I wonder what is the best game for me, and am welcoming your input.
Having played and won some games back in ancient times (early and mid-90s), I only returned to MEPBM this past spring. I entered into a 1-week game which lasted around 11 turns (#80). When I did join a side, there was a flurry of files being shared by all participants, xml and pdfs. I knew when Arfanhil sneezed and when Lanaigh used the potty … just too much information, thank you.
I am now in a Gunboat game and having a blast. However, there is no information being shared. I do wish I had a smidgeon more information to go off of. This leads me into what I like and wish I could do differently.
~ I like sharing of information, but not all info. File sharing of xml for mapping programs would rule.
~ However, I wish the pdf files did not include the front page of victory conditions. Those are secret goals. Telling your ally that you want his top emissary ganked is just not right. Perhaps have two pdfs and one xml in each mailing. One pdf contains just the cover page of the turn (and those victory conditions) and the second pdf has the remaining portion of the turn.
~ Not sure I like sharing pdfs at all, truth be told, as people in this relatively small MEPBM community know people on the other side. Showing allies that my mage Wizo has spelled the location of artifact #200 in hex 2222 has the possibility of getting out to the opposition. Or perhaps simply an ally decides he wants that same artifact and is just happy to drop in on it himself before Wizo can arrive. Sharing in grudge games is fine, but the 1-week game I was in seemed to share a bit too much for my blood.
Hence, is there a game setup that has frequent map sharing, but not everyone is expected to share pdfs and orders amongst each other?
[i]I am now in a Gunboat game and having a blast. However, there is no information being shared. I do wish I had a smidgeon more information to go off of. This leads me into what I like and wish I could do differently.
~ I like sharing of information, but not all info. File sharing of xml for mapping programs would rule. [/i]
It’s a format that I’ve consider trying to develop. Note most players don’t seem to care too much about VCs but if you’re worried you can always edit the Acrobat pdf with Acrobat Exchange, delete the front page, and send on your turn.
VC’s…? Gads, some randomly generated idiocy that means nothing. Find other goals, leave those old fluff pieces where they belong - sitting in the bottom of a mailbox in the 90’s…
You do not get a prize for “placing”. You do not get a free game, free turn, free setup, guaranteed nation, etc. They’re part of the program and total “victory points” get spat out of the program when they click the “game end” button or whatever, but do they “Mean” anything?? Only in the hearts and minds of men who think they do. You’re free to worship the magic apple tree in your backyard if you wish, but amongst the rest of the world they “mean” very little at this point.
Also note, the Europeans players, at least from Harlequin games, never “won” anything, apparently for their Victory Point Score. Whether that’s right or wrong based on how the game was designed before the internet is irrelevant. Right now it’s a matter of how does the Allegiance defeat the other side. All that information is necessary, providing it’s analyzed intelligently and actually implemented, to further the cause of Victory - for the Allegiance. The only rating I care about is from the other players in the community - if it’s good, we’ll play well together and get along, having more fun along the way.
As a youngster I once had a magic arrow head, but … well, that is another story.
If victory conditions do not add flavor into the game, then you are correct that those should not be driving factors for resolution. Sharing among teammates does then take a priority … I see that now.
The goal of VCs was to give each nation its own secret agenda which could have been interesting - however, players always had far more vested interest in the team so, for example, the CL wasn’t going to off Maben to get another 100 points. Unless there is a set up where there are stronger incentives to get VCs, they will continue to occupy the dustbin of most players’ minds.
There is something to be said for less information - there are almost no tricks or secrets anymore - between sharing of information, message boards and the fact that most players have been around long enough to see most things anyway, it can lead to more formulaic games.
The best solution is to come up with new ways to play the game. If you can find people to fill a game for a new concept, it seems Clint is willing to run it. There was a game with virtual ‘message cards’ from the early days of MEPBM - sounded like fun. Fees were slightly higher as there was significantly more work.
There are always new ways to play the existing 1650 scenario. When involved in strategy discussions, there are lots of possibilities. What we so often run into are the players who “know” the “best move” and insist on repeating it over and over and over and over and over again. I have no idea why they keep playing, frankly… I’d rather lose trying something new than win in formulaic fashion.
I agree. I have not looked at VC’s since I started the game. I love the grudge format and don’t care whether my allies know my VC’s or not. They are just fluff in the team setting. The team wins or no-one wins.
You are, of course, correct. Furthermore, there are widely accepted standardized moves that are potentially not the ideal.
I do have a few pet peeves about the game as is, though:
a) Set artifacts - do not like the start of the game artifact chase; having numbers or powers randomized would add more to the game
b) Rhudaur - there may be individual situations where it makes sense for Rhudaur to go Free, so I won’t make a blanket statement here; but playing Rhudaur, there are very few things that would convince me not to go Dark immediately. Fence sitting or going Free makes the WK a study in being abused.
c) Neutrals - this point has been discussed in depth, but there are a multitude of problems here. One is that HA/CO are strongly incentivized to stick together. I am in a 1650 game where RH went Free - the CO/HA went Dark and, although the other Neuts were leaning Dark, we suggested, and they accepted, that they go Free to make the game more interesting. Chosing sides based on competitiveness does not seem the general order of the day and, while I can understand a player’s right to make that decision based upon whatever metrics they value the most, these decisions can ruin games.
Obviously, the majority of players and majority of games will be straight 1650 scenarios, so it is in everyones’ interests to keep them interesting and compelling. Having said that, I wouldn’t mind some other ideas tried (such as a nation draft for sides) or something else.
Yes, back in the first years of the game, when email was not even birthed yet and most people had did not even own a computer, communication was stunted to the telephone expense or 3x5 cards. Moving with secret agendas was the norm for many players, though certainly not in grudge games. It did matter if you ended up in 1st, 3rd or 8th place for there was a reward of varying types (first choice of setup and free turns in your next game).
Having victory conditions caused players to alter strategies from the norm. If the Dog Lord had to own Osgiliath, he may have sent his dog troops there on turn one or two rather than aiming against the Eothraim. If the Blind Sorcerer had to own a specific artifact (of medium power say), he may have spent his first casting upon it rather than one of the major agent artifacts which is more likely the norm.
Players speak of wanting variety, and victory conditions were one of the components of that.
Back in the day (I played a few games then), gameplay was definitely different. However, it would be nearly impossible to bring that back.
The closest you can come is playing a neutral and going for points - e.g. join the alliance that will best help you get your VCs and do what you can to accumulate points. You can let the alliance you join (if you join) know that you will not share turns - you will just give them a brief report and a map update and ask the same from them. Explain to them that you prefer some fog of war to recreate the old feel - some eccentricity is generally tolerated from Neutrals.
