2nd Edition of 1650 mepbm

--- TONY A & JANETTE S <janton@cwcom.net> wrote: >
Hmm...not sure you can get away with this, Laurence.

Almost all more
complicated games are for multi players, and I would
suggest that there are
few games as popular as chess - none spring to mind.

Can you name any more complex game than chess for
two people that is more
popular?

sex comes to mind.

complex - its so complex, I can never work out the
rules that the women are using. All I know is that I
always seem to be doing something wrong.

two people - three or more are for younger people who
have more energy and don't realise that 'love' and
'sex' and different.

more popular - even my parents have done it.

thanks
din

···

_____________________________________________________________________________
http://invites.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Invites
- Organise your Mardi Gras party online!

>In chess, knights are meant to leap of castles! How unrealistic! :slight_smile:
Sure but if very simple games were eternally satisfying to all, then
we'd all be playing chess, all of the time, and more complex rule
systems would never have evolved

Hmm...not sure you can get away with this, Laurence. Almost all more
complicated games are for multi players, and I would suggest that there are
few games as popular as chess - none spring to mind.

Tiddlywinks is popular too. So is Britney Spears. But many of us move
on from them. The suggestion was that:
   Chess is unrealistic
   Therefore it's simple
   We know it's popular
   Therefore making game more complex is bad
I didn't think that makes a logical argument because:
   If it were true, we'd all be playing chess, tiddly-winks and
listening to Britney all of the time, and none of us would ever have
coughed up 20 quid for the MEPBM rulebook in the first place. Which is
the bit you seem to be challenging.
But actually, his analogy was weak for other reasons as well:
   Chess has simple rules but is mathematically and intellectually
highly complex - see the chess shelf in your local book shop.
   Making a game more realistic (I prefer 'internally consistent') does
not automatically equate with making it more complex, especially when
it's a computer moderated game, and the computer can be made to handle
much of the complexity for you.

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

···

TONY A & JANETTE S <janton@cwcom.net> wrote

Colin Forbes wrote:
>
>
> Every product has a shelf life
>
Oddly enough, this brings to mind one of the concepts I had for tweaking
the game. In real life food goes bad, timber rots, and steel rusts.
Yet you can store food in the cellars of Dol Guldur for years and
nothing happens to it. If products had a shelf life - best expressed as
a certain percentage 'ruined' each turn, say from 0% for mithril to
5-10% for food - it could have some very interesting effects.

RD: Valid point, but requires changing the program, and I don't see
Harlequin doing that unless it brought some benefit to the game other than
more realism. If you wanted to defend the existing system, you could argue
that production takes wastage into account!

If you are going to start knocking off a percentage of stores for wastage
each turn (which in theory is quite correct) where do you stop? You could
randomize food production on the basis of fair weather or foul, mines could
be flooded and mounts wiped out by foot-and-mouth. You could have fertility
spells which improve production, curses which reduce it. Not forgetting all
armies suffered to a greater or lesser degree from attrition, catching
diseases due to climate or contact with foreigners, sprained ankles due to
rough terrain and desertion due to poor morale.

Would any of the above actually make a better game? I suppose this depends
upon whether your idea of a better game is one which is more complex.
Introducing any of the above surely requires changes to the program and I
don't see Harlequin doing that unless they are confident it is going to
bring a LOT more business.

   And I heartily agree that caravans should be subject to the same
movement restrictions as characters, or even armies. Heck, imagine if
you could intercept that gold shipment to the Noldo, or steal food
destined for the Long Rider's cav army threatening your capital.

RD: Agree, but see my previous paragraph.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward A. Dimmick" <dukefenton@earthlink.net>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 3:46 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: 2nd Edition of 1650 mepbm

   However, this would again make things more complicated, which some
people would like better than others. Games like Victory and Legends
are just too much number crunching for my tastes, although Legends at
least has some style to recommend it.

> In the case of Middle Earth, if I were GSI I would be
> desperately working on a new scenario times to be released
> in conjunction with the film. We are all going to be flooded
> with hype and marketing connected with the film, so I cannot
> think of a mroe natural thing than for GSI to try to make
> some money off the back of it with a new or updated
> scenario.
>
As far as the movie goes, I just pray they don't make a hash out of it
like R@#^!# & 8@$$...

> I'm not sure whether this fits in to the basic scheme of
> things. After all, the idea is for every nation to have some
> sort of King (or Wraith). However it might be interesting to
> ensure that kidnap and assassinate orders were harder on a
> capital.
>
One would think that a King (esp. the Nazgul) would have a bonus for
things like adjusting taxes, increasing loyalty, changing relations and
so on. As it is, they don't appear to have any special status except
for being tougher on average than a nation's other characters.

-ED \1/

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/

>
If you are going to start knocking off a percentage
of stores for wastage
each turn (which in theory is quite correct) where
do you stop? You could
randomize food production on the basis of fair
weather or foul, mines could
be flooded and mounts wiped out by foot-and-mouth.

In oz I've heard that the latest foot-and-mouth
outbreak is pretty bad in england. I've heard that its
jumped the channel, so it is getting worse.

I wonder why the english famers get so much bad press.
Surely the states would get hit with it now and then ?

thanks
din

···

_____________________________________________________________________________
http://invites.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Invites
- Organise your Mardi Gras party online!

>And I heartily agree that caravans should be subject to the same
>movement restrictions as characters, or even armies. Heck, imagine if
>you could intercept that gold shipment to the Noldo, or steal food
>destined for the Long Rider's cav army threatening your capital.
> However, this would again make things more complicated, which some
>people would like better than others.
Well it depends how you do it.
Intercepting gold, means you need caravan units etc. and that would make
it much more complicated.

Having characters able to carry gold like artefacts (doesn't have to be
12,000 gold pieces, could be a pouch of diamonds) would be slightly more
complicated, but pay off in adding spice to assassinations and
challenges.

Restricting the distance/speed at which goods move would not be
complicated at all - it's a computer program remember. So if goods were
only allowed to move 12 hexes per turn, you could TranCar to an allied
nation 24 hexes away, and the computer would deliver those goods 2 turns
later. Players need to do a little more forward planning, that's all.
The payoff is a more believable world.

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

RD: Hey, that sounds like fun! It should also be possible to build into
caravan moves the risk of being raided by bandits/pirates/hostiles. The
further a caravan travels, the greater the risk of partial loss (bribing the
aggressors to go away) or even total loss (the bandits killed all the guards
and stole the lot!).

There are other branches to this thread: random caravans could turn up at
any pop with goods to trade; caravans could become encounters, etc.

Regards,

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: 2nd Edition of 1650 mepbm

Edward A. Dimmick <dukefenton@earthlink.net> wrote

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/

> Restricting the distance/speed at which goods move would not be
> complicated at all - it's a computer program remember. So if goods were
> only allowed to move 12 hexes per turn, you could TranCar to an allied
> nation 24 hexes away, and the computer would deliver those goods 2 turns
> later. Players need to do a little more forward planning, that's all.
> The payoff is a more believable world.

Hi,

I love MEPBM mostly because of its scintillating game play. I am perfectly
happy to sacrifice realism on the altar of playability.

In chess, knights are meant to leap of castles! How unrealistic! :slight_smile:

I hope that no decision on the game's future ever improves realism at the
cost of ANY game play.

Laurence - do you think this new rule would improve the game play? I

suspect

it would add a layer of complexity with little improvement in the quality

of

the game. My main fear is that it would further disincentive rich players
sending money to poor players, due to the difficulty of getting it right.
This would lead to more nation deaths and bad games.

Can you imagine the Witch King saying to the Blind Sorcerer 'I know that
I've got 40,000 in the bank right now, but I need you to send me 20,000

now,

which will arrive in three turns'. The BS would tell the WK to stuff it!

:slight_smile:

Sam

RD: That may be true. But REALISTICALLY, nations at such a a low level of
technology did NOT depend on a gold economy. They measured wealth in how
much land or how many animals they held, and the amount of food and other
agricultural produce the land and/or animals yielded.

Every ancient/medieval state, and every community within that state, was
almost totally self-supporting. As well as food, clothing and shelter, each
state armed its troops with whatever could be produced locally. The ancient
Egyptians had very little timber, so they made arrow shafts from reeds. The
nomadic steppe tribes (like Easterlings) originally had neither metals nor
timber, but it didn't stop them making powerful composite bows from horn,
bone and sinew and tipping arrows with flint. Men would always make tools
and weapons from whatever materials were available! How can you bankrupt a
nation which has neither gold nor any other metal?

It should NOT be possible to eliminate a nation thru financial bankruptcy
because no such thing existed! The only ways to eliminate such a nation
were by conquering its land and/or killing or capturing its people, flocks
and herds.

If nations in the ME game could be put on such a realistic economic basis,
instead of a false one based on gold and other metals, there would be no
need for gold to be teleported from one pop to another. The only way to
eliminate a nation would be by bloody conquest - now that would be more
realistic!

I appreciate that to put the ME nations on a realistic economic basis would
require rewriting much of the program. Also the ME economy as it stands
WORKS (however unrealistic!), so is never likely to be changed. But it's
only a matter of time before somebody, somewhere, comes up with a workable
program reflecting the economies of primitive, barbaric societies more
accurately than ME does.

Regards,

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Roads" <me@MiddleEarthGames.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: 2nd Edition of 1650 mepbm

Suggestions please.

I appreciate that to put the ME nations on a realistic economic basis

would

···

require rewriting much of the program. Also the ME economy as it stands
WORKS (however unrealistic!), so is never likely to be changed. But it's
only a matter of time before somebody, somewhere, comes up with a workable
program reflecting the economies of primitive, barbaric societies more
accurately than ME does.

Here are my views. Some already suggested in this thread so just take this as an extra vote for those. Some large, some tweaks just because I thought of them at the time

  1. Troop numbers

All the numbers given for army sizes are human equivalent. An army reported as 500 humans is really 500 individuals. An army reported as 500 trolls is, say, only 250 trolls but each one fights twice as well & costs twice as much as a human so it balances out. Ie I think this works well as it stands

  1. Troop types

Fighter without horse, fighter with horse (and tack). Each man (or man equivalent, see above) has a fixed base fighting strength & constitution. Better armour & weapons significantly improve fighting strength. However, the cost of an army depends on the weapons & armour it has (it’s easy & cheap to round up a levy of peasants with clubs, it’s much more expensive to train & maintain archers or a pike block, it’s quite expensive to support ploughboys on carthorses but it’s extremely expensive to arrange a battalion of knights in full armour).

Possibly morale should be affected by weapons/armour also. I’d certainly feel happier with a couple of inches of plate mail and padding between me and a sword coming in my direction.

  1. Fighting

Increase the effect of terrain, depending on the tactics used and the troop types involved. Lightly armoured guerillas can do a lot of damage in rough terrain.

  1. Home ground advantage

Nations fighting in territory that is on their map should get a bonus as they would presumably know the best places to start battles.

Even more significantly, armies fighting on their own or possibly friendly pop centres should get a straight addition to the army strength (or a factor increase - I’m not sure). This should be significantly larger than the current improvement but, on the other hand, there should not be a separate battle for the pop centre afterwards. This reflects the advantage of being behind a high, thick wall

  1. Morale

Low morale should cause desertions & possibly affect movement as well. High morale should improve movement. A good commander will affect the limits defining low/high.

Beseiged armies without food should lose morale very quickly.

  1. Army movement

Reduce movement during the winter, particularly for armies without food.

  1. Army size

A nation should have a maximum supportable army size, depending on total level of pop centres. After it has reached this size it should start to lose production (too many people at war, not enough at home). This probably needs a lot of care to avoid it unbalancing the game.

  1. Emissaries

Emissaries should be able to improve/worsen loyalty in any pop centre (so they can improve the loyalty of allied pop centres, particularly).

Emissaries should have an enhance/reduce morale skill order

  1. Agents

A few ropes cut here, a couple of water barrels poisoned there. That army’s never going to fight at full strength tomorrow.

There should be a limit on the total gold that can be stolen from a pop centre in one turn (except the capital) so that 16 Cloud Lord agents can’t bankrupt a nation by stealing from a village.

Agent orders against capitals should be more difficult

Double agents should report any other characters in companies they travel in

There should be nation messages like “xyz was seen talking to nation N” which expose double agents. Of course the better an agent & the more stealthy, the less likely to get spotted

I am with you on the gold and double agent issue, The most, outside of
the capital that can be stolen is the amount of money produced in the
that turn(Pop Center size times Tax rate+ surplus gold produced)

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Richard Farrer" <richard@r...> wrote:

Here are my views. Some already suggested in this thread so just

take this as an extra vote for those. Some large, some tweaks just
because I thought of them at the time

1) Troop numbers

All the numbers given for army sizes are human equivalent. An army

reported as 500 humans is really 500 individuals. An army reported as
500 trolls is, say, only 250 trolls but each one fights twice as well
& costs twice as much as a human so it balances out. Ie I think this
works well as it stands

2) Troop types

Fighter without horse, fighter with horse (and tack). Each man (or

man equivalent, see above) has a fixed base fighting strength &
constitution. Better armour & weapons significantly improve fighting
strength. However, the cost of an army depends on the weapons &
armour it has (it's easy & cheap to round up a levy of peasants with
clubs, it's much more expensive to train & maintain archers or a pike
block, it's quite expensive to support ploughboys on carthorses but
it's extremely expensive to arrange a battalion of knights in full
armour).

Possibly morale should be affected by weapons/armour also. I'd

certainly feel happier with a couple of inches of plate mail and
padding between me and a sword coming in my direction.

3) Fighting

Increase the effect of terrain, depending on the tactics used and

the troop types involved. Lightly armoured guerillas can do a lot of
damage in rough terrain.

4) Home ground advantage

Nations fighting in territory that is on their map should get a

bonus as they would presumably know the best places to start battles.

Even more significantly, armies fighting on their own or possibly

friendly pop centres should get a straight addition to the army
strength (or a factor increase - I'm not sure). This should be
significantly larger than the current improvement but, on the other
hand, there should not be a separate battle for the pop centre
afterwards. This reflects the advantage of being behind a high, thick
wall

5) Morale

Low morale should cause desertions & possibly affect movement as

well. High morale should improve movement. A good commander will
affect the limits defining low/high.

Beseiged armies without food should lose morale very quickly.

6) Army movement

Reduce movement during the winter, particularly for armies without food.

7) Army size

A nation should have a maximum supportable army size, depending on

total level of pop centres. After it has reached this size it should
start to lose production (too many people at war, not enough at home).
This probably needs a lot of care to avoid it unbalancing the game.

8) Emissaries

Emissaries should be able to improve/worsen loyalty in any pop

centre (so they can improve the loyalty of allied pop centres,
particularly).

Emissaries should have an enhance/reduce morale skill order

9) Agents

A few ropes cut here, a couple of water barrels poisoned there.

That army's never going to fight at full strength tomorrow.

There should be a limit on the total gold that can be stolen from a

pop centre in one turn (except the capital) so that 16 Cloud Lord
agents can't bankrupt a nation by stealing from a village.

Agent orders against capitals should be more difficult

Double agents should report any other characters in companies they

travel in

There should be nation messages like "xyz was seen talking to nation

N" which expose double agents. Of course the better an agent & the
more stealthy, the less likely to get spotted

4) Home ground advantage

Nations fighting in territory that is on their map should get a bonus as they
would presumably know the best places to start battles.

I don't really like that, since the maps are often situated
inconsistently, they're a long equally sized rectangle irrespective of
the "shape" or "density" of the nation just for starters.

The different nations already have terrain and climate modifiers. You
get these on the nation info sheet on turn 0. That's the first part of
the problem, as they're not in the rule book, people tend to forget
about them. I'm not even sure if Harlequin routinely send them out, as
I've had to ask for mine in the past.

But more significantly the modifiers are simply too small. For Woodmen
they are:

            > > T E R R A I N |
            >climate>sho pla rou for des swa mou |
            >-------|----------------------------|
            >polar | 90 90 90 95 87 85 85|
            >severe | 92 92 92 97 90 87 87|
            >cold | 95 95 95 100 92 90 90|
            >cool | 97 97 97 102 95 92 92|
            >mild | 100 100 100 105 97 95 95|
            >warm | 97 97 97 102 95 92 92|
            >hot | 95 95 95 100 92 90 90|

So the Woodies, who live their lives, and take their very name from the
forests, get a 5% advantage from fighting there. So what? These
figures need to be cranked up and down significantly, so that, for
example, the Woo and Sinda more often knew that they could beat DrL if
the catch him in the trees, but really wanted to plan to avoid meeting
him in the valley.

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

···

Richard Farrer <richard@rfarrer.freeserve.co.uk> wrote

But more significantly the modifiers are simply too
small. For Woodmen
they are:

            > > T E R R A I N |
            >climate>sho pla rou for des swa mou |
            >-------|----------------------------|
            >polar | 90 90 90 95 87 85 85|
            >severe | 92 92 92 97 90 87 87|
            >cold | 95 95 95 100 92 90 90|
            >cool | 97 97 97 102 95 92 92|
            >mild | 100 100 100 105 97 95 95|
            >warm | 97 97 97 102 95 92 92|
            >hot | 95 95 95 100 92 90 90|

So the Woodies, who live their lives, and take their
very name from the
forests, get a 5% advantage from fighting there. So
what? These
figures need to be cranked up and down
significantly, so that, for
example, the Woo and Sinda more often knew that they
could beat DrL if
the catch him in the trees, but really wanted to
plan to avoid meeting
him in the valley.

i'll second that. Lets put the fear of morgoth into
the free army that has to fight the DS on a polar
mountain hex, or have the orcs shriek in terror as
they realise they need to enter the forest to take
over a silvan pop centre.

And I like the idea of leaderless armies. But care
needs to be put into it, ie do leaderless armies have
a maintenance cost ?

'Deep in mordor, the 5000 northmen army suddenly find
themselves leaderless due to agent attacks on both the
commander and sub-commanders. Foods gone, no orders
from home base for an entire month. All looks hopeless
as they see army after army of DS move around them.
Even the 100 MA orc army stick their fingers at them
as they wander past. But they see allies approaching,
and they are saved. Its their pay arriving.

Alas sending so much money from home, and being unable
to tell the army to go native and disband, had
bankrupted the northmen. But at least they got their
pay on time'.

thanks
din

p.s. of course if leaderless armies don't get paid,
then we will ALL have fun using that rule. :slight_smile: So I
think more rules need to be added on leaderless armies
apart from 'lets see them dissolve based on their
falling morale'.

pps welcome back i11u5ion. long time, no hear.

···

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

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/

_____________________________________________________________________________
http://invites.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Invites
- Organise your Mardi Gras party online!

I find you unclear here. You effectively answer your own question here,
by demonstrating that of course leaderless armies must get paid, but
then you seem to dismiss, in your ps the mechanism of them dissolving
due to low morale.

Soldiers in mediaeval armies go home for two reasons (that is, for two
negative reasons, there's always the crops to bring in, but dare we
start talking about troops going home because it's Autumn?) They are no
pay, and no hope. So troops desert when they don't get paid. You have
8000 men under arms, your war chest is empty and your income raised from
tax and revenue from sales is only enough to pay 4000 = half of your men
desert. The other reason for desertion, is that individual men, think
that they are almost certainly going to die. Lots of things should pull
down the morale of an army, some large, some small:
- loss of a pop or army elsewhere
- seeing a commander lose in challenge
- being without a commander
- being without food
- force march
- low armour
I actually think that in general, morale's are too low, the average army
should have morale of 50%, as it is, very many armies have loyalties of
1%. So we'd need quite a few things to boost morale
- a turn with food and commander, and without movement
- mages present
- war machines present
- good armour
- large size (size matters :wink:
- proximity to capital
- high lvl commander
- sub commander
- cavalry present
- own pop
- allied pop
And then the morale desertions work something like this (all of the
numbers could be adjusted in play testing):
Morale
40-49 10% chance of 10% troops desert
30-39 15% chance of 15% troops desert
20-29 20% chance of 20% troops desert
10-19 25% chance of 25% troops desert
1- 9 30% chance of 30% troops desert
Really popular causes tend to attract volunteers on the march, so we
could even have:
Morale
60-69 10% chance of 10% growth in troop numbers
70-79 15% chance of 15% growth in troop numbers
and so on...

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

···

Din <din_ohtar@yahoo.com.au> wrote

And I like the idea of leaderless armies. But care
needs to be put into it, ie do leaderless armies have
a maintenance cost ?

'Deep in mordor, the 5000 northmen army suddenly find
themselves leaderless due to agent attacks on both the
commander and sub-commanders. Foods gone, no orders
from home base for an entire month. All looks hopeless
as they see army after army of DS move around them.
Even the 100 MA orc army stick their fingers at them
as they wander past.

p.s. of course if leaderless armies don't get paid,
then we will ALL have fun using that rule. :slight_smile: So I
think more rules need to be added on leaderless armies
apart from 'lets see them dissolve based on their
falling morale'.

AND the nation terrain modifiers are averaged with three other
numbers, which makes the WM 5% forest edge a giant 1.25% when this is
accounted for...

it would do little harm to increase the range to a number like 60-140.
This is a +10%/-10% range in practice. Ditto for the starting
training levels...make 20 start equal 30, 25 equal 40, and 30 equal 50
and these bonuses become interesting. They also encourage playing "in
character"; dwarven infantry would be effectively 10% better in raw
strength if the dwarves hired HI at 50 training, and they would be
much better at threats, etc.

cheers,

Marc

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@l...> wrote:

Richard Farrer <richard@r...> wrote
>4) Home ground advantage
>
>Nations fighting in territory that is on their map should get a

bonus as they

>would presumably know the best places to start battles.
I don't really like that, since the maps are often situated
inconsistently, they're a long equally sized rectangle irrespective

of

the "shape" or "density" of the nation just for starters.

The different nations already have terrain and climate modifiers.

You

get these on the nation info sheet on turn 0. That's the first part

of

the problem, as they're not in the rule book, people tend to forget
about them. I'm not even sure if Harlequin routinely send them out,

as

I've had to ask for mine in the past.

But more significantly the modifiers are simply too small. For

Woodmen

they are:

            > > T E R R A I N |
            >climate>sho pla rou for des swa mou |
            >-------|----------------------------|
            >polar | 90 90 90 95 87 85 85|
            >severe | 92 92 92 97 90 87 87|
            >cold | 95 95 95 100 92 90 90|
            >cool | 97 97 97 102 95 92 92|
            >mild | 100 100 100 105 97 95 95|
            >warm | 97 97 97 102 95 92 92|
            >hot | 95 95 95 100 92 90 90|

So the Woodies, who live their lives, and take their very name from

the

forests, get a 5% advantage from fighting there. So what? These
figures need to be cranked up and down significantly, so that, for
example, the Woo and Sinda more often knew that they could beat DrL

if

the catch him in the trees, but really wanted to plan to avoid

meeting

···

him in the valley.

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

Ringlin and Galadriel in the same turn...
ouch, that's gotta smart.

I think we've finnished off the freep counterattack in this game

2nd ed. Sorry, I mean seconded, although I think that the penalties for low morale should be more severe.

I like the idea of high morale troops getting extra recruits. However, it would seem odd for a FP army in Mordor to find all these orcs suddenly joining. I think it should be based on morale and also proximity to your own/friendly/tolerant pop centres. For example an army with high morale one hex from a tolerant camp might get 1 or 2 recruits (ma only) whereas an army in its own city might get up to 100 or so, possibly with some ‘nobles’ who have their own armour/weapons/horses. These numbers should be after normal recruitment, however & only give total recruitment up to the pop centre limit (so if someone recruits 400 troops at a city, there are at most 100 troops available for free recruitment).

···

`
I find you unclear here. You effectively answer your own question here,
by demonstrating that of course leaderless armies must get paid, but
then you seem to dismiss, in your ps the mechanism of them dissolving
due to low morale.

Soldiers in mediaeval armies go home for two reasons (that is, for two
negative reasons, there’s always the crops to bring in, but dare we
start talking about troops going home because it’s Autumn?) They are no
pay, and no hope. So troops desert when they don’t get paid. You have
8000 men under arms, your war chest is empty and your income raised from
tax and revenue from sales is only enough to pay 4000 = half of your men
desert. The other reason for desertion, is that individual men, think
that they are almost certainly going to die. Lots of things should pull
down the morale of an army, some large, some small:

  • loss of a pop or army elsewhere
    • seeing a commander lose in challenge
  • being without a commander
    • being without food
  • force march
  • low armour
    I actually think that in general, morale’s are too low, the average army
    should have morale of 50%, as it is, very many armies have loyalties of
    1%. So we’d need quite a few things to boost morale
    • a turn with food and commander, and without movement
  • mages present
  • war machines present
    • good armour
  • large size (size matters :wink:
  • proximity to capital
    • high lvl commander
  • sub commander
  • cavalry present
  • own pop
    • allied pop
      And then the morale desertions work something like this (all of the
      numbers could be adjusted in play testing):
      Morale
      40-49 10% chance of 10% troops desert
      30-39 15% chance of 15% troops desert
      20-29 20% chance of 20% troops desert
      10-19 25% chance of 25% troops desert
      1- 9 30% chance of 30% troops desert
      Really popular causes tend to attract volunteers on the march, so we
      could even have:
      Morale
      60-69 10% chance of 10% growth in troop numbers
      70-79 15% chance of 15% growth in troop numbers
      and so on…

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

`

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com [http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com](http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com)

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the [Yahoo! Terms of Service](http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/).