With a proposal to "penalize" (or reduce the bonus of...)
late-declaring neutrals, one must presume arguments would
run along the lines of "how late is late" with one of many
possible individual opinions being "Never". If you'd like
to show why you seem to consider this the answer with more
details besides the fact that you know it to be true, please
do so, as I truly don't know what you mean.
And you feel that I insult you with my replies...
Maybe if GSI had called them "unaligned", we wouldn't be having
this discussion.
My real-world view of neutrality comes from living close
to Switzerland and being involved with various UN agncies.
My ME view of neutrals has been expressed before. I have yet to
see anyone play them as anything other than "merchants", out to
get artifacts etc as early as possible. (Maybe I've been unlucky.)
A neutral can also act as a block or no-go area for both
sides, forcing them to work around his territory. (Think, again,
of Switzerland in WW2.) I've yet to see ME players respect
this stance, either: it's usually taken as a signal to attack
the neutral on the basis that he "might switch".
A neutral can also act as a block or no-go area for both sides, forcing them to work around his territory. (Think, again, of Switzerland in WW2.) I've yet to see ME players respect this stance, either: it's usually taken as a signal to attack the neutral on the basis that he "might switch".
Personally, I see the neutrals more like Italy and the US in WWI: non-aligned nations that are being wooed by both sides. They're not insular like Switzerland and Sweden, they just have interests with both sides.
But I'll add that aside from neutrals who make early military moves, there are those that are empire builders. These fellows like to whack down some camps and build up some extra-meaty armies before they come and whack you. It is an error born of resentment (understandable) to disparage this strategy as that of "merchants". Napoleon had a similar view of the English - "A nation of shopkeepers." And look what happened to him.
Don't confuse those few inexperienced neutrals who spend their time car-booting for artefacts, with those others who talk about artefacts a lot, while they build up all that cavalry which is going to arrive on your capital out of the blue. It's called playing for time, and happens quite often, since the aligned players in their first contact with a neutral often say "What can we do for you?" Think about it, from the neutral's point of view, one can't say "Lie down and die Sucker!" Tell 'em you're mostly interested in artefacts, and they'll leave you alone.
Finally, as well as playing more Middle Earth, why not play neutrals? Go crack some heads, stab some backs, and enjoy the names they'll call you!
But you are losing something here. By saying that ME neutrals are like, or implying that they ought to play like these historical precedents, you overlook the fact that when you are an ME neutral you have a lot of CHOICE. More so than when you play an aligned nation. That's what makes the neutrals interesting to play. You can be an insular cuckoo clock maker, a lend-lease pragmatist supporting one side but not shedding blood, a "merchant", an artefact hoarder, an early recruit or a psycopathic enemy of all.
Personally, I see the neutrals more like Italy and the US in WWI:
non-aligned nations that are being wooed by both sides. They're not
insular like Switzerland and Sweden, they just have interests with both
sides.
--- In mepbmlist@y..., Gavin Wynford-Jones <gavinwj@c...> wrote:
> With a proposal to "penalize" (or reduce the bonus of...)
> late-declaring neutrals, one must presume arguments would
> run along the lines of "how late is late" with one of many
> possible individual opinions being "Never". If you'd like
> to show why you seem to consider this the answer with more
> details besides the fact that you know it to be true, please
> do so, as I truly don't know what you mean.
And you feel that I insult you with my replies...
Maybe if GSI had called them "unaligned", we wouldn't be having
this discussion.
My real-world view of neutrality comes from living close
to Switzerland and being involved with various UN agncies.
My ME view of neutrals has been expressed before. I have yet to
see anyone play them as anything other than "merchants", out to
get artifacts etc as early as possible. (Maybe I've been unlucky.)
A neutral can also act as a block or no-go area for both
sides, forcing them to work around his territory. (Think, again,
of Switzerland in WW2.) I've yet to see ME players respect
this stance, either: it's usually taken as a signal to attack
the neutral on the basis that he "might switch".
Gavin
From a pragmatic point of view, an unaligned and powerful nation is a
threat. The presence of a nation with large armies and powerful
characters forces an alliance to hold back armies that could be
attacking their opponents and devote intelligence assets to monitoring
a potential danger. This can provoke real resentment and hostility.
I have seen team discussions about attacking neutrals who play that
way, although I don't think that I've ever actually been part of a
team that carried them out. The usual strategy is to remember the
name of the nuisance and to avoid ever playing in a game with them
again - or to actively court the other neutrals in a game that they're
involved in and to provoke them into jumping onto the opposing team
where you can tap dance all over them.
Although a Switzerland stance may be good roleplaying, it isn't a wise
gameplaying strategy. Most folks enjoy interacting with others in a
game setting like ME PBM - there are much better and cheaper solitare
alternatives. Reputations carry from game to game. Being a nuisance
to team efforts is not a positive reputation to have...
