I thought it was Larry, Darrel, and Darrel.
So how do you score it if the Corsairs start free but are knocked out of the game? Hypothetically speaking, o’course…
Wrong Bernd; see my post above. The VCs have simply outlived their designer’s original vision for the game.
If that was the designers original vision of the game, it doesn’t make sense to me. Apart from the fact that it doesn’t fit into the scenario - this is a game of good vs evil, and victory is likely to be absolute. It makes no sense having a single nazgul survive while Sauron is beaten, or having the Noldo sitting in Lindon while the rest of the world is ruled by darkness.
I played my first ME game with a company called Allsorts in 1992. I don’t know if a nation could place regardless of allegiance victory then, but what I do know is that me and my friends (who joined with me) understood this game as a team game right from the word go and we mused about those crappy VCs even with no experience at all. Maybe that’s why we have beaten our experienced enemies while we were absolute beginners.
The thing is: players who do cooperate will always beat players who don’t. Even in pre-e-mail-times there were ways to communicate. So if this game naturally favors cooperation, how could the designers have had another vision? What you are saying is that they designed the VCs for players who are too stupid or selfish to play as a team - and who will hopelessly lose if they face players who are clever enough to do so.
You can, of course, build fences to avoid cooperation and do things like GB or all-neutral or your new concept. It can be fun. Just don’t tell me that this game was originally intended to be that way. I doubt that.
Point taken, my mistake in writing, not understanding, about the solo win. I understand that it’s a payoff, detriment an ally (if you have VC as the Dog Lord, Ji Indur dead for example, or chasing some 500 point combat weapon that has no real impact on the actual game, but does on on your VCs) or spend resources reducing the chance for the side to be victorious, for the improvement of your individual VCs.
Chatting to Bill about the original intent of the VCs he mentioned that, particularly in the case of the DS, was to represent the inherent in fighting of some of the nations or for historical reasons. Bill agrees that the game developed in a different manner to the way that they originally envisioned as well in some manners, although broadly was what they were intending.
As with many mechanisms in the game they didn’t quite work in the way that the designers originally envisioned. (I can go through a fairly extensive list, primarily the combat situation for example, recruitment, economy etc).
Like I said find 25 players and we can run it if you want (we’ved tried when this came up before). I suspect that there’s not much market for such a game at present.
Clint
David, you are probably unpersuadeable but I will try. On the List I wrote three mini-articles on the subject. You are invited to review them. These are: 10-3-04 “Game Construction and Design”, 12-26-04 “Ramdom Victory Conditions”, 9-29-05 “Loss of Diplomacy”. Perhaps a useful insight may be found there.
If the Random Victory Conditons are unimportant and widely ignored then no harm is done—right? No neeed to eliminate them. If you ignore them and that suits you, then it certainly suits me. They can continue to be ignored–right?
Then there is this to consider: Everything in this game is inter-related. This game is very subtle. You are entering the Stassun/Feilds universe (or what is left of it). If Elrond issues a personal challenge in hex 2424 a magic door might open somewhere else. One more possibility that can not be discounted is the less obvious aspects of the RVCs.
Everyone is free to interpret and play the game as they wish, but it is very presumptuous of you to call other players stupid because they pay attention to their own Victory Conditions. A nation can cooperate with their other allegiance members while still pursuing their own national interest; the one does not preclude the other. I agree that it would be foolish or stupid for the dwarven player to actively seek Elrond’s death if that were happen to be a VC for the dwarves. But let’s say, Rivendell is a VC site for dwarves. Murazor reveals it and the DrL burns it to the ground. All of a sudden, it would be in the interest of the dwarves to recamp 2209 ASAP. That doesn’t mean they aren’t team players.
Or take the example that Rhudaur’s VCs include the death of Hallas, and possession of 1510. Should that not affect the decision making of Rhudaur?
But Ed puts it nicely above. Anyone can ignore their VCs and no harm is done.
I would play in the retro delux whatever game, sounds like fun. I certainly appreciate the Single Player as a winner vs the fascist team hive. The game isn’t like this, and ad nauseum, yes, there are the existing truths behind that. And VC’s are virtually useless excepting that they provide insight into the player who cares about them when playing the fascist hive game - ie, not this guy on my team… 
But if the company was to create a game like this I and another would sign up.
Brad (oops…not my real name! I was never here…!)
You’ve hit the nail on the head there Brad. VCs must be ignored in the grudge game setting, and that setting seems to be the only one seen by players who migrated from Allsorts, Harlequin, etc., i.e. non-GSI. Even the single player signup games 10v10v5 migrate toward this model. However if the mindset was, There Can Be Only One, well yes, even some of the best grudge players would start to look at their VCs then.
So, who’s going to organize getting this game set up? Email Clint directly so as to maintain the “anonymous” facade…?
Brad (oops…I mean, Some Guy with a Mask…)
So who’s going to play the game then guys? 
What are the rules of such a game? Are they as Drew suggested or something else? (Note my point about keeping it anonymous, not sure why it’s a requirement but that’s upto you, it’s your game).
Send us an email if you’re interested and can get others interested. As usual a desire to get a game and note on here doesn’t get a game (reason being I’ve had many people “sign-up” to such a game in principle, but when it comes to actually playing some of them are not able to at present, other commitments etc). It also keeps it anonymous.
How do you want me to fill such a game, first come first serve or the usual method? What about who you can join with? What rules do you want?
Clint
First of all, I wasn’t proposing to start a specific game; rather, I was trying to weave the hypothetical framework to help some of the forum members understand why the VCs are the way they are. To do it “right” I’m quite sure I don’t have the gaming time available to undertake such a game myself. A lot of diplomacy would be in order, even if only using diplos.
Secondly, anonymity wouldn’t be a strict requirement. My suggestion for anonymous play was to provide cover for most of the players who would somehow feel constrained to continue to play in the same grudge-game manner else tarnish their good-teammate reputations somehow. Knowing the real people behind the nations, perhaps people who are actively working with you in a hive mentality grudge game, well, that might make it a lot tougher to stick to your (selfish) national interests instead of sacrificing for the greater good, and all of a sudden, this game goes down the same path. The key is, no swapping of PDFs, thus your allies don’t know what national VCs you have, nor do they particularly have to know the name of every agent you have…
One of the very reasons I came back to 1650 scenero vs staying in 1000 exclusively was the PRS ratings… My belief is the best players don’t always Win the games. some nation’s this is so near impossible in 1650 it’s riduclous to think about it… The PRS ratings do bring this out…
So this drop back to the Old Fog of war limited diplo’s… No emails does that prove your the best player… Does that make playing under the current way Facist bad… becuase the current way The team must win before any nation can win…
The players today as i see them all want to be on the winning team! Then all the hard work to build thier nations payoff… The PRS chasers want this as well as The good team players… Being a good team player does not make not one of the best individual players…
The best Players today get their only real Kudos from the respect earned by the impact they have in effecting the team win… Wether or not they are love or hated while on the team. The opposition even shows the best players respect by coordinating organized attacks to destroy that players nations… No rating system can ever reflect that…
Players who constantly seek winning the game and Desiring to get the highiest PRS rating are simply not the best players in the game… Niether is the most humourous ones…
The Prs ratings are still useful… But if your a 1650 player chasing the very best PRS players… You’ll find most of them play 1000 now… becuase every nation has an equal chance winning or losing at game start… That’s why they are there…
Grudge teams mainly are veteran players who work well together under their team captian… But the very best 1650 players minds tactics and strategy I’ve seen and best team play… best individual play has been in the One week 1650 games… I been in the last 3… Game 51 Had the First team to get 1 Nuetral (Duns) and DS get 4 and DS lost! the game was so intense and so much fun the core players care less abouting recruiting nuetrals at all…
I do like Hermans Idea that something should be accounted for that isn’t at this time… At least from my knowledge of rating systems… Number of enemy troops Killed by another army… Number of army to army wins… Number Of PC’s captured or destroyed by armies ( destroying pc’s does not help your PRS rating! or victory conditions). Number of characters doubled! Number of pc’s take by emmy is accounted for via nation success pc’s and sizes count as well as their loyalty!
My advice to all concerned about thier ratings… Forget them… Play the game to have fun… It’s the most fun when your winning… It’s easiest to win when when you play as a Team… you can Lead until you can follow (good team player). when your leading a team without the Title team Captain then your one of the best players in the game…
LOL, I thought that we couldn’t get a game of this format out…
We’ve used the VC concept with the Untold War. Due to the nature of the set-up for the game (we developed if for a thesis) we made it a team-game though. I think the VCs work well here, I know in our test game we specifically aimed to take at least one MT/City from each nation. Ironically, in our test game, chasing the individual nations War Points wasn’t followed up, we had too little time to do that without getting much needed resources for defeating the opposition. No doubt a different scaling factor might work.
The team with the most Untold War Points after turn 10 wins the game. There are no individual victories.
Free Peoples
The following are each worth 100 Untold War Points.
The Northmen (2)
To hold at game end the population center of Helcaraxe @ 2203
To hold at game end the population center of Goblin-gate @ 2409
To hold at game end the population center of Lag-krazul @ 2812
To see to the termination of Nazog by any means whatsoever.
To hold at game end the artifact: Pectoral #157.
Riders of Rohan (3)
To hold at game end the population center of Durthang @3121
To hold at game end the population center of Arailt @1918
To hold at game end the population center of Bethadal @2512
To terminate 10 characters by personal challenge or by assassination.
To hold at game end the artifact: Glosovagil#162.
Silvan Elves (5)
To hold at game end the population center of Sarn Goriwing @2809
To hold at game end the population center of Snagarl @2815
To see to the termination of Duran by any means whatsoever.
To hold at game end the artifact: Ring of Bleeding #154.
To acquire 10 additional artifacts (15) of any alignment.
The Dwarves (8)
To hold at game end the population center of Yalumea @2404
To hold at game end the population center of Moria @2212
To hold at game end the population center of Goblin-town @2309
To hold in stores at game end the greatest amount of Mithril.
To hold at game end the artifact: Helm of Sen Hey #54.
The Noldo (10)
To hold at game end the population center of Lag-siif @2814
To hold at game end the population center of Dol Guldur @2715
To hold at game end the greatest amount of artifacts.
To terminate 10 characters by personal challenge or by assassination.
To hold at game end the artifact: Palantir of Minas Ithil #28.
Any Free People Nation
The following are worth 250 Untold War Points and each can be scored only once.
A Witch-King Major Town or City was captured or destroyed. Hex location: _______
A Dragon Lord Major Town or City was captured or destroyed. Hex location: _______
A Dog Lord Major Town or City was captured or destroyed. Hex location: _______
A Fire King Major Town or City was captured or destroyed. Hex location: _______
A White Wizard Major Town or City was captured or destroyed. Hex location: _______
The following are worth 500 Untold War Points:
Dol Guldur (2715) was captured or destroyed at some point during the game.
All 5 Free nations survived.
Dark Servants
The following are each worth 100 Untold War Points.
The Witch King (11)
To hold at game end the population center of Imladris @2209
To see to the termination of Elrond by any means whatsoever.
To see to the termination of Ohtar by any means whatsoever.
To hold at game end the artifact: Mantel of Doriath #41.
To acquire 10 additional artifacts (20) of any alignment.
The Dragon Lord (12)
To hold at game end the population center of Lothlorien @2514
To hold at game end the population center of Aradhrynd @2908
To hold at game end the population center of Carrock @2609
To terminate 10 characters by personal challenge or by assassination.
To see to the termination of Thranduil by any means whatsoever.
To hold at game end the artifact: Mirror of Galadriel #163.
The Dog Lord (13)
To hold at game end the population center of Buhr Ailgra @3112
To hold at game end the population center of Erebor @3107
To see to the termination of Brand by any means whatsoever.
To hold in stores at game end the greatest amount of Mithril.
To hold at game end the artifact: Orcrist #83.
The Fire King (18)
To hold at game end the population center of Maethelberg @2508
To hold at game end the population center of Cerin Amroth @2413
To see to the termination of Grim-beorn by any means whatsoever.
To terminate 10 characters by personal challenge or by assassination.
To hold at game end the artifact: Orb of Seeing #35.
White Wizard (24)
To hold at game end the population center of Hornburg @2121
To hold at game end the population center of Edoras @2321
To hold at game end the greatest amount of artifacts.
To hold at game end the artifact: Nenya #12.
To acquire 10 additional artifacts (13) of any alignment.
Any Dark Servant Nation
The following are worth 250 Untold War Points and each can be scored only once.
A Northman Major Town or City was captured or destroyed. Hex location: _______
A Riders of Rohan Major Town or City was captured or destroyed. Hex location: _______
A Silvan Elves Major Town or City was captured or destroyed. Hex location: _______
A Dwarves Major Town or City was captured or destroyed. Hex location: _______
A Noldo Elves Major Town or City was captured or destroyed. Hex location: _______
The following are worth 500 Untold War Points:
Lothlorien (2514) was captured or destroyed at some point during the game.
All 5 Dark Servant nations survived.
Clint,
here is the synthesis of the rules being proposed as I understand them, and some additions I think are important. Also, I just re-read the actual old rule book victory condition section. It clearly states that to be the game winner, your side has to win. But you can be 2nd place or third place if you’re on the losing side… And you can’t place if you’re neutral. Again, re-reading the old rules clarifies things: You have to declare allegiance before game end, but otherwise there is no deadline for declaration by a neutral.
Others please pipe up with comments.
Like GB, except:[ul]
[li]limit is one nation per player. no exceptions.
[/li][li]10xDS, 10xFP, 5xN
[/li][li]each nation may send no more than one diplo to each other nation in the game, every turn, 50 words or less
[/li][li]diplos can include subterfuge, lies, etc. (e.g. a diplo can pretend to be from the IK, when it’s in fact from NG)
[/li][li]diplos can’t reveal phone numbers, identity, email, or any contact information
[/li][li]diplos are restricted to in-game information & strategy
[/li][li]diplos could request help on attaining a VC
[/li][li]the game is anonymous as to who is playing what nation, but 25 players are known (otherwise I don’t see how we have a shot at getting 25)
[/li][li]First, Second and Third place finishers are determined by nation score plus Individual Nation VCs plus 200pt bonus for OR victory if you are nation who delivers OR to Mt Doom. First place finisher must be on the winning side. 2nd and 3rd place do not have to be on the winning side, but can not be neutral.
[/li][li]Game ends when one One Ring victory occurs or when one allegiance (DS,FP) outnumbers the other 2:1 in active nations or when 2/3 of players on one allegiance (DS,FP) concede (dead nations counting as a vote to concede)
[/li][li]there are no rules against taking any action against any character or nation
[/li][li]dropped nations die. they are not picked up by another player
[/li][li]there is no internet posting of information about the game (i.e. no dead nations list like in some of the GB games)
[/li][li]no .pdf or .xml sharing allowed
[/li][/ul]
Drew, this is far less work than any other game you’re currently playing. The diplos are submitted with the turn. You’ll send out far fewer diplos than emails in a grudge game. And you only have one nation to plan.
Clint, I’m happy to continue to try to move the rules definition process along, or if you’d like to “take charge”, I’m happy with that too.
Ed, please comment if this is what you’re looking for.
Dave
Clint, if you are realy interested in getting such a game together you will advertize it in the usual manner. Most players don’t read this forum or do so only intermittantly. One of GSI’s genius strokes was to force players to make moral decisions, Harley just sort of winces and looks away—not cricket and all that.
Getting pretty use to all this. I have survived, functioned and suceeded in ambiguous and amoral environments (all the while avoiding indictment). Others (including influential persons in this game) just can’t wrap their mind around the concept, even when someone is trying to explain it. Such is the differing natures of our individual Life Experiences. Cops, criminals, Army officers, prison wardens, Wall Street options brokers and others who make constant moral decisions have the background, but many others do not.
Getting back to the RVCs. Carefully reread Stassun/Feilds eplanation about what they are and what they represent. For example, holding a particular pop center might be the equivilent to the possession of a significant religious shrine. Now in the Real World Jewish possession of Jereusalem or Morman control of Salt Lake City would be a big deal. A big moral boost, plus ancillary benefits.
Ever noticed how, many times, things don’t quite work out like the formulas say they ‘should’? Ever thought that you inflicted more casualties, or lost more troops than you ‘should’ have? Ever wondered if the possession of that damn artifact or pop center might upgrade your performance? Ever experimented to see? You are welcome David.
Ed,
you make an interesting hypothesis regarding achieving individual VCs during the game and having that affect your success in orders or combat.
I personally doubt that to be the case. But… you could be right. It’s all a matter of how the program was coded.
I do note that the rules explicitly state that the individual VCs only count for purposes of winning if they’re achieved at game-end.
Now I’m going to go read those articles you pointed me to.
thanks,
Dave
I like it… I would play this… In one week game sold probably forever lol.
Ed, Thanks. I’ve read your articles. I think your most enlightened statement was this:
“What is the difference between a ‘team’ and an ‘alliance’? Team members are
expected to sacrifice for the commonweal. In an allaince national interest
is always foremost. Anythig else is a breach-of-duty by a public official.”
It’s the core of your point on what has changed from the Game of Yore to the Game of Today. I think it’s a valid point. The game has changed from an Alliance game to a Team game.
See if the rules I proposed take you back to the “Alliance” game. Give your comments.
Dave
Au contraire my friend; that’s where we disagree. Diplomacy done right, even in smaller quantities, is much harder than friendly coordination. A player in this format really ought to be composing at least 14 separate, well-crafted diplos, each turn, at least until the neuts declare.