Response to Query on dropouts

mepbmlist
#1

With respect Adam, I think your lament is a little weak here. You are
seriously telling me that NOT ONE of the other NINE players could spare
the half hour or so that it takes to produce a set of holding orders for
one or two turns? I think that as a team you probably deserved what you
got here.

I think we may be at slightly crossed lines here - it wasn't one of my team
but one of our opponents that dropped. To be honest you're probably right in
suggesting that someone could have taken up the position for a couple of
turns; I'm pretty sure if it had been a drop out on my side then we would
have found someone to run it for a while. However, my feeling is that where
one team surrenders early due to several drop outs this can spoil things as
much for their opponents as for them. I'm thinking of situations where
someone spends several turns marching down to the action, only to find that
the game is already over by the time they get there.

As an example you may recall the 2950 game where you were playing Rhun and I
was on the DS team (I forget the number). When the FP said they were
thinking of surrendering the (still neutral) Dunlending player was fairly
vociferous about how he'd spent ages preparing and what a waste of time it
would be if the game ended before he'd done anything. In fairness to him I
think he had a point on this as it was only about turn 10.

Were Harlequin footing the bill for the position which needed to be
held... or was the holding player expected to cough up as well as do
everyone a service? Is this where the real problem lies?

Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley

Agreed, it would probably help if you didn't have to pay for running a
dropped position. I think it may actually have been tried. I think part of
the problem on getting people to take up dropped positions on a more
permanent basis is that most people probably perceive it as a bit of a
hapless task since a dropped position will often be fairly weak.

ps - any initial thoughts about game 29 (WOTR)?

Regards
Adam

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

Just sent out a 2950 LR position which I thought was awesome. Although it
is easier to fill a tastier position than a less viable position I generally
don't find that there is much difference. Over 75% of the positions filled
are by team-mates, but for some individual games (ie where players just join
haphazardly rather than in a group - around 1/3rd of the games we run) this
does not happen and I put it out for general take ups.

Although it would be nice to send out drop outs and not charge for the
position, it would also be nice to run the game for free. Sorry guys we are
a business as well and have to charge for the service, otherwise there would
be no game for you to play in. Now you might say that this situation
requires that we have no charge for such drops outs but I can see how this
would be abused and very hard to GM.

Generally one dropped position on a team does not lose the game for you
(most games are won by a full compliment (or nearly so) of the winning team
as it is). It's when multiple positions are dropped or SSed each turn that
it become difficult to have a competitive game.

Just some thoughts.

Clint

···

Agreed, it would probably help if you didn't have to pay for running a
dropped position. I think it may actually have been tried. I think part of
the problem on getting people to take up dropped positions on a more
permanent basis is that most people probably perceive it as a bit of a
hapless task since a dropped position will often be fairly weak.

Regards
Adam

#3

As an example you may recall the 2950 game where you were playing Rhun and I
was on the DS team (I forget the number). When the FP said they were
thinking of surrendering the (still neutral) Dunlending player was fairly
vociferous about how he'd spent ages preparing and what a waste of time it
would be if the game ended before he'd done anything. In fairness to him I
think he had a point on this as it was only about turn 10.

I found that rather amusing actually. The FP wanted to drop because
they had been utterly smashed, very early on. The Silvans (or Sinda)
had gone out already, and another nation was on its knees. Only two or
three players on that team had ever played before. I went FP to try to
encourage them a bit. Khand said he would go DS, then dropped when one
FP said that the FP would drop - and before we could set the record
straight. Duns sat on the fence too long, and his ideas about what
constituted team play were radically different to mine. If he'd have
been watching the game (and we did keep him fully informed) he might
have declared earlier, and given the FP some encouragement.

There was also however, a lot of gaming going on here. As a battered
FP, having been put on our knees in the first few turns, and only my
pathetic RhE nation attempting the rescue, we were trying everything,
including threatening to take the ball away, in order to try to swing
the other neutrals our way. In the end we conceded as a partial team,
after some nasty rows with the Duns, and one other FP player.

There's no way that this game was relevant to the discussion. Your boys
walloped the FP newbies from turn 1. I went FP, KhE said he's go DS
then dropped, Dun went FP but rather too late, and along with one other
FP had some utterly potty ideas, the FP prospects collapsed. DM
intervention would have been utterly unfair and would have robbed you of
your victory. The fact that Duns threw his toys out of the pram is
irrelevant - declaring too late to make a difference is an occupational
hazard of playing a neutral.

The real problem btw was caused by having too many newbies on one team,
playing against experienced devils such as your good self.

Agreed, it would probably help if you didn't have to pay for running a
dropped position. I think it may actually have been tried.

Clint.

ps - any initial thoughts about game 29 (WOTR)?

Well you can imagine. I'm in a minority of one as usual as far as
strategy goes! There's a bit of a discussion going with the neutrals
about what the market will do in the adjusted scenario. Apart from that
it seems like any other game.

ME33 is interesting. This is the Mike Sankey adjusted scenario - 1650,
no neutrals, their pops shared out. Clint, it would be good to see all
the data from the WotR variation and the Mike Sankey variation up on
your web site.

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

···

Heather Taylor <heather.taylor@virgin.net> wrote

#4

No, that's not the suggestion. I'd suggest that:

IF a position gets dropped, and
IF the GM thinks it is viable, and
IF the GM thinks it has been subjected to very little enemy action
THEN, a player on the team may play it FOC for a MAXIMUM of 2 turns
until a proper paying standby player takes it on.

That's not to say you don't give a free turn or two as an incentive to
the standby as well.

This has to be good business Clint, you are giving a few free turns in
order to keep a position going, in a game which might run for another 20
or 30 paying turns!

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

Although it would be nice to send out drop outs and not charge for the
position, it would also be nice to run the game for free.

#5

Thanks - will do so. Might take a while to sort out as I am working on some
other stuff for the website at present when normal work finishes. What sort
of stuff? Changes to PCs/Armies? Having played in game 35 with the 10 vs
10 the economy was ridiculous from an early start.

Clint

···

ME33 is interesting. This is the Mike Sankey adjusted scenario - 1650,
no neutrals, their pops shared out. Clint, it would be good to see all
the data from the WotR variation and the Mike Sankey variation up on
your web site.

#6

Thanks - I am not sure it is good business - what then happens when the
player drops - do we then give another 2 free turns whilst someone finds it?
I rather think it is like the deadline date - regardless of the time and
date - the same proportion of turns turn up the same period (with minor
fluctuations) of time of the new deadline date. Same here in that players
will take up or not the position appropriately other than for a few strapped
for cash players. I have actually allowed some positions to be run for
free - we're not totally heartless... :slight_smile:

(Got the evidence to show the deadline date exmaple btw).

Clint

···

>Although it would be nice to send out drop outs and not charge for the
>position, it would also be nice to run the game for free.
No, that's not the suggestion. I'd suggest that:

IF a position gets dropped, and
IF the GM thinks it is viable, and
IF the GM thinks it has been subjected to very little enemy action
THEN, a player on the team may play it FOC for a MAXIMUM of 2 turns
until a proper paying standby player takes it on.

That's not to say you don't give a free turn or two as an incentive to
the standby as well.

This has to be good business Clint, you are giving a few free turns in
order to keep a position going, in a game which might run for another 20
or 30 paying turns!

#7

What sort
of stuff? Changes to PCs/Armies?

That's it. In WotR there were a few character tweaks as well.

Having played in game 35 with the 10 vs
10 the economy was ridiculous from an early start.

OK the economy is also an issue in 33 and 29 - in 29 we boosted the
armies and forgot to boost their starting food. When these games finish
you should ask one player from each side to give you a list of comments
and problems, from the first "play test", and post these too.

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

#8

I concur about the feedback on these varients.

···

Harlequin Games <pbm@harlequingames.com> wrote
> What sort
>of stuff? Changes to PCs/Armies?
That's it. In WotR there were a few character tweaks as well.

>Having played in game 35 with the 10 vs
>10 the economy was ridiculous from an early start.
OK the economy is also an issue in 33 and 29 - in 29 we boosted the
armies and forgot to boost their starting food. When these games finish
you should ask one player from each side to give you a list of comments
and problems, from the first "play test", and post these too.

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

#9

ps - any initial thoughts about game 29 (WOTR)?

Inflation, been better off designed as a 1650 game,
even then I'm not sure the same thing won't happen.

b.e.

#10

Thanks - will do so. Might take a while to sort out as I am working on

some

other stuff for the website at present when normal work finishes. What

sort

of stuff? Changes to PCs/Armies? Having played in game 35 with the 10 vs
10 the economy was ridiculous from an early start.

Clint

> ME33 is interesting. This is the Mike Sankey adjusted scenario - 1650,
> no neutrals, their pops shared out. Clint, it would be good to see all
> the data from the WotR variation and the Mike Sankey variation up on
> your web site.

RD: Is game 35 with 10 v 10 the same as Mike Sankey's ME33 variant?
Ridiculous? I must say I find 33 bloody good fun. Nobody has any worries
about money unless they've been beaten up pretty badly, and it swings the
pendulum back somewhat in favour of DS following the 'tweaks' to agent
rules, giving us FP a harder fight! Great stuff!

Regards,

Richard.

#11

Yes it was fun as well.... :slight_smile:

12k troops for the Northmen that sort of thing. Market going ballistic etc.

Clint

> Thanks - will do so. Might take a while to sort out as I am working on
some
> other stuff for the website at present when normal work finishes. What
sort
> of stuff? Changes to PCs/Armies? Having played in game 35 with the 10

vs

> 10 the economy was ridiculous from an early start.
>
> Clint
>
> > ME33 is interesting. This is the Mike Sankey adjusted scenario -

1650,

> > no neutrals, their pops shared out. Clint, it would be good to see

all

···

> > the data from the WotR variation and the Mike Sankey variation up on
> > your web site.

RD: Is game 35 with 10 v 10 the same as Mike Sankey's ME33 variant?
Ridiculous? I must say I find 33 bloody good fun. Nobody has any worries
about money unless they've been beaten up pretty badly, and it swings the
pendulum back somewhat in favour of DS following the 'tweaks' to agent
rules, giving us FP a harder fight! Great stuff!

Regards,

Richard.

Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm

#12

> ps - any initial thoughts about game 29 (WOTR)?
>
Inflation, been better off designed as a 1650 game,
even then I'm not sure the same thing won't happen.

b.e.

RD: the inflation was deliberate, to make it more like a 1650 game in terms
of armies, but with the 2950 characters. The question is, do you prefer a
BIG game with BIG armies or do you want a game with a miserly economy which
forces you to depend on characters?

Richard.

#13

> > ps - any initial thoughts about game 29 (WOTR)?
> >
> Inflation, been better off designed as a 1650 game,
> even then I'm not sure the same thing won't happen.
>
>
> b.e.
>
>
RD: the inflation was deliberate, to make it more like a 1650 game in terms
of armies, but with the 2950 characters. The question is, do you prefer a
BIG game with BIG armies or do you want a game with a miserly economy which
forces you to depend on characters?

Richard.

Even with a 1650 scenario, I believe the inflation will happen just because
some nations have too much in their treasury that they can't spend.

The inflation was caused by the nations having extra cash without a means
to spend it on, i.e. the Armies weren't big enough, afterall not all were given
extra troops and there's only so much you can do with 8 chars in the start.

b.e.