Hi Mike. I'm not so sure. Whilst I see your reasoning in terms of
balance, I think there's an internal consistency issue - if these
nations are neutral, why on earth should they not declare as they
please? I think their neutrality is based on an idea of Tolkien's world
as it might have been in 1650.
If Harad and Cor are to have these restrictions, then why not, say Rhu
and Dun?
Personally, I like pre-aligned neutrals games (IIRC you do to). In most
of those, Easterlings has been left dead, for the sake of balance, but I
think that 3FP neutrals and 2DS neutrals makes the best game.
I've been in one game where 1 neutral got knocked out early, and 4
declared the same way. It wasn't very satisfying. So that begs the
question: Should we scrap the idea of neutrals all together?
I'd keep the neutrals, but I think the game would be better if they
started off a lot weaker. These are the nations which are not ready for
war, they should have 2950 type set ups. There should be no opportunity
for them to launch an assault on T1. It should be possible for an
aggressive neighbour to go squish them, and this would make it necessary
for those playing neutrals to do some of the running in the diplomacy
game: "Please don't kill me, I expect to join your side, and make a
contribution." "If you bring an army to my capital, to protect me
against the dastardly xxxxxx, then I'll probably join your side when
I've built up my nation."
And of course, if they were the weakest 5 nations in the game (instead
of Woo, Nor etc.) then the impact of their declaration on the balance,
would be more measured. Who really cares about what the Rhu do, or what
the RhE do in 2950? They alter the situation locally, but they don't
tilt the whole of the game world.
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
···
Mike Barber <mbarber999@yahoo.com> wrote
From now on, I suggest that once Harad / Corsairs have
joined 1 allegiance, the other should not be able to
join that same allegiance
