I sometimes wonder if it might be workable to play 1650 gunboat – or regular – with the Easterlings instead of one of the other neutrals. It might add some variance to the game.
Of course, when I consider them as DS, it suddenly makes the Eothraim and Northmen EXTREMELY vulnerable, and the same about Mordor if they are FP.
However, assuming they would replace Harad or Corsairs so as not to impact the delicate balance in the northwest, as DS that would leave (say) Harad free from any major assault and able to focus on QA and Mordor.
Rhun freeps can’t handle Easterlings.
Mordor can’t handle Harad humanwave.
Navies would become meaningless.
I’ve tried to think of a way to get Easterlings into any kind of prealigned 1650 game, but I don’t see any plausible scenario where it would work. It’s a shame really bcs I really like the Easterlings.
If they start Dark they’re gonna lose all the northern stuff pretty quick, before the bulk of their armies can arrive.If they start Free that would be one damn sweet position, though you better hope for an early blitz as you’d be in deep trouble middle game.
Just one person’s opinion, neutrality for a couple of turns to consolidate is a big plus.
In a gunboat game, Easterlings and Corsairs go Dark, Dunlendings and Rhudaur are Free, Harad isn’t played. Easterlings will unbalance in the east, Northmen and Eothraim more vulnerable, but WK ousted quicker. I’d love to play in that, preferably as Easterlings!
Well, here’s a new proposal: Dark Easterlings, Dark Rhudaur, Free Dunlendings. Corsairs and Harad are not played!
Yes, it gives the DS one extra nation but given that Rhudaur/WK are so vulnerable, and given that the Easterlings are so spread out, I think it could make for a good balance.
The FP can and should destroy every Easterling town in/around their maps, leaving them with Khand only. There is little they can do about this if the Dwarf/NMen and especially the Eothraim dedicate themselves to this. Thus, they are removed from 12 v 12 play as no other neutral is anywhere near as vulnerable.
A FP Easterling is, ‘on paper’, vulnerable to the DS with only Mordor within range of their capital. But, even Ji isn’t good enough to kill good army commanders on a capital early. It’ll take a couple turns to get all the toys together for him and Din - and, if they actually acted with total dedication as many Easterling players fear when confronted with going FP - they would leave the rest of the theatres alone, allowing everyone else free reign to act unimpeded by strategic assassinations.
Khand area has a City a MT and 3 Towns. There’s another Town south of QA. There’s also prime camping grounds near. That’s a very strong population base compared to most DS.
So I wouldn’t say taking out the Easterling vulnerable PCs scattered around really matters that much.
The freep armies will also have to actually concentrate some effort to take out the Rhun shore settlements, which gives DS liberties elsewhere.
I also guesstimate that on longterm a freep Easterling would lead to rather stale repetitive games. East is really vulnerable to agents in the first couple turns, because characters start all over the map. Cloud and LR do IMO have the power to cripple Easterlings early with agents. LR also has an army capable of burning the East backup, and if BS helps, East can’t do anything about it. (against LR turn 1 attack alone, East can move some forces to defend, but that leaves capital with 1 character. Succesful hit from Indur with LR arties on turn 2 and Easterlings are done for.)
Exactly. The Easterlings would make out fine even if their northern holdings were lost. But they also start with forces in the north that, if they are DS, could make a difference in defending Mordor and distracting the FP. I really think DS Easterlings and Rhudaur vs. FP Dunlendings could really make for an exciting game.
