It's good to see so many people taking an interest, especially so many who seem to be pitching in for the first time.
I would like to ask that everyone taking part in this debate reads the proposed 2nd edition on http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk as this is the only basis we have for recording ideas and suggestions. You may find that one of your ideas has already been discussed. Nothing is set in stone, so if you disagree with anything therein, feel free to state your case, as I am about to state mine!
Battle spells: There are far too many battle spells already, far too many give similar results, and most are not consistent with Tolkien's writings. In The Hobbit, Gandalf, caught up a tree, used a fire spell to singe the fur of any pursuing wolves who came too close ("Call Fire"?). In LoR at Helm's Deep, Saruman's forces used "blasting fire" to blow a breach in the wall. I guess that could be construed as a "fireball" which would burn through ranks of troops as easily as through a stone wall. When besieged in Orthanc, Saruman managed to burn just one single ent throughout the entire length of the siege, presumably a fire spell again.
OK then, I can live with the Fire Mastery sequence. I can also live with Wind Mastery. Although I can't find an example in Tolkien, weather magic is well known amongst ancient civilizations. But, as Fire and Wind spells do much the same thing, I argue that we should discard Word, which does the same thing again, and for which I can find no justification whatsoever.
I can find no justification either for any of the defence spells, but if we're going to have offence spells, I suggest let's keep one, but not both, defence sequences. And PLEASE no increase in the power of ANY remaining battle spells!
If we discard two of the battle spell sequences as I suggest, here are some alternatives. One thing to bear in mind when inventing spells is that magic should ALWAYS be subtle and indirect, not in-yer-face confrontational.
Spells of concealment: the best example from Tolkien is the Mist of Galadriel which hid the ride of Eorl the Young to the fields of Calenardhon. In game terms, the magical mist would hide an army, ie not show the icon on map, nor on scout or recon reports. Any scout which covered the area would receive a report along the lines of "hex **** was obscured by a magical mist." The army so concealed would only be revealed if it finished its turn on a pop centre or encountered a hostile army.
Mist of Galadriel concealing an army is obviously a "hard" spell; the easy spell could conceal the movement of an indivual even in a pop (similar to stealth); the average spell could hide a whole company.
You want spells which help armies, without being in-yer-face? How about a "magical ways" sequence: the easy spell builds a magical bridge (existing for one turn only) over a minor river; the average spell adds 2 movement points to an army, and the hard spell builds a similar bridge over a major river.
Artifacts: there are far too many useless combat-oriented artifacts. Let's get rid of most of them and have some more interesting ones, eg, 7-league boots (increased movement); magic carpet (like teleport); harp of calming (the holder can lull monsters to sleep and escape unharmed); healing balm (restores to full health, one use only); magic flute (reveals secret passage, enabling an army to attack a pop whilst avoiding the fortifications), etc.
Movement rates: I don't agree there should be different movement rates for heavy and light troops. It adds complexity for little gain. Moreover there was little difference in the cross-country march rate - the difference was in the speed of movement on the battlefield. Also, if you want to go down that road, every army with a baggage train or siege train would be reduced to a crawl regardless of troop type. Packhorses instead of the usual ox-wagons would speed it up a bit, or if the troops carried all the supplies on their backs, but then you would have to limit the amount of food they could carry. This is all more realistic, but I think adds too much complexity.
Troop types: there seems to be general dissatisfaction with the existing system, and suggestions have been put forward to make the currently disregarded troop types more effective. Rather than tinker with the capabilities of existing troops types, I advocate a complete overhaul, and restrict all nations to specific troops types.
Knights: big men on big horses whose massed charge sweeps away lesser cavalry and all but the steadiest infantry in open plains, but vulnerable in any kind of broken terrain. Only available to Arthedain, Cardolan, Eothraim, S Gondor, Noldo elves, Rhudaur.
Light cavalry: all other cavalry including wolf-riders. Available to most nations but not Dwarves.
Heavy infantry: trained for close-quarter fighting. Freely available to Dwarves, Arthedain, Cardolan, Gondors, Rhudaur, Corsairs. Only available in small numbers (trolls, Uruk-hai, half-trolls) to DS.
Light infantry: better at skirmishing than hand-to-hand combat, but can defeat heavy inf in broken terrain. Freely available to Men Dwarves and Elves but not DS.
Archers: not skirmishers (see light inf) but massed shooters. Will inflict heavy losses on all opponents in any kind of terrain with good visibility, but disadvantaged in woods or mountains. Available to Men and Elves only. Ideally Elven (and perhaps Woodmen) archers could have the special ability to fight as light inf in woods.
Hordes: form the vast bulk of the DS armies. Available in large numbers, they seek to overwhelm enemies by sheer weight of those numbers. Much more effective in broken terrain than plains.
There would be a glorified scissors/paper/stone combat system so that all troop types wouild be useful in some terrain, eg, hordes would be more effective than knights or heavy inf in mountains, woods or wetlands.
That's the general idea but could be refined.
Richard.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]