16 vs 29

mepbmlist
#1

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.

I've been following a little of this WotR stuff....
What is the attraction to playing 2950 if you just
alter it to be more like 1650? Why not play 1650?

Is the standard 2950 NOT realistic per Tolkein? I
thought that it was designed to be......??

I have never played, but actually look forward to one
day. And oddly, perusing the starting nations, the
one I would have liked was Saruman, just for location,
but after reading about my 147th place in line, I
suppose I'll be stuck with the Khand Easterlings or
something....

4thAge is better insofar as there are more innovations, but GSI repeated the
mistake of giving it a small economic base.

I thought the smaller economic base was one of the
attractions for these games...... Start off from T-0
with a long term goal, and each and every order must
adhere to this plan as closely as possible...the
ramifications of poor early decisions would thusly be
magnified, no? I mean, Southern Gondor in 1650 can
lose 3000 HI and a navy to personal challenge in
Haradwaith early in the game, and really, instead of
sending EO 45,000 gold, send him 40,000 gold and hire
a couple armies, recruit for a couple turns, you're
okay.......... In 2950, in the War of the Ring, there
were awesome characters leading armies. These folks
often had powerful swords, or what have you, magi,etc,
but that was it...I cannot recall (limited, admittedly)
a constant push of 2000 HI every "month" flooding the
Anduin valley in any Tolkeinish scenario....

I could be wrong, and welcome the wrath of those lore
masters on whose soil I have risked my ignorance....

Regards,

Brad Brunet

···

__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com

#2

> 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.

I've been following a little of this WotR stuff....
What is the attraction to playing 2950 if you just
alter it to be more like 1650? Why not play 1650?

Is the standard 2950 NOT realistic per Tolkein? I
thought that it was designed to be......??

RD: the attraction of 2950 was to be able to play the characters from The
Hobbit and Lord of the Rings: not only Saruman, but Galadriel, Boromir,
Theoden et al. So far so good, but Tolkien speaks of the Riders of Rohan
bringing 6000 cavalry to the Pelennor Fields. The good guys were still
vastly outnumbered by Sauron's hordes. Where the 2950 game falls down is
that because of its reduced economic base, it is impossible to field
anywhere near these numbers, so players cannot re-fight the battles on the
same scale. Hence WotR which restores the 2950 base to something like 1650
levels. Of course the game can never replicate the book exactly, but what I
did with WotR was to make it possible to field armies similar in scale to
those Tolkien wrote about.

I am also pleased to see we achieved a historically plausible result at
Minas Tirith. Neither Rohan nor S Gondor showed up, and consequently the DS
stormed the city!

I have never played, but actually look forward to one
day. And oddly, perusing the starting nations, the
one I would have liked was Saruman, just for location,
but after reading about my 147th place in line, I
suppose I'll be stuck with the Khand Easterlings or
something....

>
> 4thAge is better insofar as there are more innovations, but GSI repeated

the

> mistake of giving it a small economic base.

I thought the smaller economic base was one of the
attractions for these games...... Start off from T-0
with a long term goal, and each and every order must
adhere to this plan as closely as possible...the
ramifications of poor early decisions would thusly be
magnified, no? I mean, Southern Gondor in 1650 can
lose 3000 HI and a navy to personal challenge in
Haradwaith early in the game, and really, instead of
sending EO 45,000 gold, send him 40,000 gold and hire
a couple armies, recruit for a couple turns, you're
okay.......... In 2950, in the War of the Ring, there
were awesome characters leading armies. These folks
often had powerful swords, or what have you, magi,etc,
but that was it...I cannot recall (limited, admittedly)
a constant push of 2000 HI every "month" flooding the
Anduin valley in any Tolkeinish scenario....

I could be wrong, and welcome the wrath of those lore
masters on whose soil I have risked my ignorance....

Regards,

Brad Brunet

RD: Sure, there are players out there who prefer 2950 or FA, and good luck
to them. It would be a dull world if we all thought the same. What I write
is my interpretation of Tolkien's work, and I'm well aware that some people
are going to disagree. I don't have a problem with that; in fact I enjoy
the debate.

You are absolutely right there was no monthly push of 2000 hi (which is
possible in 1650 if not 2950). Historical Dark Age armies generally
mustered in the spring, campaigned thru summer and possibly into autumn
(that's fall to North Americans) and packed up and went home for the winter.
However it wouldn't be a very interesting game if players could only recruit
once a year!

My own (liberal) interpretation of the game's fortnightly recruitment is
that recruiting generals are simply rounding up latecomers, deserters or
troops who routed from lost battles.

I have more of a problem with the troops types available, but that's another
issue.

Regards,

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: <ditletang@canada.com>
To: <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 12:24 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] 16 vs 29

#3

Other games we have represent movement and feeding costs more
"reallistically". Note this is not a "historical" re-encatment - the game's
simplicity backed up by strong tactical choices is its strength with a
background of LotR helping to create the game's atmosphere. We regularly
get players join up wanting to play the game as a roleplaying exercise - it
rarely works.

(As an aside: We play boardgames with the playtesters who create the best
(ie German) from time to time and the game system is created first, then the
atmosphere is added in).

Clint

···

My own (liberal) interpretation of the game's fortnightly recruitment is
that recruiting generals are simply rounding up latecomers, deserters or
troops who routed from lost battles.

#4

Richard John Devereux wrote:

You are absolutely right there was no monthly push of 2000 hi (which is
possible in 1650 if not 2950). Historical Dark Age armies generally
mustered in the spring, campaigned thru summer and possibly into autumn
(that's fall to North Americans) and packed up and went home for the winter.
However it wouldn't be a very interesting game if players could only recruit
once a year!

OTOH, if recruitment varied with season, loyalty, and such it might make
things very interesting - or bloody annoying :slight_smile:

-ED \1/