I think this is very appropriate even though it was deliberate. It is also part of the game if a team alienates one of their own, so goes after them. It is all part of playing a "team" game, where it is anything other than a grudge game.
Randy
···
From: ShawnGlass@aol.com
Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Thoughts on players attacking team-mates
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 18:16:41 EDTIn a message dated 10/21/2001 7:09:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
me@MiddleEarthGames.com writes:> What if it is deliberate? (and taken in context)
>
> Clint
>
> > I don't know about the "transfer money to enemy nation's pc" though.
>Once I played the Dunlendings in a 1650 game and was attacked by the FP
within the first few turns (before turn 5)....Well I should say "attempted"
to be attacked. The FP moved on my capital, and I was hardly expecting this
and had only my paltry starting troops (hey wait a minute, I'm
neutral...what's going on?). I was told by the FP that the armies were going
to issue attack orders, and the only way to remain in game was to change
allegiance that turn (needless to say I tried all avenues of diplomacy,
mentioning that change allegiance orders are not even guaranteed, but that
was not their concern). In one way I was furious, but in another, I realized
that was how the rules were written, and nothing they did violated the game
(although from a rolpelaying sense I would have felt better if the DS were
using this tactic ; ). In fact, some would call the move genius since it
eliminated one unknown in the FP struggle. So I did the only thing I could,
and issued orders to switch FP, pledging my support to the Free. All my
commanders in my capital issued the order, and I was successful. From that
point on I role-played the part of "Wormtongue," giving lip service to the
Free while paying homage to the Dark Servants. I was left alone to build my
nation once I was FP, since they had completed their objective of eliminating
a potenial threat. I quickly improved my holdings and sent my emissaries to
the areas of my map that only I could see to create PC's, and funded the DS
nations against my true enemies. I transferred Pop centers when they needed
them, and when I was finally the last FP in the game, I accepted my personal
victory and dropped my position, assuring my DS team the victory.Would this be viewed as malicious, or as deliberately working against my
allegiance, and would I be punished for it and not allowed to transfer pop
centers to my actual DS allies when they needed a new capital? Would I be
allowed to share my vast wealth with the opposing allegiance?I must say, I was enraged when the FP initially made their decision and
forced my hand, but I had a blast playing the nation afterwards. As
mentioned, I do not even feel what the FP did was wrong...again, the rules
systems allow for neutrals to be sweet talked or attacked. I could have
easily been eliminated if my order failed, and decided to quit playing middle
earth because of the bad experience. Would Harley have stepped in to stop an
action that could have caused a player to not enjoy the game and never play
again?I think GSI created the rules that way on purpose (esp. with concerns to FA
1000). Neutrals are of the same allegiance, but can attack each other. And
those of the same allegiance occasionally turn on their allies throughout
Tolkein's works. The Dwarves and the Elves did not share their secrets with
each other, and look at what Feanor and the Noldo did when the Silmarils were
stolen... I think the victory conditions were established because of this,
and each player can decide what path to take in concern to these. I also
think that the many examples of an allegiance turning in Tolkein's works
(Feanor, Saruman, ...) make it inappropriate to stop harmful actions by one
allegiance member to another.With that of course come a few key exceptions that are house rules already,
if I am not mistaken. If one player registered and played multiple nations
of differing allegiances, this would be unfair to beginning game balance and
the moderator should step in if discovered. Also, personal attacks outside
of the actual game should be monitored. You can make fun of my ME nation all
you want, but to use racial slurs and insults about any actual player should
not be allowed. These go outside the bounds of the actual game rules and
mechanics.The fact is, a player who wants to screw over another member of his
allegiance is almost impossible to stop unless the actual rules are changed.
OK, so I am told I cannot transfer gold to "enemies" or assassinate members
of my own allegiance and that I better be a good player or I will be
replaced. A skillful player can agree and still send info to the other
allegiances about his team. He can make sure a much needed gold or PC
transfer he promised to his allies was never executed...and the list goes on.
A player can also not reveal any info he gets from scouts, rumors, etc, to
his allegiance. Is this right (hell no..sometimes...of course?).Some people are just not good team players. You quickly learn that to avoid
this you join Grudge games. I play both, and know full well when I join a
new game on my own, I may meet some great players (and new friends), and also
find people I will actively avoid in future games. Would I be pissed if a
member of my allegiance turned on me and used the info I gave him to kill my
characters and take my pop centers...YES. Would I want the moderator to step
in and stop it, NO WAY. My role-playing side would quickly step in, and I'd
withdraw from the great Free Vs Dark war and wage my own personal campaign
against what I considered an even greater rival. I would even send word to
those not of my allegiance in hopes of enlisting aid, giving them details
about my new target, and have fun playing the new game put in front of me.It's nice to know Harley cares about us players...but sometimes, we have more
fun when our parents don't come to our aid and let things play out on their.
The scope of the rules allows allegiances to work against each other...and
most of us play this game because of the uncertainty of what other players
will do. Otherwise I could just be playing a computer game against a bunch
of AI's. I appreciate the messages from Harley when I leave an order
incomplete, but would hate to have my orders influenced for the "good of the
game." I have seen allegiances in very even games drop just because they had
their agent squad eliminated. I can testify that a team dropping was not
good for the game, but that altering the result that caused the exodus would
not be any better. Anything that falls within the rules of the game should
be allowed, and if this appears to grossly violate the game, then the rules
allowing the action should be changed. Deciding which actions that work
within the rules but cause other players grief and therefore will not be
allowed isn't a role I think anybody should assume...the rules should already
do that for us.Shawn Glass, playing ME-PBM from its historic
beginnings...(bring back VENOM...he he, just kidding)[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp