Been meaning to respond to this ...
Comments interspersed.
drsybaris@aol.com wrote:
Clint,
I think 1650 is a better place to start newbies.
Strongly disagree.
Almost every position has a decent chance of survivability despite mistakes in
either order delivery or overall strategy; the exceptions being Rhudaur, the
Dragon Lord, and Witch King.
This list should without doubt include the Sinda and Woodmen (and Harad, as far
as neutrals go), and _that's_ for "non-newbies" - it becomes _much_ longer for
newbies (try playing the NM against an aggressive DS side ... Or NG ... Not to
mention playing the economically-delicate Mordor DS against an aggresive FP team
... and let's not even _talk_ about winter ... BUT let me say that this argument
is moot, in that it discusses the general weakness of nations, which we might
both be "right" about and still never agree - the point is the _relative_
fragility_ of 1650 nations to 2950 nations ... here, wrt "early game aggression"
by opponents).
Economies are far better and require less development to support the military
forces necessary to campaign.
This is a double-edged sword - managing such an economy and full-scale military
actually requires more skill, not less ... The drastic swings in economic
"soundness" that can occur in one turn of 1650 are harder to find in 2950, IMHO
...
There are also many more back-up capitols for most nations thus making the
"coup de grace" tactics so successful in 2950 early game turns less effective
at nation elimination.
But there aren't _military_assets_CAPABLE_ of taking out most 2950 capitals.
That's the whole point. Yes, some are vulnerable, but certainly no more than in
1650. Couldn't agree with you less.
2950 is too subtle for many newbies. A familiarity with the rules and complex,
elegant order structures
May be needed to win, against very good competition, but not to "compete and
enjoy."
are more often required to guarantee success in ones goals, especially the
military aspect. The character aspects of the War of the Ring are too easily
mismanaged by inexperienced players.
Strong agent/emissary offensive potential coupled with weaker economies than
1650 often leads players into training characters rather than maximizing
recruiting. Many new players and not a few "experienced" become recruiting shy
as a result. I've seen too many nations eliminated because of this.
In either 1650 or 2950, set-up knowledge is key.
Agreed. Along with "mentoring."
Fourth Age is right out, except perhaps as neutrals.
Also agree, except with the caveat (neutrality is _less_ meaningful in FA, not
more ...).
Tom Francis
Again, I think 2950 (with mentoring) would be the "ideal" situation for placing
a newbie. But that's easier said than done (as with alot of things! :). 1650
starts out much quicker, and newer players are often overwhelmed by the pace
(I've seen that from guys who've played 2950 several times, then tried to
transition to 1650 - it's almost like another game ...). The rub is the
"underlying" fact (I'll assume it's "fact" as Clint stated it and I have no way,
or inclination, to refute it) that 2950 games tend to have higher "overall"
dropout rates. Why is this? Lack of patience?? Boredom??? I say, if you
expect 1650, play it. If you want a slower-developing game, that has the upside
of a greater _magnitude_ of "iterations" (the primary "upside" to FA, right?) -
then 2950 is a nice medium for the _experienced_ player to see _some_ diversity,
without losing all of the structure and context (or having to deal with the
"agent (and emmy?) issues" of FA).
Come to think of it, I'd love to play a 2950 game! In fact, I have a 10 man
(could be 12-man) grudge team, looking to play a one-week game READY TO PLAY!
We'll play either allegiance (prefer FP, just for variety, but DS is fine too),
just want a one-week turnaround (it's _really_fun_ if you haven't tried it
...). Any takers out there? Clint's been doing his best to drum up competition
(in the "usual" manner - listing on every frontsheet that goes out the door)
for months now, and not even a nibble ... Come on ... I dare ya! I even have
some relative newbies (well, pretty inexperienced) players on my team. Let's
get it on.
An additional two coppers (and a little propaganda this time, for spice).
b (Ben Shushan)
···
Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
