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!
Yup, read it. Liked most of it. Some of it seemed to make
things too complex. (IMO)
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!
But your website suggest tripling the values "In second edition, the
parameters of these spells (points of damage or protection) are tripled" I
understand you have it listed as variable, but still, it shows that at the
point you wrote the site, you had at least considered it.
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.
All excellent ideas, and in line with making mages worth
putting with armies.
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.
Agreed, And how about randomizing the artifact list as
well. Perhaps for 1650 and 2950 publishing a list of known artifact numbers
for the starting artifacts and then allowing mages to research from there.
It levels the playing field and forces people to decide between the artifact
hunt, or other activities. One downside would be if one side in 2950 or
1650 had many more mages than the other. I don't believe it would be
overbalancing, but it's something to look out for.
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.
See, and I believe that differentiating the troop types with
this simple change doesn't add complexity, but changes the flavor of the
troop types. You would achieve the goal of differentiating the troop types,
without adding a great deal of complexity to the game. Each troop type
would have a task it is good at.
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.
And again, being mainly a FA player (although I dabble in
1650) I don't like the idea so much. It restricts the army composition too
much to retain flavor. I like the idea conceptually, but still, the DS have
the ability to recruit the same number of troops per turn the Free do. If
you limit them to HI and MA, then they will get overrun. A way to fix it
would be change the numbers recruitable at each pop center, but it adds
complexity.
That's the general idea but could be refined.
Richard, I gotta say, you've done a whole lot of work on
the whole thing. I'm incredibly impressed and greatful. Your page gave me a
place to start, thinking about what I would change.
···
***
Richard.
Like everyone else out there, I'd love to see encounters
changed to be more varied.
Changes from your site I liked with some thoughts:
Combat: Archers only attack the first round of combat and
damage is applied to troops before the second round: Like this, but would
suggest including combat spells in this round as well. Also, make defensive
spells effective for the first 2 rounds "soaking" as much damage as they
have. So, a 1000 point defensive spell would soak up to 1000 points of
damage throughout the first 2 rounds of combat.
Defend order: I like it but would suggest the
following. If at Friendly PC and no direction given and enemy attacks, pop
center defensive value added to army. If direction is given, pop center
defensive value not added, but enemy army prevented from moving in that
direction. This gives a tactical choice. Either the defending army
prevents movement by taking the field, or it holes up in the PC. If it is
holed up in the PC, then the enemy army may freely move through.
Troop strengths in different terrain: Yes. This
would also be a good modifier to adjust. Right now, it is so small and
combined with enough other modifiers that it has little affect on decision
making. I like the idea that different races have different modifiers in
terrain by troop type. I would like to see the modifiers such that Light
Infantry is superior to or equal to Heavy Cav in Mountainous terrain. It
makes your army comp change depending on the terrain you plan on fighting.
Now it is just HC if you can afford it, HI if not.
Paying soldiers: Although adding gold to the army
trains would be realistic, I think it adds complexity to the game. It would
take so long to save up the money to keep a large army in the field that you
wouldn't be able to do it. And, with changes above, such as the Defend
order, you would need correspondingly larger armies to take defended PCs.
Dropping the troop types, and having only 1 type of
infantry/cavalry. Again, I think this can be solved by changing the
different troop type's ability to fight in different terrain, and allowing
Light Troops to move without food suffering no move penalty (still the
morale penalty however)
Desertion: Realistic, but not necessarily
beneficial to the game. Just one more thing to keep track of without adding
to player enjoyment. (IMO)
Emissary Orders:
Influence Pop center replacing Influence yours and
influence other. I like this as you can assume that in an emissary company,
once the PC is influenced, continued efforts will increase the loyalty.
Agent Orders:
Guarding: It needs to be improved. Not sure what
the total should be, but perhaps your suggestion of adding half the agents
rank to the target would work (adjustable in playtesting). As you state,
agents run amuck and armies become impotent.
Character movement: Reducing it to that of a well fed cav
army may seem beneficial, but the 12 hex movement seems to work fine. There
don't seem to be any real issues, and when you need to reach a friendly MT
to receive a backup, it can be a real bonus. I'd like to stick to what
would improve playability, and feel this would add a restriction without a
benefit.
Moving to join armies or companies would be a nice order.
Rather than 2 to move and then join a company, a character could save an
order.
Scouting improving agent rank: I agree. It is already
automatic you get the scout, and such activity should hone their skills.
Keep Scout PC and Scout hex as miscellaneous agent orders that do not
improve rank.
Nation Transport: Although adding internal consistency, the
idea of taking 6 turns to reach a friendly pop center doesn't really help
the game. It's in there to allow gameplay to proceed. Yes, more internally
consistent, but adds a degree of complexity that doesn't necessarily benefit
gameplay.
I hope I haven't gone over already plowed ground, but I just
wanted to get some thoughts of a relative new guy and what I think would
make ME into a more enjoyable game.
Mick