2950 Vs 1650

mepbmlist
#1

While reading through all these posts about best positions, it dawned
on me that maybe the answer is in the game system.

In my opinion, 2950 is a much "safer" game system and maybe a better
environment for a new player. Most of the nations arent under the
immediate threat that they are in 1650.(except maybe Rhun) With less
pop centers and less armies, there is obviously less to worry about.
Also, since the game starts slower and puts more emphasis on
building a nation it would help a new player learn more of the orders
quicker. Most of the starting armies make camps rather than invade
their neighbors and even the front line nations really arent in
jeopardy of losing the majority of their pop centers from the get go
(unless of course you are up against some top guys, or Rhun!<S>)

So, maybe it might be worthwhile to direct new players into 2950
games as a learning opportunity?

Fletch

#2

We used to do this but 2950 fills very slowly - delays means drops - means bad game. We have a lot more postal players in 2950 so there's a big problem with communication there. Also the player base seems to indicate that, with all due respect to those who enjoy 1000 and 2950, that 1650 is the better game - ie more likely to grab players attention and keep them in the game. That's why I encourage players to join 1650 games. Also the 1650 players are more communicative (2950 more of a solo game) hence more helpful. (IMHO). If you look on the list more comments and articles in Bree are for 1650 compared with 1000 or 2950.

I've found from a business perspective that more players stick with 1650 than 2950. Thems my reasons for 1650 v2950. I agree that it is safer to play in some ways but less exciting in other ways.

So, maybe it might be worthwhile to direct new players into 2950
games as a learning opportunity?

Clint

#3

This could change with Richards WOTR scenario, which I believe
combines some of the best features of both scenarios. The main thing
it is lacking from a 1650 perspective is the starting armies.
However, with the larger recruiting bases on both sides this is
quickly fixed (you see 1650-style battles within the first 5 turns).

The real benefit of the 2950 game is that it provides much more of a
free-form opportunity than 1650 - in a sense, it meets many of the
goals of the FA 1000 scenario while retaining overall play balance.
The dark servants can become the economic powers with big armies,
while the free can become the agent powers. In a sense, you are
really designing your nation in the first few turns, which is why the
first turn lacks the intensity of 1650.

1650 is closer to chess: can the free armies smash the dark side, or
can the servants stall them long enough to allow their superior
characters to provide the edge?

They're both good, but quite different, games.

cheers,

Marc

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Middle Earth PBM Games <me@M...> wrote:

We used to do this but 2950 fills very slowly - delays means drops -

means

bad game. We have a lot more postal players in 2950 so there's a big
problem with communication there. Also the player base seems to

indicate

that, with all due respect to those who enjoy 1000 and 2950, that

1650 is

the better game - ie more likely to grab players attention and keep

them in

the game. That's why I encourage players to join 1650 games. Also the
1650 players are more communicative (2950 more of a solo game) hence

more

helpful. (IMHO). If you look on the list more comments and

articles in

Bree are for 1650 compared with 1000 or 2950.

I've found from a business perspective that more players stick with

1650

than 2950. Thems my reasons for 1650 v2950. I agree that it is

safer to

···

play in some ways but less exciting in other ways.

>So, maybe it might be worthwhile to direct new players into 2950
>games as a learning opportunity?

Clint

#4

That's because you've got a smaller player base, longer waiting lists, so you're in a vicious circle. One thing to do is to plug Richard's War of the Ring scenario, which has been reasonably tested (4 times?) now, and is essentially a more polished, an exciting version of 2950. Some of the fellows who tried 2950 when it came out then went back to 1650 would do well to give WotR a try. They would be pleasantly surprised.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

···

At 15:48 22/11/2002, Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

I've found from a business perspective that more players stick with 1650
than 2950. Thems my reasons for 1650 v2950. I agree that it is safer to
play in some ways but less exciting in other ways.

#5

>I've found from a business perspective that more players stick with 1650
>than 2950. Thems my reasons for 1650 v2950. I agree that it is safer to
>play in some ways but less exciting in other ways.

That's because you've got a smaller player base, longer waiting lists, so
you're in a vicious circle.

*** I am basing this partially on Allsorts and DGE. They pushed 2950 as the beginner's scenario. Over time this did not seem to work out - seeing how games developed and the way players moved to 1650 and stuck with that.

  One thing to do is to plug Richard's War of
the Ring scenario, which has been reasonably tested (4 times?) now, and is
essentially a more polished, an exciting version of 2950. Some of the
fellows who tried 2950 when it came out then went back to 1650 would do
well to give WotR a try. They would be pleasantly surprised.

*** Possibly the case. Players like what they like... :slight_smile:

Clint

#6

*** I am basing this partially on Allsorts and DGE. They pushed 2950 as
the beginner's scenario. Over time this did not seem to work out - seeing
how games developed and the way players moved to 1650 and stuck with that.

  One thing to do is to plug Richard's War of
the Ring scenario, which has been reasonably tested (4 times?) now, and is
essentially a more polished, an exciting version of 2950. Some of the
fellows who tried 2950 when it came out then went back to 1650 would do
well to give WotR a try. They would be pleasantly surprised.

*** Possibly the case. Players like what they like... :slight_smile:

Clint

RD: Yes, but there is a big difference between knowledgeable players asking for a specific scenario, and Harle pushing it. If Harle pushes WotR, there is a good chance more people would try it. If Harle doesn't push it, it remains known only to a select few.

The ball is in your court!

Richard.

      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            ADVERTISEMENT
           
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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#7

------Replied off list as it goes into some depth as to what we have done, what we can do and why... :slight_smile:

Clint

···

*** Possibly the case. Players like what they like... :slight_smile:

Clint

RD: Yes, but there is a big difference between knowledgeable players asking for a specific scenario, and Harle pushing it. If Harle pushes WotR, there is a good chance more people would try it. If Harle doesn't push it, it remains known only to a select few.

The ball is in your court!

Richard.