On another note, I am somewhat surprised to learn that the Free Peoples
can amass larger armies then the DS. I don't claim to be a Tolkien
expert by my impression from the books was that Sauron's forces vastly
outnumbered those of the Free Peoples. My impression was that the Free
Peoples armies made up for this, at least in part, by being much better
trained, disciplined, motivated and lead. Do other people share that
impression or am I off-base?
If I am correct, does the game actualy reflect that situation. Some of
what I've heard seems to indicate that it does not. Any comments?
Chris
···
-----Original Message-----
From: Ricard Pitarque
Sent: Tue 8/13/2002 6:22 PM
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Cc:
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] 1650 - no assassins
What is sure is that without agents, it is impossible to Stop
Frees Armies
at all, how could Fire King present somewhat of resistance if he
only
recruits 800 HI per turn when Gondor can recruit 1800 HI without
problems??
Even now with assassins games are quite balanced.
Ricard.-
----- Original Message -----
From: "GUD" <david_clemmensen@post.tele.dk>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] 1650 - no assassins
> I dont belive that that woud be enny fun FP woud win witn no
problem even
if they have to take the long northen road do you thing you cout
out recrute
the EOT / NGo / SGo
>
> david
>
>
> Colin Forbes <colin@timewyrm.co.uk> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > In a thread entitled "Re: Re: New NKA Forming - suggest some
> >
> > modifications", Clint wrote ...
> >
> > > We run the NKA game and as per usual if there is support
> > we can run
> > games
> > > with no such orders.
> >
> > Now there's a thought: a 1650 game without assassinations,
> > though
> > perhaps allowing kidnappings but not executions? Keeping
> > kidnappings
> > would still preserve the valuable game balancing effect
> > (without any
> > 615/620 orders the DS would probably be stuffed).
> >
> > I'd be on for a game like that - heck, I'd even play the
> > Cloud Lord.
> > Anyone else?
> >
> > Colin
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > ---------------------~-->
> > 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
> > http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/ySSFAA/ofVplB/TM
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > ---------~->
> >
> > Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
> > To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
> > Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
> To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
> Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Well, they vastly outnumbered the Free Peoples in the year 3017; the
game is set either in 1650 (when Gondor was pretty darn powerful and
Arnor hadn't completely crumbled yet, plus the Eothraim still dominated
the plains east of Mirkwood) or in 2950 (just before Sauron openly
reveals himself and starts attracting the loyalty of various human nations --
e.g., Corsairs and Easterlings, plus Saruman and his corruption of the
Dunlendings).
In a 2950 game where all five neutrals join the Dark Servants, then
it will certainly look Very, Very Bad for the Free Peoples. This is
what happened in the books; the Free managed to pull off a Ring victory
by the skin of their teeth...
Tony Z
···
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 11:15:45PM -0400, Christopher Engel wrote:
On another note, I am somewhat surprised to learn that the Free Peoples
can amass larger armies then the DS. I don't claim to be a Tolkien
expert by my impression from the books was that Sauron's forces vastly
outnumbered those of the Free Peoples.
--
The real danger of lying to kids is not that they'll find out you
lied and stop trusting you; it's that they'll believe the lies and
try to live by them. --Eileen Lufkin
--- In mepbmlist@y..., Tony Zbaraschuk <tonyz@e...> wrote:
> On another note, I am somewhat surprised to learn that the Free
Peoples
> can amass larger armies then the DS. I don't claim to be a Tolkien
> expert by my impression from the books was that Sauron's forces vastly
> outnumbered those of the Free Peoples.
Well, they vastly outnumbered the Free Peoples in the year 3017; the
game is set either in 1650 (when Gondor was pretty darn powerful and
Arnor hadn't completely crumbled yet, plus the Eothraim still dominated
the plains east of Mirkwood) or in 2950 (just before Sauron openly
reveals himself and starts attracting the loyalty of various human
nations --
e.g., Corsairs and Easterlings, plus Saruman and his corruption of the
Dunlendings).
In a 2950 game where all five neutrals join the Dark Servants, then
it will certainly look Very, Very Bad for the Free Peoples. This is
what happened in the books; the Free managed to pull off a Ring victory
by the skin of their teeth...
Tony Z
Now there is an interesting idea for a new scenario.
Standard 2950, but all of the neutrals but the Rhun start out aligned
with the DS. The Rhun are not in play (a dark rhun/khand is way too
much for the poor northmen.) I'd not adjust their relations, etc. at
game start to give the free a bit of a breather while the dark
juggernaut develops.
The DS win if the free hold less than three of their starting capitals.
The freeps have a small but growing chance (starting on, say, turn 20)
that Frodo and Sam drop the one ring off in Barad-dur.
So - it's a race more in keeping with the spirit of the book. Can the
free people hold off the forces of evil long enough for the ring to
reach Mt. Doom?
cheers,
Marc
···
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 11:15:45PM -0400, Christopher Engel wrote:
I dont belive that that woud be enny fun FP woud win witn no
problem even
if they have to take the long northen road do you thing you cout
out recrute
the EOT / NGo / SGo
>
> david
>
>
> Colin Forbes <colin@timewyrm.co.uk> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > In a thread entitled "Re: Re: New NKA Forming - suggest some
> >
> > modifications", Clint wrote ...
> >
> > > We run the NKA game and as per usual if there is support
> > we can run
> > games
> > > with no such orders.
> >
> > Now there's a thought: a 1650 game without assassinations,
> > though
> > perhaps allowing kidnappings but not executions? Keeping
> > kidnappings
> > would still preserve the valuable game balancing effect
> > (without any
> > 615/620 orders the DS would probably be stuffed).
> >
> > I'd be on for a game like that - heck, I'd even play the
> > Cloud Lord.
> > Anyone else?
> >
> > Colin
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > ---------------------~-->
> > 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
> > http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/ySSFAA/ofVplB/TM
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > ---------~->
> >
> > Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
> > To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
> > Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
> To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
> Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
···
----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher Engel
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 4:15 AM
Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] 1650 - no assassins
On another note, I am somewhat surprised to learn that the Free Peoples
can amass larger armies then the DS. I don't claim to be a Tolkien
expert by my impression from the books was that Sauron's forces vastly
outnumbered those of the Free Peoples. My impression was that the Free
Peoples armies made up for this, at least in part, by being much better
trained, disciplined, motivated and lead. Do other people share that
impression or am I off-base?
If I am correct, does the game actualy reflect that situation. Some of
what I've heard seems to indicate that it does not. Any comments?
Chris
RD: Your reading is absolutely correct. Not only that, Tolkien makes clear that elves, men and dwarves were -individually- vastly superior to common or garden orcs and even the "new, improved" Uruk-hai. Even Sam, a hobbit with no combat experience, killed his orc opponent in Moria.
But do NOT let that put you off the game. It -is- a good game which has stood the test of time (I've been playing for 12 years but I know others have been playing a lot longer than me). GMs Harlequin allow players to change scenarios provided it doesn't mean changing the program. Of course it could be better but for me it's the best game on the market.
Do try it before you slag it off any more - people who have been playing for a decade or more and enjoyed it (despite its flaws) are not (forgive me for being blunt) going to take seriously criticisms from someone who has never played the game.
As the saying goes: don't knock it till you've tried it!
C'mon - I dare you!
Richard.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ricard Pitarque
Sent: Tue 8/13/2002 6:22 PM
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Cc:
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] 1650 - no assassins
What is sure is that without agents, it is impossible to Stop
Frees Armies
at all, how could Fire King present somewhat of resistance if he
only
recruits 800 HI per turn when Gondor can recruit 1800 HI without
problems??
Even now with assassins games are quite balanced.
Ricard.-
----- Original Message -----
From: "GUD" <david_clemmensen@post.tele.dk>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] 1650 - no assassins
Now there is an interesting idea for a new scenario.
Standard 2950, but all of the neutrals but the Rhun start out aligned
with the DS. The Rhun are not in play (a dark rhun/khand is way too
much for the poor northmen.) I'd not adjust their relations, etc. at
game start to give the free a bit of a breather while the dark
juggernaut develops.
The DS win if the free hold less than three of their starting capitals.
The freeps have a small but growing chance (starting on, say, turn 20)
that Frodo and Sam drop the one ring off in Barad-dur.
So - it's a race more in keeping with the spirit of the book. Can the
free people hold off the forces of evil long enough for the ring to
reach Mt. Doom?
I've never personally enjoyed these "odds against you, no significant
chance to actually do well militarily, but hold out as long as you can"
scenarios, (no matter the game system). I just don't find it fun to get
beat up over and over, just to see if you can hold out long enough.
While these kinds of epic tales make great books (and now finally,
movies), they don't really make good games. (How many 1991 Gulf War
strategy games have become popular?) Maybe I'm way out there, but I'd
certainly never play in something like this.
I do agree that a more structured 4th Age setup might work well. Maybe
use the regional setup map and assign regions to each allegiance, with
maybe 2 or 3 contested regions which can have one of each allegiance.
Mike Mulka
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Divide the map into regions (say: Eriador, Mirkwood, Rhovanion,
Gondor, Mordor, Harad), and then give each allegiance two nations
in each region (Kingdoms counting as two nations, maybe). And nobody
starts with their capital in mountain hexes.
_Ensure_ military conflict from the get-go, before people can build
Agent Teams of Doom.
Tony Z
···
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 05:38:45PM -0500, Urzahil wrote:
I do agree that a more structured 4th Age setup might work well. Maybe
use the regional setup map and assign regions to each allegiance, with
maybe 2 or 3 contested regions which can have one of each allegiance.
--
The real danger of lying to kids is not that they'll find out you
lied and stop trusting you; it's that they'll believe the lies and
try to live by them. --Eileen Lufkin
I do agree that a more structured 4th Age setup might work well. Maybe
use the regional setup map and assign regions to each allegiance, with
maybe 2 or 3 contested regions which can have one of each allegiance.
I think that's an excellent idea, as long as the
regions are split fairly with access to resources
--- Middle Earth PBM Games <me@MiddleEarthGames.com>
wrote:
···
>
>I do agree that a more structured 4th Age setup
might work well. Maybe
>use the regional setup map and assign regions to
each allegiance, with
>maybe 2 or 3 contested regions which can have one
of each allegiance.
*** What would one suggest?
Clint
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com
Okay let's say we organise the next NKA game on such grounds - would anyone want to play it? What about the 9 or so players that have put their name down - would they want to play this sort of game? In theory I agree but if no-one actually wants to play it then I can't see us running it.
Clint
···
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 05:38:45PM -0500, Urzahil wrote:
> I do agree that a more structured 4th Age setup might work well. Maybe
> use the regional setup map and assign regions to each allegiance, with
> maybe 2 or 3 contested regions which can have one of each allegiance.
Divide the map into regions (say: Eriador, Mirkwood, Rhovanion,
Gondor, Mordor, Harad), and then give each allegiance two nations
in each region (Kingdoms counting as two nations, maybe). And nobody
starts with their capital in mountain hexes.
_Ensure_ military conflict from the get-go, before people can build
Agent Teams of Doom.
I do agree that a more structured 4th Age setup might work well. Maybe
use the regional setup map and assign regions to each allegiance, with
maybe 2 or 3 contested regions which can have one of each allegiance.
*** What would one suggest?
Clint
Well, I just finished making a mini-map for 4th Age setups. It shows 18
regions (two of which are the 5-hex exclusion zones around the Twin
Kingdom capitals). The regions are divided up based on "historical"
regions, as well as location and rescources. This means there are
basically 8 regions per allegiance, (assuming a DS/FP showdown game,
with 11 FP, 11 DS, 2 Kingdoms, and 1 extra neutral). There could also be
different combinations, like 7 regions per allegiance, with 2
"contested" regions, (or 6 and 4, etc.). You could also limit how many
nations per region, and have a "first-come, first-served" type of setup,
similar to 1650 and 2950. (ie; The following regions are still
available...)
The map isn't posted to my website yet, as I'm going to update the
entire site. I'm waiting on word back from Sam regarding Automagic 2002c
and the new Scenario Import Module. (I use Frontpage, and upload all
site updates at once, so I need to wait until it's all ready.)
I'll put out a note on this list when the new map (and new revision of
Automagic and SIM) are uploaded. It will likely be Monday evening.
