1650 Changes - Forget Gunboat....

I’ve asked, not tooo directly, on a couple previous threads, about the end game statistics - Victory Counts by Allegiance. And the issue has not been addressed in any official capacity, even though one sees the “official capacity” addressing other issues in other threads.

So I’m addressing it again. The DS win more than they lose in 1650. Irregardless of whether the FP “On paper” should win more (as was espoused by one reply), it is simply an understood. The FP start behind the 8 ball from Turn 0.

So what “should” be done about this? If the game is unbalanced, then how can it be made balanced…?

GSI data shows 66% of games won by DS. There has been no MEGames data since this “archived” data was released. So all I have is the latest News From Bree, which broadcast the results of the following 1650 (apparent) games: 52, 86, 70, 11, 63, 16, 1. 7 games 5-2 for the DS. 71.42…% DS Victory.

2950 was created years after the original, and my understanding is that not only was the new game flavoured to a different environment, but also that many of the “unbalancing” issues were addressed. (whether 2950 was created by the creators of the 1650 game Ed might address…). The FP were given better characters. More Elves, more stealth, more/better starting mages (relatively) and, here’s the kicker… starting agent/emissary characters at Full Strength. What I mean by that is the Northmen, for example, have a 40 point emissary at start. From turn 1 he can replicate himself and presto, a FP nation with multiple 40 point emissaries from the start of the game. Contrast that with 1650 where Noldo, Sinda, Woodmen haven’t even a 30 point agent. Northmen have something like 20 points of emissary power spread around, etc. Ice King meanwhile, an entirely ficticious fabrication of “the game designer” is given “Name Agents at 40” and “Increased Chance of Stealth” bonus in the game AND given some crud doofus named Gorthog who can start replicating himself as a 40 agent right off the bat.

The DS in 1650 are like that - they win 66+% of the games. The FP in 2950 have seen this “imbalance” addressed and win at least 50% of their games, if not more (GSI Stats had FP at 56% or something like that…).

So why don’t some “tweaks” happen to the 1650 game…??? On one hand I’m sick of getting kidnapped and assassinated to death as the FP by mediocre opposition, simply because they can. On the other hand, I’m actually tired as the DS of being able to survive, heck even thrive, with decimated/eliminated nations simply because a semi-well run Cloud Lord can eliminate entire nations by himself, whilst Dragons and 3-1 Curse Companies and artifact laden emissary companies wander about the backfield doing all sorts of mean things to the “otherwise dominant” Free Peoples.

Why don’t the Woodmen have a 30 agent? Why don’t the Northmen have a 40 emissary? Come on, this is getting tedious. What can be done here??

Regards,

Brad Brunet the Frustrated and Annoyed

Yes, Brad, Stassun and Feild did both 1650 and 2950. And, yes, I would like to see some stats also.

In the 15 years I have been playing I have never played the CL. Would like to someday. Not playing the CL has forced me to develop some ant-agent tricks. Clint has published many but not all of them in “Bree”. That is what problem solving is all about. Tweaking is not problem solving it is problem removal, a finite difference between the two.

Frankly, all the agents in the game can’t knock me out as a FP. Lost to commanders and emissaries but never agents. Agents represent “Asymetrical” warfare. A lot of people have trouble with the concept—that can be seen presently in the struggle against terrorism. Perhaps my Life Experiences have helped me in this regard. I have killed more VC by trickery than I ever did by pulling a trigger.

Mages are another form of asymetrical warfare that are little utilized and not well understood. Yes, I have won with the One Ring and the hardest part is convincing your team mates to try it. They often wait to the 11th hour and then want to do it—to late I’m not going to even try it then.

I guess what I am groping for is: Commanders and emissaries are conventenal while agents and mages are unconventional and a player must use all four. The FP start out with a conventional advantage and the DS start with an unconventional advantage. Use what you have got and take what the enemy gives you.

Both of you guys have decent points besides the forget gunboat bit. Every
time I take a FP nation I’m expecting to lose and when a victory is achieved
the taste is much sweeter then a DS victory…

The 1st stage of changing the 1650 rules are knowing the truth… ME must
publish the win losss ratio. Then when you determine many experienced
players play Just DS. Giving the NM a 30-40 emis, WM a 30 agent are
fine ideas.

I also would like to see the win/loss ratio.

I agree with Brad that the agents have destabilized the game. While mages and agents will never “kill” a nation as Ed says; having 15 characters kidnapped while emmies and armies are attacking does kill your nation. Or the DS are stealing 9000 gold a turn from a camp, so you can nt raise an army? The asymetrical warfare that Ed discribes is too powerful.

Also, considering we are all playing the game for fun, how much fun is it to have 80% of the nation kidnapped turn after turn?

While giving the NM a 30-40 pt emmy and WM a 30pt agent (hell give the Noldo characters 30pt agent skill instead of 20 also while you are at it) would help things, it does not correct the overall problem.

Personally, I think the role of emmies are nicely balanced in the game. However, agents are destroying the “fun” value of this game (at least for me).

Wade

Wade: Meditate a bit. How can you prevent massive theft? How can you prevent massive kidnaps? There are ways.

No ideas right now about the kidnapping but I have change I think would be good for ALL games (barring coding issues, I am not a programmer).

Why can agents steal MORE for a pop center than it can produce? How does a camp that produces 2,000 gold a turn allow agents to steal “as an example” 12,000 gold? Right now, their is no limit. This makes no sense.

Gold steal should be limited to what that pop center produces in taxes and gold production. The exception being the capital where all taxes and gold production arrive anyways. This is balanced out by how much more difficult it is to steal at capitals.

By implementing this change, a lone agent can still “train” and bring in some cash for the owning player. But it will take a much more conserted effort to cripple a nation by stealing all the gold and prevent character naming and army hiring. You will have to hit multiple locations (which means you have to know where they are, hope there is no guards and opens yourself up to more traps) or attack the capital itself.

Right now, you dump 6 agents on a camp, have one ScoChar and steal to your heart content…while getting training the entire time. This is ONE example of too much power for the agents.

Perry Carlson

I’ll agree with Ed, there does not need to be changes to the 1650 games character balance, etc. If you look at the game for the long haul, the only aspect I would love to see changed is kidnapping escapes. It seems your chance of escape is solely dependant on your agent skill and stealth.

That is rediculous. Ji comes into Minas Tirith and kipnaps Bob the Builder. Ok good and fine, he then runs off.

What irritates me is Ji then kidnaps 4 other guys while IN MINAS TIRITH, does he have bob in a backpack or something? Bob should have a bonus to escaping if he is in a hex with loyal allies while the agent is off kidnapping al lthe other major figures of the nation. He should have an even greater chance of escaping if in a capital. It is harder to find hideaways when there is a highly loyalist city around you.

In otherwords, if I had my way (this idea is from Barry Guertin BTW, not me). I would give a bonus chance to escape for a kidnapped individual equal to 1/2 the loyality of allied pop centers of the same nation (perhaps a 15% bonus if the agents enemy nation is hated), 1/4th the loyalty bonus to allies not of the same nation, and perhaps a 10% bonus per additional kidnap victim being carted around.

This would go a LONG WAY. Assassinations can be handled (so can kidnaps as well) but this one change would go an insanely long way to helping break the endless kidnapping hell free nations go through who do not retire all their pure commanders.

Note this all makes a ton of sense. GO ahead and decrease the chance of escaping if on a pop center friendly/tolerated to the agent (want to go lock up Elrond in Barad Dur? Good for you).

See ya,
Ken

Preventing massive thefts isn’t difficult, but “massive” isn’t the killer. Whilst the Cloud Lord kidnaps multiple characters, all the theft that’s required is of the 5000 you have left to Name Char or Hire Army. Oops, that’s stolen…here come the Emissaries. FP try to pop in their curse group to scare off Ji and Friends? Okay then, DS can pop in their 2 curse groups to scare off the FP… And don’t even bring up “doubling”. Give the DS a couple failures against 1 nation and they’ll switch to another nation. The Noldo can double all the agents they can get away with, ain’t going to protect the Eothraim unless they use the intel combined with character actions to “take out” the doubled agent they know is there…but the DS have double-scouted/out-cursed this operation in spades…repeat above…

Ed you confirmed that S and F also created 2950. I not too subtly opined that 2950 was created, by the same guys who created 1650 not only to provide an “alternate time line” flavour, but also to FIX the OOPS’ that they since realized they made in 1650. FP get more mages. FP mages start with a Curse artifact. The Pectoral is lost. A Neutral starts with an Agent artifact. Duns have a 40 agent at start. Northmen have a 40 emissary at start. FP get more stealth potential, etc.

Yes 1650 is a great game, yes it’s popular. Yes, it’s lasted a long time. But I don’t put the creators on some pedastil high on a mountain.

Okay, Coms and Emis are “conventional”. So, where does the FP “conventional” advantage come in…? Total starting Emissary power is 550 pts for the FP and 520 for the DS. That’s frankly, even. QA starts with a 30 emissary, Northmen 30 total - so the Name at 40 edge goes to the DS. Factor in their Pectoral and Voice of the Dark Tower (an Evil aligned toy that can never be “used” by the FP anyway…) and the Emis part of Conventional argument is trashed.

DS certainly have the Agent (700-370 points, 4 “stealth” nations, +20 k/a, 2 double-scouts, triple the artifacts) and certainly have the mage (1630 points to 730). While the FP have a Commander advantage (2510-1720) and an economic advantage (224,000 tax revenue at 40% compared to 94,000). This is the Conventional - Tax and Spend on troops. Considering the DS strategic/defensive advantages (mountains, fortifications, dragons) I applaud the creators on helping balance out this Conventional deficit on the part of the DS…but they didn’t help balance out the Unconventional deficit of the FP until 2950…

Brad

First off, we’ve not got the information for win/loss for the games easy to hand. When we get some spare time I’ll look at this.

Clint (GM)

As a personal thing I think that FPs have the advantage - it’s all in the game-play and early turns. If we’re talking about 10v10 with 5 neutrals then the Neutrals have a tendency to join the group with better organisation (IMO) ie the ones that chat to them, ie communication. Usually I see the better players (IMO) play the DS (there’s “more” options available so I guess that’s why they do) and better team-play and I think that’s where the crux of the situation is. Team-play.

Clint (player)

One order the coders never created but maybe thought about it is command
find and capture agent order. If a commander with an army is sitting on a PC
& knows that a certain agent is in town wouldnt it be realistic if the commander
rounds up a proportion of his troops and sends squads out to capture the
enemy agent? The coders could have factored commander rank, loyalty
rank of PC, army morale and agent rank into the order success.

There is a gap in the command-agent relationship in ME, this I believe
would fill in the inequaility and make the game far more realistic.

Odd here, it appears you, Ed and myself agree… But there’s a difference between the theoretical “on paper” advantages and the practical reality. And that is where the frustration comes in. Find me 12 players who can run the early game FP military in manic fashion AND prepare their post-holocaust assets for the possibility that the DS don’t roll over and die in 10 turns, and this group will very likely win 80+% of the time as the FP.

But it’s so much harder to find enough consensus on the FP. It seems easier to find such on the DS - “Camp the misties, get every dragon we can, give someone mounts and steel, and steal/kill/kidnap everything in sight…” etc. Simple and consensual DS strategies that anyone and their nephew’s dog can follow. FP much more interesting, much more potential in many ways, too often confused with apparent reality (ala Ed’s Name 40 Com Cardolan example on another thread…).

[sigh]…

Brad

Guy an intersting idea. My observations and recent history shows that conventional forces do not so a good job ‘agent’ hunting. The terrorist Zarquawi drove right past an American roadblock because the L.T. in charge hesitated to give the FIRE order. Ruthless Ed wouldn’t have cared if mama-san and her baby were in the car.

We are talking about at least two different mindsets at work here. Part of S & F’s genius is that either or both can be used in this game. A rarity.

I believe that expierenced players already know the tricks necessary to prevent or hinder DS agent advantage to slow thier developement… It seems more of the less expierenced players are drawn to the very nations needed to be played well by the FP. Sinda, Noldo and South Gondor come to mind here… These positions played by a new or selfish mustang mean defeat for the FP at turn 0…
I’m not sure if changes are needed to beef up the FP’s tremendous advantage early in the game. I even heard FP mention whatever side gets Harad and Corsairs wins the game not matter which side… That sounds like agents don’t matter there becuase those are definitely not agent powerhouses more like more of what the FP positions have in tremendous abundance economic power.
The problem I notice is the FP do not attack DS weakness… Low tax rates high debt economies… They simply refuse to steal or use emmy’s to bankrupt the DS… They always use the same approach we have better troops more of them and do not even bother to coordinate attacks until it is to late… That is teamwork.
Next FP as a whole do nothing to prevent agents from hurting them early… Really does the average FP make a 30 agent on turn 1 orders knowing full well they are going to face killer ability agents by turn 8… Every FP should be doing that on turn 1… Every FP nation has the resources to that easily on turn 1… By just doing that one simple move you can send your agent where the gold thefts are and hinder DS agent thefts or even steal thier gold reserves … Does that happen no…
Does the Noldo and Sinda player make it thier top priority to get the RoW and RoC ? How about the stealth artifacts? Do the Dwarves make AGENTS to scout for characters… Do the Military Powers like EO NG make com agents and use thier existing ones as backups with guard orders… If you send out army commanders alone expect sooner or later they will be assasinated…
Protecting charcters in general put everyone not moving every turn in your armies… It’s simply harder for agents to kill or assasinate in an army… Your relations to the attacking agent is important also having them hated make it harder… No single tip here will stop them but by making it harder early in the game you can exploit your strengths longer having more characters than the DS more and more powerful armies and win…
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results than the first time… It seems a common theme when talking about agents in every scenero by the FP and yet the FP complaining use same lame tactics.

Terry

My point exactly, throughout the history of warfare commanders have
attempted to apprehend ‘terrorists’ who fit the role of the agent in ME. An
officer with poor C&C skills usually failed while more competent officers
succeeded. In ME its frustrating and completely unrealistic to have an
enemy agent in the PC with a army in location and only being able to
issue 210. Reality and fantasy still share common parameters… Let’s
say Glorfindel with a rank of 80 sits in a major town and commands 2000
elite HI and learns Erennis is in town. In whatever fantasy setting the
commander would command his troops to attempt to apprehend the
target. It would be unthinkable the order not to be given.

So why not in ME?

It’s a fantasy world, in this game you can build a character who has a bigger Emissary rank than Galadriel in a period of weeks from “birth”, you can create a camp, and build it up to a city within a similar period.

So it’s not real - nor even realistic in many ways. The game is balanced so that all nations and all character classes have strengths and weaknesses (some more than others).

Realistic wouldn’t necessarily make for a better game, so that’s not the argument for change that I would make. The argument for change that I’d make is that it makes a better game. :wink:

Clint

OK, Brad, I’m going to tell you how to get new characters when the DS are stealing from your treasury. Shame on you for having never thought of it. You just allow/make happen a selected nation go into controlled bankrupcy. You then recruit his characters—which comes before gold thefts.

Yes, I know what sort of response will follow from that. Just keep in mind, the objective is to win, not cling to every nation or scrap of territory. Remember conventinal thinking versus unconventional thinking.

And also be a little more wary no? Consider, the event that an enemy character is spotted or scouted in a PC, an automatic penalty can apply, sliding scale based on loyalty, relations, numbers/training/morale of any same-nation armies present, etc.

Yes Terry, there are ways to play more conservatively and delay. But conservative play takes more time to get places than manic banzai play. And Yes, “teamwork” is a huge factor.

But if the DS win a disproportionate number of games, and we’re talking a data set of likely thousands of games now. In the On Paper vs In Reality wars, Reality always wins. I know much of this is pipe-dreamish 2nd Edition kind of stuff. I just think certain aspects of 1650 are “oops’” that got themselves corrected in 2950 and left to lie in 1650 because it was too late to change it… This is more plausible than bestowing god-like visionary abilities on a couple of humans who spent years fleshing out the details of a good idea they had that turned into a game. Consider - they weren’t perfect when they first got the program working, many changes were made between then and the game we’re “still” playing…well, it still isn’t perfect and I “believe” they would admit it themselves (fully willing to be proven wrong by S and F themselves anytime…)

Cheers,

Brad

If a nation is getting squatted on, why should another throw himself on his sword for the benefit of the squatee?? Let the infested nation go via a couple choice 315/948’s for recycling. But then the enemy will be aware of this within turns and be on to the next target…

Give Arfanhil a +2000 sword, Sispar 35 stealth, and hide 2208… THAT would make the game Heaps better! :wink:

Arfanbrad Eternal