Dave - wrong inference 
Sure DS are beatable, but having the Nazgul startups is a fine, fine starting place.
Cheers
Mike
If you want to trade jibes in game threads that we are BOTH in that’s fine but I would appreciate it if you would not follow me into unrelated threads trying to provoke responses.
Hiya Mike. cool. I was sure that you felt DS were beatable. and glad my inference was wrong. As to the 2nd sentence in your post… Are you saying that starting DS is the easiest way to beat the DS??? LOL. no. I guess that’s not what you’re saying. But I’m not so sure what you are saying. Guess I’m getting old…
Dave
I don’t really see the point in writing many strategy articles. For grudge games, strategy depends upon the overall plan of the team; a coordinated effort becomes critical (which is why I tend to find them a bit dull).
I agree with Ed, for every good strategy, there is a better counter-strategy if you realize what the enemy is doing. Take the suggestion “The Long Rider and Dragon Lord should swap backups.” It’s great in theory-- it gives the LR a recruiting base and the Dragon Lord a safe capital. The problem is that it guts the loyalty of the swapped population centers, making them horribly vulnerable to enemy emissary actions. It also drains off four emissary actions fairly early in the game. Is it worth it? Maybe, maybe not.
In one game i was in, we (the Free) guessed that the Darks would try this move. So we dropped by 3328 with emissaries and flipped it (due to the low loyalty), while simultaneously showing up at 3822 and burning it to the ground. Both of the respective darks (LR and Dragon Lord) were hurt badly because they followed what could be good advice. Of course what we did has its own counter moves, and there are counters to that, and so on.
There are multiple ways to play pretty much every nation.
Bradford
Clint
I will try to write an article for Bree concerning he Easterlings 1650 soon. I will write more articles on 1650 as I play more of them again.
Terry
Great! Look forward to it.
Clint
I’m actually compiling data on wins and losses for the sides.
Recently, from the data so far collected, the Darks have a signifigant advantage and win 75%+ of the time. I was doing it because there were suggestions of major changes to make the Darks better in 1650 gunboat. So I got interested in seeing what occurs to make an informed choice.
The people saying gunboat is harder on the darks is right. The dark wins drop to ~60% instead of 75%+. (Though I do not know if that is a reason to increase their power).
Of course over the long haul of games ever played this is likely not that one sided, just from the data collected so far. After the next Bree comes out, I’ll put out quantitative stats from the games collected.
See ya,
Ken
Entertainment. Don’t poop on what others think is fun. I don’t like lobster, nobody at the dinner table cares (excepting there’s more for them).
But developing your own strategy, or your own “style” of play, isn’t that the most fun? Even if your strategy is just a small variation of another one, if you came up with it, isn’t it yours? I myself, haven’t read any strategy articles and everything I try to do is my own or a variation of something learned in a game. To me, this is the “fun” of Play by Mail games, to see if something that was hatched in your brain, be it tried before or not, works or doesn’t work.
I for one, don’t condemn someone for studying strategy articles (Ed), but would never use them.
Scott
Everyone,
The key is to do what is fun for you “and let your team know”. Teams won’t mind as long as they are informed. On another note, I like to read the strategy articles and than use that information as I see fit. The more information you have the better your decisions can be.
As far as goods vs evils, I have seen both sides take a whipping. In the end I come to the same conclusion each game, who was better orgainized and worked as a team won.
John
Ok missing this out. VC’s, keep em yes. Some players do base a strategy based upon fulfilling the VCs they can real;istically obtain themselves. Its a bit perverse buit the actions against chars and pops of their allies rely on the opposite allegiance but hey, its based upon historical reference Im guessing, loosely. Removing VCs would take this type of player away from their normal game and who’s to say they’d like the new strategies they’d have to adapt. We don’t want to exlude ANY players with game changes really…I know how I’d feel if my style of play was wiped out by game mechanics and rule changes… still not much chance of that recruit, recruit, recruit and attack, attack, attack…lol. 
Grudge games are a pain sometimes. Team captian says no, no and no… then u submit orders to the contrary and he has the power to rewrite your entire if he so wishes… ah well…
GB is great and I lucked out managing to get a nation I wanted to expand a strategy/theory on… cant say more its ongoing…
then u submit orders to the contrary and he has the power to rewrite your entire if he so wishes.
That’s not the case. The TC is generally just the person that helps me to get the team playing, and also the contact point for me if I need one particular person. Unless you give that player permission to (or rather as it’s a Grudge team tell us you don’t want them to) they can’t change your orders without your say so.
Clint
But that would cause a lot of tension within a team. I just assumed the TC had the power etc. U Clint know at least how risky I can play when left to my own devices.
Further Im not sure you should have told me that… my mind bogglesd at the power this gives me for the grudge game Im in… A is a great team captain but at times, well a risk or 2 might not go amiss… wooohhahahahahahah, maniacal chuckle… really am not saying anymore. the games hard enough and rocking boats seems to be my penchant in life
I believe strategy articles are just guides for open games… Grudge games are completely different games often even the nuetrals are divided up so there is no diplomacy… As for me allowing someone to change my orders against my will that would only happen once and I would remove even The team captain off my list of alloweds…
I really thought this thread was to encourage some of the Elite to bring some fresh ideas on what could be done with some the less popular or perpetual cellar dwellers in winning. We all know there is no perfect opening move but there are good ones… That real success is adapting to each games uniqueness and out thinking our opponents through good team play… But there are alot moves that are keys to all nations success and some key moves unique to each nation to give it the most upside potentail.
So your either ready to share your insights or not… I am willing but heck it would take me years to play all the 1650 nation just to write a somwhat intelligent strategy guide to give players something to think about and maybe what should never be done.
Venger
Lionatus,
Have no fear, in all my games where there has been a Team Captain, he/she doesn’t have the ability to change anyone’s orders. He (and along with ANY of my teammates) does have the authority to put in shadow orders for me in the off chance that Clint doesn’t get my orders. Clint does let the team know as a courtesy that a nation’s orders haven’t been received, (THANK YOU CLINT) and that has prevented some major problems in the past when one of the teammates has submitted orders.
Scavenger
Yep - we use TCs to get in touch with if there’s missing turns - that can often get missing orders in. Some players use TC = Team Co-ordinator rather than Captain (for obvious reasons).
Clint