Just curious to get some feedback on the 1000 changes we’ve made recently.
Generic feedback would be interesting as well here.
Clint
I participated in FA 144 & 145 last year in the midst of the FA rules upgrade. And I just now designed and submitted 2 nations for the new FA GB 48. I really like the new regions better than the ones we had last year, especially the one-nation per region rule. This will give nations (even ones in congested regions) a chance to get their act together prior to being pounced upon by the enemy. I think the new SNA bonus cash for unpopular/poor-production regions in addition to the prior pop upgrades is also a nice touch. So all in all, I think the rules are indeed an improvement. The modification to cost for different skill class also reflects the value of those starting character types and is a good change. A50 max is also good.
Good work and kudos to everyone who has been participating in the fasup group to get to this point!
Dave
It was so easy, it confused me, LOL
I like the new FA changes. I had given up on the FA after my second game where my nation was pounced on by an enemy team that had the kidnap/assass bonus and double scouts. It really made my day when I saw that my four characters in my capital army were kidnapped on turn 2. (it downhill from there) 
With the new changes, that won’t happen as fast which should make a better game.
Scavenger
Hey! You just copied the map I sent you!! Lol 
Yeah OK, but you stole my SNA’s, so I had to change mine around, and still had to change some of the pops from your “copied” map, good thing I didn’t copy off your test in school, I’d still be a 40 yr old Freshmen, LOL
Lol, you saying you arent a 40 year old freshmen? Hmmm, now your
SNA’s were totally different but ok… 
I know there’s a lot more 1000 players out there - care to comment? I’d like to know if we’re going in the right direction here.
Clint
Well, I’ve only set up in two games now; one old and one new. I think the newer regions were a great idea as it gives everyone at least one reliable PC set up due to the… uh… orange dots on the new map. At least, I think they were orange. It’s useful since insurance is out the window nowadays.
Also, the latest character design rules seem a bit more even. Thanks for not getting rid of that perfect A40 w/ C10 & stealth 10 as a Price bonus for 800 gold… even though I didn’t take it this time.
My 20 Won worth (about $0.02 USD),
Dennis
Overall excellent, even the new players I helped get into the game understood most of it and the excel fille from Mulka is really well done.
There are some minor things I have noticed in the 2 games I’ve been in, mostly involving some of the regions (south mirkwood and north mirkwood come to mind) and their general poor set-up for advantage ratio, but in most cases minor. I’d still love to see a way to give more remote regions (those surrounded by enemies like Rhun is in 43) gain some boon to help their surviability as this would likely decrease drops a bit (not that rhun dropped), but over all it is a sound improvement IMO.
See ya,
Ken
I’d like to second Ken’s compliments to Mike Mulka for the FA setup spreadsheet. Brilliant! Mike, you are an excel god.
Thirded… 
Mike for Excel President.
(those surrounded by enemies like Rhun is in 43)
Rhun is one of the most popular regions in the game. With the safe capital hex and eastern edge it’s regularly picked so I think that on the whole players feel it’s strong.
What’s wrong with the Mordor regions? What could be done to improve them?
What other improvements would you make to the format? I quite like the concept of SNA bonuses for the Northern regions vs economy of the south. Maybe we can extend that? (Eg lose 1 village from your set-up gain 2,000 gold to SNAs).
What about other ideas?
Clint
The rhun region is excellent, the component I was mentioning was the isolation from allies/surronded by enemies in game 43.
The mordor regions are some of the best in the game, east mordor is incredible. The regions I feel are an issue currently are southern mirkwood and to a lesser extent northern mirkwood. These are currently “any” regions as in people who pick “any” regularly get placed there. I believe these can probably be fixed by adding them to the free MT instead of Town listing.
One thought is the south is no longer as strong as it was in the past as with the extra pop centers, the game is hitting camp limits turn 4! that is a max of 3 camps per emmy if they are starting characters. This lessens both the emmy advantage (though not enough to reduce the cost IMO) but makes the south’s boon a bit less. In otherwords I think the north has come to be roughly as good, or close as the south. And in general, more options tends to allow people more ability to min/max which can break games. So I personally dislike the trade in upgrades for more SNA’s.
“What other improvements would you make to the format? I quite like the concept of SNA bonuses for the Northern regions vs economy of the south. Maybe we can extend that? (Eg lose 1 village from your set-up gain 2,000 gold to SNAs).”
The one nice thing here is less starting pop centers.
“What about other ideas?”
Some ideas which spring to mind:
Regional Fortifications: Much like you have the free upgrade and tower for roads and mountains, grant fortifications based on the general threat level of the area:
Near & Far Harad, Eriandor, Dunland, Lorien, Rhudaur, Rhovanion: Tower
Southern Mirkwood, Northern Mirkwood: Fort
Or alternately give them extra pop center gold (1 or 3K) to give them more options.
This would offset these locations general issue of poor general placement and or the fact they often face threats from two sides (or 3 sides for the mirkwoods).
A simple idea regarding improving the position of isolated regions is:
If there are more enemies in adjecent regions (neutrals count as enemies to free and darks, and vice versa) then allies, gain a free 1000 gold for pop centers (or 2000 if your region is not adjecent to the edge of the map or on the sea).
If there are no allies in adjecent regions, gain a free 3000 gold for pop centers (or 5000 if not on edge or sea).
Does the game need it? I think to some extent (though the town to MT upgrade is probably enough) it might needs something for these situations, but a good player is not replaced by a free fort and some probably feel there needs to be weak regions in the game.
Another issue:
From what I see, the neutral team has a real advantage and there is little incentive for the 2-5 “true neutrals” to switch sides (this assumes a 8/8/9 split, both kingdoms are neutral) especially with a kingdom being aligned at start. I really have no idea how to correct this, but it is a big enough issue that that it plus the three way game is enough to lessen the interested of 6 of the 8 guys who play MEPBM with me from wanting to hit 4th age again. I think the idea of no contact between the three sides (and no true neutrals) is GREAT and that concept would get some of them interested, but I know that is a specialty game and not the standard.
One idea would be to simply give the free and darks the (adjecent enemy) bonus described above to pop center money, counting neutrals as foes, but not give it to neutrals.
Another possiblity is to do a 9/9/7 split, but neutrals get both kingdoms. Problem with that is if 4 are true neutrals it leaves a 3 person aligned neutral team which is probably too weak. Another option is a 8/8/9 split with a kingdom each to the free and darks.
As for SNA advantages for the north instead of a free pop center,why not let them cash in the bonus pop centers as you mentioned perhaps at a rate of 1000 for a camp, 2000 for a village, 4000 for a town, and 6000 for a MT?
Just some thoughts.
See ya,
Ken
I think I’m in line w/ Ken’s comments about the neutral teaming/lack of incentive. In the very beginning I rather thought this whole scenario was more or less a battle royal but the alliances have held still to this day…ds always wanna pound the free and the neutrals fully expect to be fondled lovingly while they build up for ever then clobber the opposition for a time…
my main gripe is this game has become more robotic than I had hoped…in the beginning it was thought that agents were over powerful, then the claim was emissaries, now my claim is that it’s too much cav…no variation occurs anymore in a scenario that was suppoosed to have all kinds of freedom…
w/o fail I see 3-5 nations per side making cav…which is fine…but what’s the point in the other snas if all we’re going to see everybody’s brother making cav and hiring for free? It may be just my own bitchin but I liked 1650 better because every nation has different setups…not every nation looks like another nation albeit the names and faces are different…
I would like to see something along the same lines as what is done w/ the +20 a/k each game…only so many nations get those hire for free/mounts combinations…only so many nations get market/emis combo…blah blah
I just think that if we can limit the mundane choices it forces more creativity for the nations…I took several snas before that it seems dont get much attention and i actually got laughed at for it…why would u take mages and not the mounts and hire for free? What’s the point?
The point was to design a nation that was more fun to play IMO…
feel free to tell me I’m daft, I just wanted to comment.
Jaz Morgulhammer (wyndhammer’s bro)
Hya Jaz
That’s what I’ve tried to do with the SNAs, change the costings so that they were more interesting and therefore more varied designs. (Ditto for regions on the map, and try to make a more “realistic” approach to pcs in Mountains and on roads). Note we have more varied designs now-adays compared to before.
I think we’ve succeeded in using the entirely of the map now - and broadly that systems for PC set-ups seems to work (could be tweaked and improved, or even radically re-designed - but generally it seems to offer choice for regional placement).
Ditto for the Characters - they are drastically changed (within the remit that you still have 8 at game start and have 6k to spend but the type of characters have changed drastically over the last few games).
If you’ve got specific suggestions that would be interesting to hear. One way to effectively limit the SNAs that players pick is to change their costings. So how would you (or anyone else change these?). It’s possible that combat nations are too strong but if so then I’d say just slightly so (I’ve seen them work and not work so I think that they are roughly even to character improvement - which is what I think 1000 is strong on).
[ul]Navies is something we specifically tried to address - basically they were un-cost effective - now there seem to be a lot more navy nations out there which I think adds to the game.
[/ul]
Clint (GM)
why would u take mages and not the mounts and hire for free? What’s the point?
Well as a player I agree that if you have Mages them you must have Conjure Mounts - unless you’re going for Weakness squads. I’ve done the artefact searching bit as well (done nearly all the items for 412/418/428) and think that that bit is under-rated by players.
But note the above is partially because I rate Cavalry as around 2.5x as good as HI so anything that can get you to cavalry is worth the investment. I’d say it’s not the strongest bang for your buck to pick anything else. Hire for free I personally think is over-rated. 
But isn’t that part of the beauty of 1000 - that different players have different opinions on what’s correct/best?
Clint (player)
Clint,
I am down w/ the sna cost changes…I think I liked the “other” ds spells partly b/c it allowed to try another tilt to the game by allowing other things to be bought w/ the same money…
Personally I think mages are underworked and can add much to the power of an army as well as provide tons of useful intel on one’s enemies…so I’m not overly concerned about the not conjuring…
If most people seem happy w/ the current setup situations then I’m cool w/ trying oddball setups to see how much fun I can have…
I agree that the setups are better, I like the regional aspect and the improved characters…
all in all I’m a happy guy, no rain on my parade…baby…
Jaz Morgulhammer
:eek: How dare he use my name!!
Here are my two cents. The regional placements are quite good for spacing out nations and keeping things from becoming crowded in the beginning. I think the characters aspect is fine, but I think keeping the agents so expensive is a touch overdone. I understand most folks aversion to agents, but I think a few high powered folks is a good thing. Speaking of which, the only aspect of the game I have any quibble with is the mageling’s lack of power. The much feared curse squad is history and though a weakness squad is possible it takes forever and a holiday to get it going. Also, I find that artifacts are underutilized in the new scenario. In my opinion, the artifacts are a rich part of the history of MiddleEarth and they have been pushed aside in favor of hiring heavy cavalry for free. Though the age of Elves and Dwarves has passed, the relics remain and most nations have some history with certain items being possessed(the kingdoms come to mind) and others know rumors of such things. I would like to see the artifact cost either lowered or allow every nation to start with at least one artifact at game start for free. This would give an allegiance say 7-8 arties at least and most likely more along with Victory Conditions that give the artie number.
Other than this, I tend to think that limiting cavalry production can be accomplished by limiting each allegiance to say three nations with conjure mounts but I don’t see cavalry as an overpowering force if agents/emissaries are able to get their juices flowing; thus 60pt agents at game start and maybe increasing the camp limit by one turn to give folks a better shot at stabilizing the economy with resources/more camps to offset the marauders of magi conjuring mounts and filling the land with horse poop.
Just a thought I wanted to share.
The real wyndhammer
jerry game 40 Freep
game 45 DS
I really like the region setup and yes…the excel sheet is awesome once one figures out it is all tied together.
I would like to see the current setup remain for a while without any more tweaks. I tend to think gamers will make tweaks until it is mutated beyond recognition.
Let us thouroughly explore the game as it stands for a few years before we make more changes. 
Overall VERY happy with the current setup.
Oh and don’t be hatin on the heavy cav just because we burn your cities and take your females. I love the smell of horsedung in the morning. Smells like… VICTORY!
Can someone tell me if there used to be, or still is, an option were you could “move the map” in FA???
Order 942
Type Emissary
Difficulty Average
Prerequisites Character with COMMAND and EMISSARY skill
This order allows a character with emissary and command skill to atempt to move the turn map for their nation. The turn map must stay within the normal map boundaries. Limit one move per turn. The capital hex must be on the map. UNLESS the order returns the capital to the map that turn. Success is based on the Emissary and Command ranks, and how centralized the capital is. The more centralized the capital (or if it’s returning to the map) the easier the order. East/West will move the map one hex. North (NE/NW) or South (SE/SW) will move the map two hexes. The cost is 5000 gold up to turn 12, after turn 12 the cost is 3000 gold.
Tuormo