Is the monster Rhudaur now a “Standard” upgrade for all 1650 Gunboat games? I thought this was a “player request” for a game or two, not the standard GB 1650 set up. Hope so. Looked down at the GB set-up stuff for a turn which ran today and noticed all those upgrades listed.
Personally I find the massive upgrades disturbing, lets give the darks parity on the north and advantage in the south and give the free a fort? (Note, I play both sides equally commonly and am not in a game with these modifications).
A fort on 1910, sure, give him some help, but god, 5 fortification increases and a city and mt upgrade? along with the WK getting a city upgrade?
Anyone who has played with these modifications on either side care to comment? Were the free winning all the gunboat games or something???
If your going to do this, are we going to “correct” the woodmen or dunlend for their inefficeincies? maybe let Harad start with 1-3 free harbors “removed” , give the Dragon Lord a few upgrades as well or give Arthedain a back-up capital when, now that rhudaur doies not have to use his starting armies to really defend, just block, he sends the majority of his forces to take out good old #4?
sounds overly zealous, but I’m just concerned that the flavor of the game will change too vastly when there is parity in all but the southern theater (dark advantage).
If it is going to be the “standard” can we ask for a classic set-up or some such?
Yes indeed. Why have a challenging position requiring equisite skill and non-conventional thinking? Dumb the thing down to the lowest common level, by popular demand. This sort of thing is one, of several reasons, why I have opposed Harley’s efforts to ‘improve’ the game.
Can’t wait to see the Kin Strife and see how creative The Company is.
There is nothing wrong in improving the game. I can see why ME improved
the DS Rhuduar position in GB due to its need for gold support but improving
2208 was a step too far…
Actually, can we get a tally of free v.s. dark wins before this modification in gunboat? I am rather curious as to if the free are always winning.
If Clint does not have stats, perhaps we can get something together as players. I’ll start a “which side won thread for your 1650 gunboat game” in a bit, but no need if Clint has the info.
I am in 2 GB games (94 & 96) with these experimental WK/Rhu improvements and I was a part of the player group that proposed them.
Without revealing anything about either of those games that is not common knowledge, in one game 2 DS nations (11, 24) have been eliminated by turn 21, and in the other game 3 DS nations (12, 13, 21) have been eliminated by turn 21. no FP nations have been eliminated in either game.
I can’t comment further until the game(s) end… If you must decide now, you can look at the data above to decide if you think we “overpowered” the DS…
Now to the more abstract concept of game balance in GB. I firmly believe the FP have a big advantage in GB without modifications to the DS nations that depend on teamwork in normal 1650 to surive. In normal 1650, DS
teams depend on:
market manipulation to boost economies
shared intel on character sightings to be able to project character assets to best effect
shared intel on dragon sightings to put the dragons in the armies needed most
economic aid & backup pop centers flowing to the isolated DS nations under heaviest concerted FP attack
GB provides none of the above.
As to Kitirat’s question about GBs played - I’ve played in 2 GBs that completed: GB 14 as FK/CL(with mid-game BS add), GB 71 as NG/Duns(with late game NE add). GB 14 lasted until turn 24, ending Dec 04. GB 71 lasted until turn 13, ending July 05. In both of these completed GBs, the FP won. They were played with the traditional pairings and NM/Rhu fort upgrades. Coming out of GB 71, several players caucused and concluded the DS needed beefing up to make the game more “fair & even” and longer lasting. We also highly desired a “no-quit” requiremnent on the players, as player drops are hugely hurtful to a GB side. That was the genesis for the no-quit,“monster” Rhudaur/WK games…
Hey Dave, thanks for the input. I REALLY like the no drop rule. However, in the gunboat games I play in, I generally pair with a friend for the two nations and pick up a thrid when it becomes available (and yes I say when, not if).
In the only completed Gunboat game I have play in it was 2950 and the DS won turn 18 (I was the dog lord in this game) with the Witch King & White Wizard eliminated and only the dwarves, south gondor and rangers remaining on the free side.
In the gunboat I am in now now, it does not have these newer rules.
Seemed to me the flavor of the old game was a marked advantage to the FP, ceteris paribus. Not sure I even agree with you that the servants have the advantage in the south, as the QA is very vulnerable in GB.
If your experience has been that the DS have the overall advantage, I would suggest that drops played a much bigger role; either that, or the FP were inexperienced (let’s be kind here <g>). Hence our experiment in game 94. As Dave pointed out, doesn’t seem to have helped as both WK and Rhu are eliminated on turn 21 – no state secrets here, as dead nations and updated pairings are reported on the ‘front sheet’ (I think Clint likes to call the cover email to which the turns are attached).
As one who previously opposed Dave’s theory of disadvantaged DS, I must admit that he has some points. Coordination and teamwork make up a lot of DS strength in normal games, more than on the FP side.
My point of view was somewhat influenced by my experience of being on the receiving end of two (obviously rare) occasions when the FP lost GB games. In GB 136 (then Art&Har combo) and 18 (took SG over on t10 when WM were already out) - both games dragged into the thirties, but the outcome was not in doubt until t20 I guess.
The utter helplessness of most FP combos when facing a DS character assault can be a frustrating experience, but so can be the military inferiority of some DS nations. ME Games has done something to mend this by regrouping the combos, for example the Noldo/Harad combo is a hell of a lot stronger than previous Arthedain/Harad.
I think the beef-up for Rhudaur is necessary (though one can debate about the scale), and even with the improvements, Rhu will have a hard time.
There is one thing though that matters much more than fortifications or combos, and that is player skill. Have one key position (Noldo, CL) be occupied by an inept player, and the whole game will be ruined. There is no chance to give advice for teammates and mistakes can be fatal. So GB, as repeatedly said, is strictly for veterans. MEGames has a responsibility here, but the best way is to set up a game among people you know, and you will have a fun time.
Yeah, I agree completely. For the stats I have played in 5 gunboats, DS won 3, FP 1 and DS are currently winning the 5th… mainly because they have a number of the key positions being played very well.
BtW Bernard, I was Cors / Dragonlord in G136… glad to be your nemesis The way I remember it, QA thankfully sent his Vamag army against you, and I just about managed to break the back of S Harad before both my nations went bankrupt (Cors was at 88%+ tax rate for several turns…)
So you dont agree with the Freeps having the advantage in GB as
some other players are claiming? I agree the importance of key
positions being played well in either side is probably the most
important influence on the outcome of the game…
On my experience, DS have the upper hand, but I am sure Clint will have a bigger sameple to draw from.
When I played DkLts / Rhu I really struggled economically and in the end had to let Rhu go to the wall. CL is a better pairing from that point of view.
I can see the case for strengthening Rhu to make it a better standalone nation in the 12v12 scenario. But if you assume that every position is played by a strong player, then Harad is hugely dependent on SG sending navy south / CL looking elsewhere and fails the standalone test imo. If the object is to give everyone a military game, then its not just the Rhu that needs something, and arguably the CL needs to be nerfed.
How about a NKA until t10 1650 gunboat with SuperRhu? Or how about Easterlings is DS, CL doesnt play and Easterlings and Nmen get upgrades ala super-Rhu?
I played in a grudge team recently who replaced Harad with EA just to try
something new… The EA position would have to be beefed up considerably
for it to be viable.
Yes Harad needs a couple of towers in the South bank…
I still think the free people are stronger. Yes Haradwaith gets nuked, but so do the Witch King, Rhuduar and Dragon Lord. The Corsairs can absorb the loss for the Dragon Lord, but the Witch King and Rhudaur are tough to absorb.
Lets see how the no quit gunboats finish 94 and 96 then we can have some hard data to compare.
I think it’s obvious that there a far too many screws to be turned and too many opinions about that, so it seems impossible that we all can agree to new “standard GB rules”. so why should GB games not be individual custom games?
this is the way it could be done (IMHO):
get together a group of people willing to play a gunboat game, 12 to 24 players (two-player teams or single players) of equal skill, who agree to a no-drop policy
agree upon special rules & modifications for the ACTUAL game
distribute nation combos PER RANDOM
write a journal so others can share after game end
have the hell of a game
repeat 2-5 as often as you like, with any desired and consensual changes to the setup
For my part I hope that, when GB 94 should be over, we can keep that bunch of people together and start another GB game, thus creating a stable “GB circle” for many games to come. I guess many of us have reached a point where gaming quality greatly depends on competence not only on their own side, but also the opponents. I wouldn’t want to miss that.
Tim - please note that in GB 96, CO & DragL are out. So i’m not sure about your point on CO absorbing DragL losses… But as you say, we’ll analyze after these games are concluded.
Bernd - bingo! that would be great with me. Though I’m not as keen on the “random” idea as i like some nations (DS or FP) better than others due to play style needed for different nations. But the idea of asking current players if they want another go before opening it up to others would be a fine plan.
It is however interesting to note that there have been drops, even though 94 & 96 are “no-drop” games… Maybe we don’t invite the droppers back…
I thought that was exactly what we had done with game 94, with item 6 being implied rather than explicit. Btw, I kept a journal for the first part of the game, until Dave said he wasn’t keeping one, so I let mine lapse.
The way I remember it, QA thankfully sent his Vamag army against you, and I just about managed to break the back of S Harad before both my nations went bankrupt (Cors was at 88%+ tax rate for several turns…)