Re: ME-PBM; To the Shades of Madness Game 166

From: ZU02578@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu

Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 19:03:56 +0000

In article <35o8bt$ci@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
tolkien@aol.com (Tolkien) writes:

>
>Nate and Croonies:
>
>Game 166 is looking very interesting!  The performance of the Shades has
>gone as predicted, very poor military strategy and a desire to play
>character nations while the Neutrals fight your battles.  To the neutrals
>in game 166.  I have first hand experience while working with the Shades
>as a neutral ally.  They will not let you place in the top three!  Ask any
>neutral in game 72, it was the neutrals which fought every decisive
>battle, while the shades built up their characters to eliminate the
>Neutral nations at the games end.  But in 166 we see a different story.
>It seems the Shades' reputation has proceeded them and now they have to
>fight their own battles.  I'm glad to see these 166 Neutrals know what the
>Shades are about.  The Shades are being pulled down.
>
>Mithnyano

Mithnyano,

Firstly, 72 was not a "Shades" game, though certainly 5 of us played in it.
The other five spots (Witch King, Dragon Lord, Long Rider, Blind Sorcerer,
and Quiet Avenger) were played by others, the first 4 dropping BEFORE TURN
10 (The QA held on longer, but dropped around 20).  Thus the five of us
who remained were left with the neutrals to fight the 10 Free Peoples.
Incidentaly, the Easterlings dropped by turn 5 or so.

You were Dunland in that Game, so it is true you have an amount of first-
hand knowledge of that Game.  However, you have chosen to distort it on a
few points (these are, however, from my point of view.  I leave it to others
to decide which of us is right):

1. The neutrals did not fight EVERY decisive battle.  I hardly think that
   taking out the Northmen, Eothraim, Sinda, and Woodmen were not decisive.
   Neutrals certainly did take out both Gondors mostly alone, as well as
   Cardolan (though my 60+ assassinations helped a little).  I'm not certain
   what happened to the Noldo, but he's out (my guess is the Corsairs attacks
   in Cardolan, and the general beating his side was taking caused him to drop)
   That leaves Arthedain and the Dwarves, who are still playing and being
   attacked by both Evil and "neutral" armies (ie neutrals that have declared).

2. "They will not let you place in the top three!".  This could be based on
   my grumbling after Game 98 (in which the player I am responding to
   played against my team).  In that Game, which ended on turn 12, the neutrals
   took the three top spots (We, the "Shades", won with all neutrals having
   joined our side).  This point is connected to the next one...

3. You claim that in 72 we (whom you mistake as the "Shades") let you (the
   neutrals) fight all the decisive battles while we set up to take you out
   and prevent you from winning.  You and I certainly had our skirmishes (for
   lack of a better word).  Right after your team's quick loss in 98, you
   (as Dunland) sent agents into my PCs (my guess is in retaliation for the
   98 loss).  I naturally struck back against this action and killed off a few
   of your characters.  You then dropped (several months ago).  As to the
   other neutrals, I have stolen from Harad on one or two occassions, but
   have told him about it- and he is free to do the same from me.  The
   Easterlings dropped early, so they don't figure in here.  Rhudaur has
   not been touched by any of us.  Finally the Corsairs: I killed two of
   his characters several turns ago, but I had thought he was out of the
   Game, since none of us had heard from him in so long (he also had
   a character stealing from my PCs- which was one of the characters I
   killed).  I will point out here that Harad and the Corsairs have been
   in and out of the top three for about the last 15 turns or so.

5.  As to 166, only three neutrals have made any sign of their choice.

-Easterlings: after turn one he agreed not to move into certain hexes,
    which he then did (blocking some of our armies).  We attacked.

-Harad and Corsairs: Corsairs and I had talked about taking out Harad,
    but then a conversaiton from Harad suggested that the Corsairs were
    about to attack him (Harad).  I felt the possiblity was there that
    one or both would attack me, so I blew a harbor and ran a defensive
    screen with my Navies (hugging my coast).  Who do I catch?  a combined
    Harad Navy at 2529 (what business, pray tell, did he have there) and I
    also prevented a Corsiars(?) Navy from getting into a PC (where
    I blew the harbor).  Had Harad not even called me, I would most likely
    be out of the Game right now.  Next turn the Corsairs landed on a town
    and this last turn they attacked my Navy and the PC.  Meanwhile North
    Gondor has moved after Harad.  Regardless of whether Harad was going to
    attack me, his phone call consisted of at least two outright lies, and
    his movements seemed to co-ordinate with the other navy that was forced
    to stop at 2429.  I attacked and sank all the Harad forces at 2529 with
    all this in mind.

-Rhudaur/Dunland: no outright choice as of yet (ie blatant attacks).

6. To say the "Shades" are being pulled down is a bit bold.  Certainly we
   are not winning as quickly as we did in 98, but the Evils are not doing
   very much either.  They took everything on their side of Anduin (which
   we didn't defend AT ALL) and a City in Lorien, which we just took back.
   Aside from that, there hasn't been much else taken. Some standard stuff
   around Rhun, but I'm not sure what.  Harad and Corsairs could have easily
   taken me out, but messed that up fairly well.  The Witch King has lost
   a few PCs.  We burned some Ice King stuff and Long Rider camps.  That's
   about it, though I'm sure other things have happened.

-------
Anyway, I've taken up more space than I should, but I think your personal
grudges are clouding your vision.

You say to "ask any neutral in 72".  Ok, Rhudaur and  Harad are both on the
net.  Their words would go far in clearing this up a bit.

***Apologies to all for the size of this response***

Naurmegil
Shades of Madness

PS- if you respond to this, please have the decency to use my Game name
    (which is fairly well recognized and which you well know).  It's important
    to distinguish between Game Persona and real life- especially on the net!

Comments from "enemies", "allies", friends and strangers alike are welcome.
    I like barbs back and forth as much as anyone, but feel that the message
    I am responding to was a bit absurd.

References

ME-PBM; To the Shades of Madness Game 166
tolkien@aol.com (Tolkien)
Wed, 21 Sep 1994 03:13:01 +0000

Referenced By

ME-PBM; To the Shades of Madness Game 166
tolkien@aol.com (Tolkien)
Wed, 21 Sep 1994 03:13:01 +0000