Hi everyone
Want to quickly test an idea on Drop outs. Generally due to missed turns,
or inactive turns whilst dropped out I would like to improve the overall
situation of the turns we can send out. Often (about 1/3 or 1/4 turns) the
position is not playable. With 5 or 10k gold that should help most of
these positions. What do players think?
I don't want to spend a lot of time and effort changing each position we
send out like this and I think this will help but would like some feedback
before asking the rest of the players.
Thanks for your help.
Clint
Hi everyone
Want to quickly test an idea on Drop outs. Generally due to missed turns,
or inactive turns whilst dropped out I would like to improve the overall
situation of the turns we can send out. Often (about 1/3 or 1/4 turns)
the
position is not playable. With 5 or 10k gold that should help most of
these positions. What do players think?
I don't want to spend a lot of time and effort changing each position we
send out like this and I think this will help but would like some feedback
before asking the rest of the players.
Thanks for your help.
Clint
RD: NO NO NO! I get as pissed off as the next player when one of my
so-called team-mates drops without warning. But why should any position get
extra gold just because it's a dropout? Standbies should play it as it
stands or not at all.
Also, the opposition, who may well have had something to do with making the
player concerned drop out, may justifiably complain if an enemy position is
re-activated with extra gold!
Clint, don't waste your energy trying to save positions which have gone down
the toilet, concentrate on keeping your regular players happy and attracting
new ones to the hobby.
Regards,
Richard.
···
----- Original Message -----
From: "SAS/ALLSORTS" <allsorts@compuserve.com>
To: "mepbmlist" <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2000 10:28 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Query on dropouts
I think it would be unfair. Think of the opposition point of view - you
go to huge lengths, and spend many turns persecuting an enemy nation.
You use military, diplomatic, alternative and economic warfare in order
to weaken, then cripple, then destroy it. The morale of the opposing
player is a factor, but essentially, because you do not know him, you
are fighting that nation, and you are doing so in role. If the player,
representing the government of that nation, resigns because of the
pressure, then that is your achievement. Its effect should not be
lessened by the GM.
If a nation needs a gold input to make it viable, THEN THAT GOLD SHOULD
BE SENT BY THE ALLIED NATIONS. If they don't send it, then either they
have made a fair assessment that they can play on without the lame duck,
or they deserve to lose. Like the nation itself, they have no right to
the extra assistance of having the crumbling nation resuscitated
artificially by GM intervention.
House rules and incentives such as free turns are one thing, but PLEASE
DON'T interfere with the fundamental game mechanics. Your proposal is
tantamount to giving a "doggy life" to the battered nation - if the
allies won't help, and a stand-by player considers it not viable, THEN
THE NATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO FALL.
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
Talk to me live when I'm online with Yahoo Messenger
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ My ID=LGTilley
···
SAS/ALLSORTS <allsorts@compuserve.com> wrote
Want to quickly test an idea on Drop outs. Generally due to missed turns,
or inactive turns whilst dropped out I would like to improve the overall
situation of the turns we can send out. Often (about 1/3 or 1/4 turns) the
position is not playable. With 5 or 10k gold that should help most of
these positions. What do players think?
The problem as I see it is two fold:
1) The nation is knocked out by enemy action - fine and dandy that it is
nuked. I am all for that.
2) The nation has not been touched, but just due to players not getting
turns in the position degrades, gold fades away that sort of thing.
Although players are happy to run the position as soon as they take it up it
foes bankrupt BEFORE anyone in the team can bail them out. That's the issue
I would like to address. (Invariably at the beginning stage of the game
this occurs).
Clint
>Want to quickly test an idea on Drop outs. Generally due to missed
turns,
>or inactive turns whilst dropped out I would like to improve the overall
>situation of the turns we can send out. Often (about 1/3 or 1/4 turns)
the
···
SAS/ALLSORTS <allsorts@compuserve.com> wrote
>position is not playable. With 5 or 10k gold that should help most of
>these positions. What do players think?
I think it would be unfair. Think of the opposition point of view - you
go to huge lengths, and spend many turns persecuting an enemy nation.
You use military, diplomatic, alternative and economic warfare in order
to weaken, then cripple, then destroy it. The morale of the opposing
player is a factor, but essentially, because you do not know him, you
are fighting that nation, and you are doing so in role. If the player,
representing the government of that nation, resigns because of the
pressure, then that is your achievement. Its effect should not be
lessened by the GM.
If a nation needs a gold input to make it viable, THEN THAT GOLD SHOULD
BE SENT BY THE ALLIED NATIONS. If they don't send it, then either they
have made a fair assessment that they can play on without the lame duck,
or they deserve to lose. Like the nation itself, they have no right to
the extra assistance of having the crumbling nation resuscitated
artificially by GM intervention.
House rules and incentives such as free turns are one thing, but PLEASE
DON'T interfere with the fundamental game mechanics. Your proposal is
tantamount to giving a "doggy life" to the battered nation - if the
allies won't help, and a stand-by player considers it not viable, THEN
THE NATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO FALL.
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
Talk to me live when I'm online with Yahoo Messenger
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ My ID=LGTilley
Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
2) The nation has not been touched, but just due to players not getting
turns in the position degrades, gold fades away that sort of thing.
But gold doesn't "fade away" does it? It's being nicked by enemy
agents, it's paying the salaries of the troops who are maintained, and
still, though passively defend the pop centres or block roads. The
unsold goods are affecting the market price (as I understand it), and
this is why you must not muck about with the game mechanics by
introducing magic money.
Although players are happy to run the position as soon as they take it up it
foes bankrupt BEFORE anyone in the team can bail them out. That's the issue
I would like to address. (Invariably at the beginning stage of the game
this occurs).
The best thing then might be for the GM to release a short summary of
the nation's position - at least the economic data - to the rest of the
team, on the turn that orders are not received. If the team think that
the position should be bolstered whilst a standby is arranged, then they
can send gold.
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
Talk to me live when I'm online with Yahoo Messenger
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ My ID=LGTilley
···
Harlequin Games <pbm@harlequingames.com> wrote
>Want to quickly test an idea on Drop outs. Generally due to missed
turns,
>or inactive turns whilst dropped out I would like to improve the overall
>situation of the turns we can send out. Often (about 1/3 or 1/4 turns)
the
>position is not playable. With 5 or 10k gold that should help most of
>these positions. What do players think?
I think it would be unfair. Think of the opposition point of view - you
go to huge lengths, and spend many turns persecuting an enemy nation.
You use military, diplomatic, alternative and economic warfare in order
to weaken, then cripple, then destroy it. The morale of the opposing
player is a factor, but essentially, because you do not know him, you
are fighting that nation, and you are doing so in role. If the player,
representing the government of that nation, resigns because of the
pressure, then that is your achievement. Its effect should not be
lessened by the GM.
If a nation needs a gold input to make it viable, THEN THAT GOLD SHOULD
BE SENT BY THE ALLIED NATIONS. If they don't send it, then either they
have made a fair assessment that they can play on without the lame duck,
or they deserve to lose. Like the nation itself, they have no right to
the extra assistance of having the crumbling nation resuscitated
artificially by GM intervention.
House rules and incentives such as free turns are one thing, but PLEASE
DON'T interfere with the fundamental game mechanics. Your proposal is
tantamount to giving a "doggy life" to the battered nation - if the
allies won't help, and a stand-by player considers it not viable, THEN
THE NATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO FALL.
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley
RD: I agree with Laurence 100% on this, see my earlier email on the subject.
Richard Devereux.
···
SAS/ALLSORTS <allsorts@compuserve.com> wrote
The problem as I see it is two fold:
1) The nation is knocked out by enemy action - fine and dandy that it is
nuked. I am all for that.
2) The nation has not been touched, but just due to players not getting
turns in the position degrades, gold fades away that sort of thing.
Although players are happy to run the position as soon as they take it up
it
foes bankrupt BEFORE anyone in the team can bail them out. That's the
issue
I would like to address. (Invariably at the beginning stage of the game
this occurs).
Clint
RD: I still say NO. If a player gets special serviced two turns on the trot
without talking to his team-mates, he is DROPPED. His team-mates then have
the option for one of them to pick it up, temporarily or not, or ask
Harlequin to try to find a standby. If the nation goes bankrupt in the
meantime TOUGH LUCK!
Clint, I don't know why you want to make extra work for yourself. Giving
gold to a dropped nation just to make it viable for a standby player is
grossly unwarranted interference by the GM. The opposition may not have
killed the position in military or character terms, but they may well have
given it such a kicking that the player drops. To beef up such a position
just to make it playable for a standby is grossly unfair to the team that
administered the kicking.
Please leave things as they are!
Richard.
> >Want to quickly test an idea on Drop outs. Generally due to missed
turns,
> >or inactive turns whilst dropped out I would like to improve the
overall
···
> SAS/ALLSORTS <allsorts@compuserve.com> wrote
> >situation of the turns we can send out. Often (about 1/3 or 1/4 turns)
the
> >position is not playable. With 5 or 10k gold that should help most of
> >these positions. What do players think?
> I think it would be unfair. Think of the opposition point of view - you
> go to huge lengths, and spend many turns persecuting an enemy nation.
> You use military, diplomatic, alternative and economic warfare in order
> to weaken, then cripple, then destroy it. The morale of the opposing
> player is a factor, but essentially, because you do not know him, you
> are fighting that nation, and you are doing so in role. If the player,
> representing the government of that nation, resigns because of the
> pressure, then that is your achievement. Its effect should not be
> lessened by the GM.
>
> If a nation needs a gold input to make it viable, THEN THAT GOLD SHOULD
> BE SENT BY THE ALLIED NATIONS. If they don't send it, then either they
> have made a fair assessment that they can play on without the lame duck,
> or they deserve to lose. Like the nation itself, they have no right to
> the extra assistance of having the crumbling nation resuscitated
> artificially by GM intervention.
>
> House rules and incentives such as free turns are one thing, but PLEASE
> DON'T interfere with the fundamental game mechanics. Your proposal is
> tantamount to giving a "doggy life" to the battered nation - if the
> allies won't help, and a stand-by player considers it not viable, THEN
> THE NATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO FALL.
>
> Regards,
> Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
> Talk to me live when I'm online with Yahoo Messenger
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ My ID=LGTilley
>
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
> To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
> http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
>
>
Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
Not correct - as turns go by (as far as I know and loosely checked but not
thoroughly done so)
>2) The nation has not been touched, but just due to players not getting
>turns in the position degrades, gold fades away that sort of thing.
But gold doesn't "fade away" does it?
>Although players are happy to run the position as soon as they take it up
it
>foes bankrupt BEFORE anyone in the team can bail them out. That's the
issue
>I would like to address. (Invariably at the beginning stage of the game
>this occurs).
The best thing then might be for the GM to release a short summary of
the nation's position - at least the economic data - to the rest of the
team, on the turn that orders are not received. If the team think that
the position should be bolstered whilst a standby is arranged, then they
can send gold.
ARGHHHHHHHH - no chance I am afraid - do you know how many SS turns we get
a week?!!! 
Sometimes you get a position not filled for a while (not
everyone can afford to play two positions and they know no-one to take it up
or it is a new player's game - lots of dropouts in that) all factors helping
to reduce the position's effectiveness without anything to do with the
actual game events.
Just a thought.
Clint
See the second point - ie when NO-one has any impact on the position and is
dropped due to outside game effects. You appear to be answering the first
point again which I have no query about.
···
The opposition may not have
killed the position in military or character terms, but they may well have
given it such a kicking that the player drops. To beef up such a position
just to make it playable for a standby is grossly unfair to the team that
administered the kicking.
Please leave things as they are!
Richard.
>
There can never be a case where no one has any impact. All nations
affect all the others, whether accidentally, or deliberately, as when
one allegiance is attempting to manipulate the market.
If you are too busy with SS turns to be able to look at them and give
the economic details to the team, how can you possibly have the time to
look at a dropped position, and all its previous turns, in order to be
satisfied that it has not been attacked, or otherwise affected by enemy
action.
I suppose that in some new player games, you may have drop outs after 3
or 4 turns without combat. That must be problematic, but I don't see
how you can do anything about it. The nations (in 1650 and even to some
extent in 2950) start "on the eve of war" with huge armies mobilised,
and war chests fit to run them for 4-6 turns. After that the economies
(AND the global economy) start to suffer the strain, and tight financial
management becomes essential. If nation A plans well from turn 1, then
it prospers, if nation B plays badly he goes bankrupt. You suggest that
if nation C's player drops, then nation C can have a handout from the
GM. What about nation B then? Perhaps he spends his treasury on
mithril on turn one and names 4 dual class characters, then drops on
turn three - does it get a handout?
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
Talk to me live when I'm online with Yahoo Messenger
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ My ID=LGTilley
···
Harlequin Games <pbm@harlequingames.com> wrote
See the second point - ie when NO-one has any impact on the position and is
dropped due to outside game effects. You appear to be answering the first
point again which I have no query about.
