a Neutral, any Neutral, had joined the FP to
restore a
> >competetive balance. For example, they Rhudaur player decides on
turn 1
> >they want to go Evil and does so. On turn 2 the Dun player decides
that
> >they also want to go DS. They would not be allowed to sucessfully
issue
> >the Change Allegiance order until one of the other three Neutrals
went
> >FP. If no other Neutral went FP, then all the Neutrals would be
unable
> >to join the DS until one joined the FP. After the 2nd Neutral had
joined
> >the FP, the 3rd Neutral would be required to join the DS. This
would
> >continue until 5th Neutral was the only one left, who would then
decide
> >on their own which side it wished to join.
> >
> >This would guarantee at worst a 0-1 split or ideally, a 3-2 split.
> >Dropped Neutral positions wouldn't be that affected because the
> >remaining Neutrals would still have to follow the competetive
balance
> >rule. If only 4 are left it goes 2-2, if only 3 left, 2-1.
Diplomacy
> >would still be vital to recruiting a Neutral to make sure you'd
get the
> >one you'd want to join, and would possible develop further amongst
> >Neutrals themselves as they may negotiate who'll join whom. The
Neutrals
> >themselves should be informed on their turn results when a Neutral
> >joined an alliance, and also possibly make it impossible to do
> >Downgrades or Upgrades to any nation until the balance is restored.
> >
> >I feel this to be and entirely fair way to the respective
alliances to
> >keep the playing field even. It may be somewhat unfair and
overbearing
> >to the Neutrals, but a game like this would be set up with the
knowledge
> >that this would be the rules for that game, and individual player
would
> >be given the option to play it or a regular game.
> >
> >Chris Guerra
> >--
> > Chris Guerra
> > leonidas@f...
> >
> >
> >
> >Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
> >To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
> >Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ****************************************************************
> ME Games Ltd
> me@m...
> www.middleearthgames.com
>
> UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP
> Tel 029 2091 3359 12-6.30 Weekdays
> Fax 029 2062 5532 24 hours
>
> US: PO Box 680155, Marietta, GA 30068-0003
> Tel 770 579 6813 EST Weekdays
> Fax 503 296 2325
> ****************************************************************

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Yahoo! Groups Links