--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, "Richard John Devereux" <devereux@l...>
wrote:
From: <ditletang@c...>
To: <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 4:45 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] 16 vs 29
> I seem to have noticed references to Middle Earth on
> this list favour the 2950 edition. WW, WotR, and
> others. I would hazard a guess that 1650 is much
> more popular on our side of the pond....is it a little
> more balanced in the older country?
RD: Hi again Brad,
I'm sure that 1650 is the most popular version of ME in the
UK/Europe too.
Many players this side of the pond (myself included) tried 2950 and
were
disappointed. The worst thing about 2950 is its smaller economic
base which
means fewer troops and less game for the same money. Having a 100-1
chance
of one day being able to play Saruman the White does not make up for
this!
WotR is 2950 but with pops and armies brought up to 1650 level so is
a
special case.
There are some virtues to the 2950 scenario. For starters, it appears
to be more balanced (though this is hard to track without the reports
of games that have ended.) I have a bit of a problem playing 1650
when there is a statistical 2-1 chance that the dark will win on turn
zero. You can argue whether this should be so, but that is the result
of a very long win-loss record which doesn't have a lot of evidence of
changing.
The free have much better characters than 1650 and a lot of starting
agent artifacts; in the games I've played it has been about 50-50 on
which side wins the agent war, which I gather is not the case in 1650.
The smaller economy has another interesting consequence: the
differences between the starting nations are much smaller. Especially
if it is not a grudge match, you really can build up a middling nation
into a powerhouse. I put the dragon lord into top position in game
88, fighting continuously and flinging armies from the Sea of Rhun to
the gap of Rohan and Bree. I suspect this sort of thing is far rarer
in 1650. It is also a better game to learn in - a lot more room for
recovering from early mistakes.
You do have to wait for the massed army battles, and it is absolutely
true that the first few turns in 1650 are a lot more action-packed.
4thAge is better insofar as there are more innovations, but GSI
repeated the
mistake of giving it a small economic base.
4th age has a much, much bigger problem; there has been a lot of
discussion of this on the message boards. The starting characters are
too good, and the deadly cloud lord-type abilities are far too common.
There are *many* starting 60 emissaries and 60 agents.
In straight 4th age, it is a frequent occurance to have a double-scout
60 agent hit a capital on turn 1 with a large pack of 60 agents with
stealth and +20 K/A in tow. All of your characters die and you don't
even know which nation did it (or even know that they are there!) As
a result, there is an agent arms race - and no curses to balance the
agents. Personally, I think that torquing down the starting
characters would fix a lot of this as well as adjusting the costs of
the SNAs to more accurately reflect their value. If 10 nations pick
+20 kidnap/assassinate, that means it is too cheap. Another possible
idea would be to pool the special nation abilities and
starting character points. If you pick the deadly abilities your
starting characters are weak, and if you forego them you can build up
the Elrond/Murazor type starters.
cheers,
Marc Pinsonneault
> Also, Jeremy R, I believe, set up a FA game without the
> +20 kidnap/assass SNA......thoughts on Harlequin going
> with that, or will those of us who like the idea go to
> JR, and then he can request the special game and
> provide the 25 set-ups to the company?
RD: I have found that Harlequin, to their great credit, respond
favourably
to innovative suggestions by players, providing 1) they are
technically
possible 2) legal and 3) have sufficient player support. For some
time now
we've had 1650 games with pre-aligned neutrals. Mike Sankey came up
with a
version of 1650 which did away with all the neutrals, the former
neutral
pops and some of the armies being shared out between the two sides.
Then
there's my own WotR version of 2950. All these are running as we
speak!
So if Jeremy R wants a FA game without the +20 kidnap/assass SA, and
if he
can recruit 25 players, go to Harlequin with it. I should think
this is a
simple change compared to some they have been asked to make! I
personally
love this idea but I don't, unfortunately, have time for another
game at
present.
Regards,
Richard.
>
> I appreciate a lot of positive replies to my earlier
> questions regarding game starts with Harlequin..I think
> I understand now, but I do have one further query:
>
> I have gotten the impression that Harlequin only runs
> a limited number of games for each era, and then waits
> until the first one ends before starting another one.
> I have seen a number of messages that seem to imply
> that...as opposed to starting a game as soon as there
> are 25 players...........
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Brad Brunet
> young and impatient, doesn't want to have to wait the
> numbers of months that he has in the past......
>
>
RD: I think there have already been some answers to this question on
this
list, but your best bet is to email Harlequin direct, to make sure
you get a
···
----- Original Message -----
reply from them.
