The 5 Neutral nations are:
Corsairs (#21) The nation of the Corsairs consists primarily of descendants of the Dunadan rebels who fled from Gondor in the wake of the Kin-strife of T.A. 1432-47, and their Black Numenorean cousins who resided in Umbar prior to the arrival of the rebels. Led by the exceptional Sea-captain Angamaite and the powerful Teldumeir, the Corsairs have effectively established themselves as a dominant force in the Bay of Belfalas and along the southern coasts. The vast navies of the Corsairs are feared by all and equalled by few. The strategic location of the Corsairs affords them a region that has both plentiful resources and ready access to the vital nearby river valley and the Great Sea. Along with a few mages, the skilled diplomats and agents of the Corsairs wield their powers to much effect throughout the neighboring regions and manage to keep the forces of the Free Peoples and the Dark Servants in check.
Haradwaith (#22) The nation of the Haradwaith consists mainly of the Northern Haradwaith of Near Harad and the peoples who occupy the semi-arid lands south of Mordor, called Harondor, with their greatest settlements being along the seacoast and rivers. Led by Haruth Ramam and Carlon, the Haradwaith regard the Belfalas area to be their own and contest other rival navies for right of passage. The lands about Harondor provide bountiful resources and afford considerable protection from their powerful neighbors. Surrounded by powerful realms of the Free Peoples and the Dark Servants, the Haradan nation utilizes their strategic location and resources to thwart these foreign influences. While their main strength lies in their military might of both armies and navies, they possess individuals with skill in the arcane, as well as the more subtle, arts.
Dunlendings (#23) The nation of the Dunlendings encompasses the large region south of the former realm of Arnor in central Eriador. Consisting of several cooperating clans, loosely led by Enion and Eribhen, the Dunlendings seek to be reunited and restored to the lands of their forefathers. Possessing neither valorous nor skilled warriors, the armies of the Dunlendings rely primarily upon their charismatic leaders and sheer numbers to win the day. However, their forces are accustomed to fighting in all types of terrain (the rougher the better) and possess a wide variety of troops to suit their varied styles and expertise. While few of the Dunlendings aspire toward the arcane arts, the few that have have reached considerable skill. Surrounded by powerful adversaries, the Dunlendings have quietly reinforced their armies and plan to return to the days of old when their people were powerful and influential.
Rhudaur (#24) The glory of Rhudaur has long passed, but the eastern region of the former realm of Arnor still wields some influence and employs numerous swords in northern Eriador. The blood of the Dunedain has almost vanished in Rhudaur. Consisting of several cooperating fiefdoms, loosely led by Arfanhil and Broggha, Rhudaur seeks to be a reunited and restored nation once again. However, some factions favor the policies of the Dark Servants and others the policies of the Free Peoples. The considerable natural resources of Rhudaur are of interest to both sides. While the armies of Rhudaur are adequate to defend their borders, they are lacking in discipline and consist of large numbers of mercenaries. The military commanders of Rhudaur possess some skills in subterfuge and magery, as well as a keen interest in ancient artifacts. This broad spectrum of tools allows the leaders of Rhudaur to balance the strong influences of their neighbors with their own interest in expansion.
Easterlings (#25) The nation of the Easterlings refers to the collection of peoples who occupy the north central region of Middle-earth. This region encompasses part of Rhovanion and all the lands south to Khand. This diverse nation includes the tribes of the Sagath, Logath, Asdriags, Nuriags, and the Variags. Loosely led by Tros Hesnef in the north and Ovatha II of Khand in the south, the Easterlings represent a nation with great potential but numerous pitfalls to overcome. The greatest strength of the Easterlings lies in their fierce and brave warriors, especially their much-feared cavalry. Competent commanders and numerous warriors make this mobile threat very real indeed. Additionally, their skilled mages and adequate agents help make up for the lack of political envoys, and the abundant availability of resources provides the Easterlings with a rich base for growth. The most difficult barriers to be overcome in the Easterling's plans of conquest are the lack of central command and the dispersal of their forces over much of Middle-earth.
General Articles for Neutrals
The Role of Neutrals by Doug ?
Discussion by Tom Walton
The Role of Neutrals by William 'Rock' Chasco
From Doug ? on Neutrals
The topic I suggest here is the role of the Neutral. As a long-time player of neutrals and one who loves these positions more than any allegiance nation, I've heard a wide variety of comments on neutrals. These remarks have ranged the gamut, from favorable to scathingly scatological (these last do not bear repeating in polite company).
Example: in one of my games, a player said that neutrals added 'excitement' to ME-PBM, and allowed an otherwise defeated side some hope of making a comeback. Another player in the same game suggested that I was somehow morally deficient for choosing a neutral in the first place, and that the only 'fair' thing to do would be for me to drop so I didnt' 'ruin' the balance of power!
Different viewpoints indeed.
My own view is that neutrals are necessary, else the game degenerates to a slugfest between two sides whose abilities are well-known. Without the added unpredictable factor that neutrals give to the game, the balance of power remains eternally static and incredibly dull. Worse, the option for playing a game of intrigue and diplomacy falls to nil, unless one is low enough to engage in underhanded deals with the enemy in order to gain an advantage. Of course, many players would just as soon dispense with diplomacy altogether. I've noticed that in the later games the allegiances will rarely even part with a few lousy artifacts to gain a neutral's aid, much less condescend to transferring pop centers or retiring characters (grumble, grumble). Even worse, many players operate on the assumption that neutrals should be wooed to their side, then destroyed in the end-game. The reasoning? Neutrals shouldn't be 'allowed' to win. Frankly (and here's where I'm going to get into trouble, I know it), I think people who deal with the words 'should' and 'fair', getting on a high horse to attribute some moral imperative to a game, are unmitigated twits.In defense of those who complain about neutrals, I do believe they hold too much power. If 4 or 5 neutrals declare for a single side, that side becomes unbeatable assuming competent play. I don't like this any better than anyone else (it makes the game too short and too easy), but I can't see a solution other than to either reduce neutral resources (bad move) or limit the number of neutrals who can join any single side (max of 3 on one side). This last would take an Act of Bill, which happens too rarely to hold out any near-term hope.
Another annoying habit of some neutral players is to stay out of the war grabbing victory points left and right, then declare for the win at the end-game. This, however, isn't the fault of the neutral position per se, but rather of the winning allegiance. If the dolts had any brains, they would've plastered the insolent neutral swine with character attacks prior to the end of the game. The fact that they didn't is their own fault; no neutral can stand against an allegiance in a character war. My own belief is that any southern neutral which doesn't join the war by turn 8 (turn 10 latest) should be destroyed by whichever side holds the advantage (although I've violated this imperative in several games); as for Dunland and Rhudaur, the time frame differs considerably based upon the courseof current events.
Of course, the neutrals could police themselves by joining whichever side is losing (thus evening the score), but how often does this happen? Many players seem to take great joy in winning the game by getting all the neutrals on their side, rather than doing so through skill and acumen. Moreover, a number of players who take neutrals often choose the 'safer' path, in the hopes that they'll grab a winning position.
Reply to Doug
From Tom Walton
I agree that at most of the time a neutral should join the Dark Servants just on general principle. The Servants have a much harder time of it than the Free, especially in winter games (as I recently experienced first-hand), and neutral opposition makes their situation much more desperate.Yet I can't say that I've done this. I've played neutrals six times now; four times I joined the Free, once the Dark Servants, and one time both sides were so bone-headed I just attacked and conquered everyone around me regardless of allegiance (my most enjoyable game yet). Why so?
In three of the four cases where I joined the Free, I did so because Mordor made a pre-emptive strike, either with agents, military units, or both. In all three of these cases, the Dark Servants started off with threats ("join us or die"), either as a group or from individual regional players. In essence, the Dark Servants convinced me that I could expect nothing better than threats and an end-game character war, which irritated me to no end. In the last case, I suffered a brain cramp upon receiving a very friendly letter from a neighoring nation and changed my mind at the last minute (indeed, on the turn I was supposed to cross over the river and conquer said neighbor under Sauron's banner).
Doug's point is well-taken. Unfortunately, I've experienced what he seems to be going through at the hands of Mordor much more often than with the Free Peoples. In only one game has the Dark Servant team actually tried a little diplomacy, and because of that I'm now throwing everything I have (as Harad) into protecting Mordor.
The point being: whether it's the Free or the Servants, picking the team that's least likely to give you the shaft can be difficult. It's also far more important to a neutral than picking a team based upon it's allegiance or how it's doing in the war overall. It's no fun jumping in on a side and giving your all if said side smacks you upside the head with agents and emissaries when the war's all but over.
As a side note: I still find it amazing that some people seem to think that threatening a neutral will actually convince it to join their side. This might work in real life, but not often at all in the game; after all, we players have nothing to lose, and there's no greater satisfaction than stomping all over some obnoxious idiot who's been giving you a hard time - even if such an endeavor results in your ultimate defeat. Dragging an enemy with you to the grave is a time-honored goal in gaming.
If you actually wish to recruit a neutral, beating your chest and grunting won't do it. This juvenile and boorish tactic is only going to alienate the potential ally. Recruitment tends to happen earlier, and much more whole-heartedly, if the allegiance avoids threats altogether and simply tries to convince the neutral just how unified and friendly it is. Throwing in a few minor goodies helps too; after all, if you're the Servants you have artifacts to spare.
What's one or two +20 artifacts in comparison to having the might of a nation equal to any two or three Dark Servants joining your side?
The Role of the Neutrals
by William "Rock" Chasko
I appreciated the recent comments and articles on the role of the neutrals, and also the advice on how a neutral should cope with dubious play by positions in his own allegiance. I think that a forthright, non- threatening announcement early in the game by a neutral that he will use any means to revenge himself if he faces such tactics is probably good play.
I have seen pronouncements in Whispers and have also seen attempts in one of my games wherein two or more neutrals announce the formation of a "defensive alliance." This maneuver did not work in my game; I'm wondering if anyone else has seen a neutral alignment like this in operation - - was it effective? Theoretically, a block of solidly co-operating neutrals, especially if it includes Corsairs and/or Harad, would give pause to either faction. Imagine if Corsairs, Harad, and - say - Dunland announced a mutual security pact. What western Freep would want to antagonize that group?!
[Brian's comment - let me give you a horror story of neutral alliances from game 131. I joined this game with Jeremy Richman and Glen Mayfield, the three of us playing Northern Gondor, the Northmen, and the Sinda, respectively. Southern Gondor, Cardolan and the Dwarves joined as a group as did the other four Free Peoples.
The Dark Servants, likewise, we're filled by three groups. On the neutral side, Rhudaur and the Corsairs joined together as did the Easterlings and Dunlendings. On turn two the Corsairs attacked the Harad while Rhudaur attacked the Duns. On turn three the Duns were out. On turn four the Easterlings dropped and the Witch-King attacked Rhudaur. On turn five Rhudaur was out. On turn six the Corsairs dropped. So, while these neutrals planned cooperatively, they still fell by the wayside.
Don't get me started talking about this game. The play of some of our "allies" has been so poor (or non-existant), I'm likely to do a core dump right there.]
I see no reason to make any rules changes at all affecting neutrals. I like their effect on play, especially early in the game. The FP especially have to take the myriad options open to the sea-faring neutrals into account in the early turns. Can you imagine the effect on action in the lower Anduin if the Gondors had a free hand and did not have to consider the possibility of a Corsair/Harad amphibious assault? I would also like to see some discussion/commentary on the prospects for neutrals in a TEAM game. It seems that a neutral with good diplomatic skills could play off the different factions in a team game and thereby stand a much better chance of placing in the top three than s/he would in a grudge game.
Another thought: GSI currently limits neutral 'teams' to two players
At the heart of the neutral question lie issues of play balance and fair play. We would all like to see three neutrals (including either Harad or Corsairs) opt for the DS every game. That would balance play. If the neutrals which join an allegiance can develop some solidarity among themselves, they can insure that the other allegiance members will treat them fairly - especially if they make it known that they will go "no holds barred" if one of them is messed with by a player on his own side. In reality, what happens with neutrals is that two, three, or four of them drop by turn 15 in most games, leaving the one or two who remain friendless and relatively powerless.
One possible solution would be to develop a player rating system such as is used for tournament chess. Players would get rating points based on their final score in their games. The points awarded would be handicapped by the position they play (doing well with Woodmen gets you more points then doing well with Corsairs or Noldo). Players would receive bonus rating points for how long they stayed in a game: DROPPING EARLY WOULD DAMAGE A PLAYER'S RATING. I'd love to be in the top 10 (or 25, or whatever I could achieve) rated ME-PBM players IN THE WORLD!, and I would play my best to the bitter end if I thought dropping would cost me hard-earned rating points.
Games could be filled based on ratings; higher rated players would get the tougher positions. If the data continues to show a win bias in favor of the DS, this could be adjusted by placing stronger players in the FP positions. Most delightful of all, their could be 'bracketed' games similar to the Game of Champions where all players in the game have a similar rating and therefore a similar skill level.
Two thirds of the games I've been in have been marred by excessive, premature drops. A rating system, or SOME OTHER INCENTIVE TO REMAIN IN THE GAME and play your best would help the neutrals, and increase the quality of the game. Anybody got any other ideas about how to create that kind of incentive?
[Tom's note: this assumes that the people in question actually care about the ratings. While I thought the idea was creative, I'm one of those people who isn't worried in the slightest about how I rate against others. It's nice to win, sure, but I can't see much reason to amass large amounts of victory points if it compromises the fun I'm having. In the same vein, I don't see any reason to stay in a game where players are being unreasonably rude and obnoxious, or where one player simply refuses to drop out (and so drags the game on forever).
But I can think of one way to keep people in - a non-refundable fee on the first 20 turns. Even if you drop, you don't get your money back. Tough luck. Hit 'em in the wallet to get their attention.]