I want to penalize a neutral for jumping into a game after it is
already decided. This is one area where the individual scoring
system clearly breaks down, even if you think it's OK for alliance
players. Especially in 2950, if you sit still for 15
turns without
needing a big standing army you can develop into a huge
economic power.
Hey - you can still play for fun - but you should get a
ratings boost
for actually helping a team win rather than jumping on the winning
side. Somthing like the 4th age rule (declare allegiance by
turn 12
or not at all) seems pretty reasonable to me.
You and Brad seem to have forgotten what neutral means... And
you want to penalise those who do know.
I sometimes think I'm the only ME player who plays neutrals
as neutrals. A neutral who stays neutral throughout the game,
for whatever reason, has actually met his nation's obligations.
It is up to the Free or the Dark Servants to convince a neutral
to change at some point. There is no time limit, nor should there
be one.
--- In mepbmlist@y..., Gavin Wynford-Jones <gavinwj@c...> wrote:
You and Brad seem to have forgotten what neutral means... And
you want to penalise those who do know.
I sometimes think I'm the only ME player who plays neutrals
as neutrals. A neutral who stays neutral throughout the game,
for whatever reason, has actually met his nation's obligations.
It is up to the Free or the Dark Servants to convince a neutral
to change at some point. There is no time limit, nor should there
be one.
Gavin
The only mention of a nation's "obligations" that I'm aware
of are 1) expansion of power (nation descriptions detail all
nation's desire to become bigger, faster, stronger, etc) and
2) Victory Conditions. Where does it say that all neutrals
should remain so? Are you proposing penalizing neutrals who
DO change allegiance, as it appears you're implying they don't
know how to play..? Seems the only literature I've read that
may be accepted as quasi-official makes mention of neutrals
deciding which allegiance to join.
And, as was pointed out earlier, in FA, there IS a time limit.
With a proposal to "penalize" (or reduce the bonus of...)
late-declaring neutrals, one must presume arguments would
run along the lines of "how late is late" with one of many
possible individual opinions being "Never". If you'd like
to show why you seem to consider this the answer with more
details besides the fact that you know it to be true, please
do so, as I truly don't know what you mean.
--- In mepbmlist@y..., Gavin Wynford-Jones <gavinwj@c...> wrote:
> I want to penalize a neutral for jumping into a game after it is
> already decided. This is one area where the individual scoring
> system clearly breaks down, even if you think it's OK for alliance
> players. Especially in 2950, if you sit still for 15
turns without
> needing a big standing army you can develop into a huge
> economic power.
>
> Hey - you can still play for fun - but you should get a
> ratings boost
> for actually helping a team win rather than jumping on the winning
> side. Somthing like the 4th age rule (declare allegiance by
turn 12
> or not at all) seems pretty reasonable to me.
You and Brad seem to have forgotten what neutral means... And
you want to penalise those who do know.
I sometimes think I'm the only ME player who plays neutrals
as neutrals. A neutral who stays neutral throughout the game,
for whatever reason, has actually met his nation's obligations.
It is up to the Free or the Dark Servants to convince a neutral
to change at some point. There is no time limit, nor should there
be one.
Gavin
Sitting on the sideline just running up your points without doing
anything should not be rewarded with a score "bonus". The point of
being a neutral is *choosing* a team and then working as hard as any
allied nation to have your team win. It is not sitting on the
sidelines and waiting 20 turns until you jump in and "win" first place
for, in game terms, doing nothing at all to earn that win.
I would think that not actually engaging anyone would be terminally
boring. If someone wants to do it - fine. They shouldn't expect to
be rated as a good player by a ratings system - because as far as the
other 24 players in the game are concerned, they're not one. Doing
nothing isn't exactly a test of skill
For background, lets look at the LOTR trilogy, which is what MEPBM is
based on afterall. In that sense, there arent any neutrals. The
Corsairs, after conquering the Haradrim, attack the Pelagir. Why?
ancient rivalry (or maybe Pelagir was one of their VC?) The Duns
sided with Saruman, who in turn sided with Sauron, why? artifacts and
power (Maybe owning the One Ring was a VC for Saruman, Hornburg for
the Duns?, Rhudaur sided with the WK and was wiped out whilst wiping
our the remnants of Arnor! And finally, the Easterlings were just
land hungry!
So, in that respect, from a purist point of view, if you will, there
arent any neutrals. But, the ancient designers of said game decided
to make it more interesting and allow you to plot your own course. To
be swayed by Sauron or to "do the right thing" and help fight off the
evil in Middle Earth. So, in this respect, I believe that a neutral
should choose sides at some point. That is why they are there, sure
they can be used and manipulated by the alliances (i.e. Duns
manipulated by Saruman) and it is up to the individual player to
determine if he will be swayed by silvery words!
In respects to forcing a declaration and points deducations for late
newts. Why not combine them. Basically, if a newt declares after turn
12, then he would recieve some sort of deduction? This way, you arent
forced to decide on joining an alliance, but you will pay a penalty
for jumping aboard on the last turn before the FP/DS decide to drop
en masse. I think most games are usually in a grove by turn 12 and
if, as a newt you havent made arrangements to declare by then, you
probably arent going to (or you are going to drop!)
Fletcher Brown
--- In mepbmlist@y..., "pbmnoot" <pbmnoot@y...> wrote:
···
--- In mepbmlist@y..., Gavin Wynford-Jones <gavinwj@c...> wrote:
> You and Brad seem to have forgotten what neutral means... And
> you want to penalise those who do know.
> I sometimes think I'm the only ME player who plays neutrals
> as neutrals. A neutral who stays neutral throughout the game,
> for whatever reason, has actually met his nation's obligations.
> It is up to the Free or the Dark Servants to convince a neutral
> to change at some point. There is no time limit, nor should there
> be one.
>
> Gavin
The only mention of a nation's "obligations" that I'm aware
of are 1) expansion of power (nation descriptions detail all
nation's desire to become bigger, faster, stronger, etc) and
2) Victory Conditions. Where does it say that all neutrals
should remain so? Are you proposing penalizing neutrals who
DO change allegiance, as it appears you're implying they don't
know how to play..? Seems the only literature I've read that
may be accepted as quasi-official makes mention of neutrals
deciding which allegiance to join.
And, as was pointed out earlier, in FA, there IS a time limit.
With a proposal to "penalize" (or reduce the bonus of...)
late-declaring neutrals, one must presume arguments would
run along the lines of "how late is late" with one of many
possible individual opinions being "Never". If you'd like
to show why you seem to consider this the answer with more
details besides the fact that you know it to be true, please
do so, as I truly don't know what you mean.
You and Brad seem to have forgotten what neutral means... And
you want to penalise those who do know.
I sometimes think I'm the only ME player who plays neutrals
as neutrals. A neutral who stays neutral throughout the game,
for whatever reason, has actually met his nation's obligations.
It is up to the Free or the Dark Servants to convince a neutral
to change at some point. There is no time limit, nor should there
be one.
Gavin
Gavin I believe you are wrong on the time limit point. If I remeber
correctly under the original GSI rules a neutral that did not declare
could not win or place in a game except grudges. So if as a neutral
you don't declare and the game ends you have not met your obligations
(whatever that means) or even tried. Unless of course one is playing
not to win.I don't know Harly's policy on this aspect. I could be
wrong on this as it's been many(dead) brain cells ago.
The quality of play,knowledge of the game,and speed of e-mail has
literraly changed the game. Why not change the ratings.
If people want a rating system that's cool with me. If you don't, do
what I'll do and that is ignore it.After playing with someone 5-10
turns I know what I need to know about a persons skills.
nick
Looking back at the books, the spirits from the Paths of the Dead (can't remember the name of the nation) agreed to help the Free but then stood aside in the actual battle. They only finally honoured their oath after Aragorn called on them. If that isn't a late declaration then I don't know what is. OK, I agree that they were pretty heavily penalised for not declaring earlier but at least they had the choice.
Richard
···
----- Original Message -----
From: fletcherhbrown
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:58 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Penalize Neutrals...? When and/or Why Not?
Time to toss in my spare change!
For background, lets look at the LOTR trilogy, which is what MEPBM is
based on afterall. In that sense, there arent any neutrals. The
Corsairs, after conquering the Haradrim, attack the Pelagir. Why?
ancient rivalry (or maybe Pelagir was one of their VC?) The Duns
sided with Saruman, who in turn sided with Sauron, why? artifacts and
power (Maybe owning the One Ring was a VC for Saruman, Hornburg for
the Duns?, Rhudaur sided with the WK and was wiped out whilst wiping
our the remnants of Arnor! And finally, the Easterlings were just
land hungry!
So, in that respect, from a purist point of view, if you will, there
arent any neutrals. But, the ancient designers of said game decided
to make it more interesting and allow you to plot your own course. To
be swayed by Sauron or to "do the right thing" and help fight off the
evil in Middle Earth. So, in this respect, I believe that a neutral
should choose sides at some point. That is why they are there, sure
they can be used and manipulated by the alliances (i.e. Duns
manipulated by Saruman) and it is up to the individual player to
determine if he will be swayed by silvery words!
In respects to forcing a declaration and points deducations for late
newts. Why not combine them. Basically, if a newt declares after turn
12, then he would recieve some sort of deduction? This way, you arent
forced to decide on joining an alliance, but you will pay a penalty
for jumping aboard on the last turn before the FP/DS decide to drop
en masse. I think most games are usually in a grove by turn 12 and
if, as a newt you havent made arrangements to declare by then, you
probably arent going to (or you are going to drop!)
Fletcher Brown
--- In mepbmlist@y..., "pbmnoot" <pbmnoot@y...> wrote:
> --- In mepbmlist@y..., Gavin Wynford-Jones <gavinwj@c...> wrote:
>
> > You and Brad seem to have forgotten what neutral means... And
> > you want to penalise those who do know.
>
> > I sometimes think I'm the only ME player who plays neutrals
> > as neutrals. A neutral who stays neutral throughout the game,
> > for whatever reason, has actually met his nation's obligations.
> > It is up to the Free or the Dark Servants to convince a neutral
> > to change at some point. There is no time limit, nor should there
> > be one.
> >
> > Gavin
>
> The only mention of a nation's "obligations" that I'm aware
> of are 1) expansion of power (nation descriptions detail all
> nation's desire to become bigger, faster, stronger, etc) and
> 2) Victory Conditions. Where does it say that all neutrals
> should remain so? Are you proposing penalizing neutrals who
> DO change allegiance, as it appears you're implying they don't
> know how to play..? Seems the only literature I've read that
> may be accepted as quasi-official makes mention of neutrals
> deciding which allegiance to join.
>
> And, as was pointed out earlier, in FA, there IS a time limit.
>
> With a proposal to "penalize" (or reduce the bonus of...)
> late-declaring neutrals, one must presume arguments would
> run along the lines of "how late is late" with one of many
> possible individual opinions being "Never". If you'd like
> to show why you seem to consider this the answer with more
> details besides the fact that you know it to be true, please
> do so, as I truly don't know what you mean.
>
> Brad
