Originally posted by Vanya
one neutrals who do nothing and win games…drives me personally nuts…If there was one major aspect of the game I could change it is how the neutrals get to play…although it does seem more neutrals are actually playing their positions rather than just sitting around expanding… like they had in the GSI days…still the fact that some of them do it…is just annoying I would rather have them all jump me and at least do something rather than sit around building and win the game…
I’ll bite on this one …
Allow me to offer a controversial opinion that yet again, the game mechanics do not need to be fundamentally altered or tinkered. The major flaw in this aspect would be with your - or your team’s and opponent’s - gameplay.
One side must negotiate with the neutral player, using all available tools at one’s disposal, to ascertain what the neutral play wants out of the game, what bargaining chips will entice the player to declare for a particular side and a projected entry into the ‘larger’ game. The major flaw may be the diplomatic and negotiating skills lacking on the Freep/DS side.
e.g. in my game #69, the Dunlending player has remarked that he has been disappointed with the lack of contact from both sides. It’s coming up to turn 11 and he hasn’t declared. The flaw has been our lack of diplomacy and powers of persuasion - especially given the situation for the DS as a whole in this game.
To play Devil’s Advocate, yes, I do agree, that either game circumstances or other mitigating factors may all weigh on a neutral player to hoist the Swiss flag and quietly expand their position. But once again, I posit that the game mechanics do not need to be altered because this is a variable that we as players have a large degree of input. If a neutral wins a game having not declared for a side, then one must conclude that it is not the neutral that hasn’t done anything to earn the victory but rather that the declared players have done nothing to prevent this from happening.
In a hypothetical example in the 1650 game at least, three neutral powers must declare given geographical constraints:
[list=1]
[li]Dunlendings
[/li][li]Easterlings
[/li][li]Rhudaur
[/li][/list=1]
At some stage of the game there will be a point where either the Freep or the DS have momentum and a geographical advantage of numbers in a particular region. Two of the above neutrals - Dunlendings and Rhudaur - are both situated in or near the unpredictable Eriador theatre. If one or both neutrals do not declare for the DS, then given competent play, the sheer numerical advantage should see the elimination of the Dragon Lord and Witch King from Eriador.
The Easterling position is not as volatile as Eriador, but given the nervous disposition of the DS - an undeclared neutral sitting SE of Mordor - and the close proximity of Ji Indur and co, the Easterling player would have to be a damn good diplomat not to arouse the suspicions of the DS.
The three neutrals grouped above will eventually face a situation where one side has the upper hand in a particular region, and that side will then be in a numerical (as well as military) position to start playing a little hardball. Hard-nosed diplomacy is far from the ideal situation but realpolitik makes it viable in particular circumstances.
Then there are the two superpowers:
[list=1]
[li]Corsairs
[/li][li]Harad
[/li][/list=1]
Given their geographical position, their wealth, sheer number of population centers as well as their military muscle, both neutrals are in an enviable position to dictate terms to both sides. There may be occasions, where both the Freep and DS trip up over themselves to avoid angering either of these two giants, thus causing - hypothetically speaking - them to expand their positions, improve their characters and rack up the VP points. But yet again, both positions would win not from anything that they did or did not do, but precisely from something either the Freep or DS didn’t do i.e. persuade or threaten them to declare for a particular side.
I find it highly unlikely given the close proximity of both nations, that one or the other would not be slightly suspicious of the others intentions, and this suspicion should provide fuel to either ignite an internecine war, or to play upon paranoid fears, welcoming them into the bosom of either the Freep or the DS.
While there may be occasions when a neutral wins a game from what is perceived to be inactivity, I would strongly oppose a rule change on the basis of what I perceive to be flawed play on either the Freep or DS side. What makes ME both an enjoyable and challenging experience is dealing with that variable known as other players (even team-mates!). Likewise, what would kill any pleasure that I derive from the game would be a situation where Clint & co laboriously drew up a rule for every given situation, in effect, removing the unpredictability from the game.
Just my two penneth.
Regards,
Christian
aka Rhudaur #69
