Agent Actions And Relations

General
#1

Anyone know for sure?

I have been labouring under the assumption that when my agents attempted to issue offensive orders against another nation the relations held towards that nation were important. Basically if I hated them I stood a better chance of succeeding than if I only disliked them.

However, the rule book only seems to indicate that the target’s relations to you are relevant. From my 1650 rulebook (which is very old dating back to ME21 under GAD so bear with me if there’s been an update since!) . . .

“Relations affect the chances for success for some agent and for some emissary orders. In general, the better the relations a nation has toward your nation, the easier it will be for your agents and emissaries to carry out certain of their missions”.

I can’t see anywhere that indicates that the agent’s relations to the target are relevant. This would actually make sense to me with assassins being pretty cold-blooded types, the last thing you’d want is for them to be boiling with rage and hatred and make mistakes!

So, is it a myth that downgrading helps you with agent orders or is there some truth in it? Is there something I’ve missed in the rulebook?

Cheers, Simon.

#2

If you have played so long and are an ‘Olde Timer’, why have you not reached your own conclusion? Is it your hope that one of Peter’s old drinking buddies knows something you don’t>

#3

Originally posted by Arthedain73
If you have played so long and are an ‘Olde Timer’, why have you not reached your own conclusion? Is it your hope that one of Peter’s old drinking buddies knows something you don’t>

Like I said, I’ve always felt certain that the agent’s relations to the target were relevant. However, what I’ve read in the rulebook seems to indicate otherwise.

Even if I went back through every assassination attempt that I’ve ever seen I doubt I could prove it either way with the stats to any real degree of relevance or accuracy.

Conclusions are fine if you have the evidence to draw them from, even after this time I don’t feel that I do.

Simon.

#4

Simon; the reason the quote you posted reads as it does is that the better the relations between you victims nation and yours the less likely security will be out looking for you rather than the official enemies of their state.

Thus you slip through security with less notice as they are on the alert for someone else.

#5

Thanks Brad, I agree it makes sense.

I’m still left with the question of whether the agent’s relations towards the target make a difference or not though.

Cheers, Simon.

#6

Since the matter is of concern to you and you seek assurances, yes relations serves as a force multiplier in everything except personal challenges. You are welcome.

#7

In the Rulebook, under the descriptions for all of the Agent orders, it says that the outcome depends on (among other things) “the relations between the nations”. This seems to indicate rather definitively that relations matter both ways.

Also, I checked the emmy InfOthr command for giggles and it specifically says that only the target nation’s relations toward you affect the outcome, and not your relations toward the target nation.

Hope that helps.

#8

Let me suggest that if Simon cared what the rule book said he would not be using one more than 12 years old. He asked if someone knew for sure. I’m sure. By no means is that the only error in the rule book.

#9

The quote that Simon used in his original post is also in the most current rulebook on page 15. I don’t think it is an error at all. The quote specifically says that Agent and Emissary orders are affected by the target nation’s relations toward your nation. This is true. It just so happens that your relations toward the target nation also affect Agent orders, but not Emissary orders, you just have to look in more than one place to get all the information.

I am certainly not going to defend every portion of the rulebook, but if you know of glaring errors, I would be very interested to hear about them. Maybe a new edition is in order? Or at the very least some kind of addendum. While I certainly agree that the rulebook can be very vague at times, I can’t think of any part of it that gives flat out wrong information. Please enlighten us if this is not the case.

#10

Clint posted some rulebook errors a few months ago on the list. Perhaps he will also post them on your new, and excellent, forum also.

#11

Originally posted by Arthedain73
Clint posted some rulebook errors a few months ago on the list.

Is this the post on the MEPBMLIST that you’re referring to:

From: “Middle Earth PBM Games” <me@M…>
Date: Wed May 8, 2002 4:15 am
Subject: Rules Updates

[b]If you know of any rules that are not correct in the rule book it would be a
great help to the players and us if you can inform us and we can then update
the House Rules and keep players upto date. (They are presently in the What
to do section of the House Rules).

Thanks

Clint[/b]

There were a few replies, and I recall other similar threads on the rules. None of the replies or subsequent responses by MEGames detailed “Errors” in the 7th Edition Rules. All the complaints were of the nature “the rules aren’t clear.” Once you learn how to read them, they’re quite clear.

#12

Originally posted by Arthedain73
Let me suggest that if Simon cared what the rule book said he would not be using one more than 12 years old. He asked if someone knew for sure. I’m sure. By no means is that the only error in the rule book.

Thanks, I am curioous how you know this with such certainty though.

Simon.

#13

Originally posted by Arthedain73
Clint posted some rulebook errors a few months ago on the list. Perhaps he will also post them on your new, and excellent, forum also.

This post was made by Stuart in May (2002):

Greetings,

This is to give you some clarifications and corrections to the ME rulebook
we have recently learned about.

***The 630 Rescue order will release a character in one of seven randomly
chosen hexes - the hex the hostage is in and/or one of the hexes surrounding
his current location. The rulebook is incorrect when is states the hostage
will be released in the location where he is rescued.

***The 260 Siege Pop Center order does work for navies, and they do not
anchor ships - but the navies do need to be able to anchor ships. The
rulebook is incorrect when stating navies can’t siege a pop center.

If you have any questions concerning this issue, feel free to get in touch
with us.

Good Gaming,
Stuart

#14

Simon let me turn your question back on you. You play this game for many years. You subconciously evaluate hundreds of agent orders. You intuitively arrive at the correct conclusion, vis-a-vis national relations and agent orders. Suddenly you distrust your own good judgement. Why was that?

Yes, it was Stuart. Thanks.

#15

All the complaints were of the nature “the rules aren’t clear.” Once you learn how to read them, they’re quite clear.

Oh, man – don’t get me started.

First, the rules are often dead wrong. The combat algorithm, for instance, says that results of pop center assaults are calculated before troop losses are assessed. That’s just not true. The turn sequence for hostage escape attempts is also wrong; it’s listed after agent orders, but can occur both before and after.

Second, in many more places, the rules are misleading. The table that under “Force Needed to Threaten” that you need 2500 troops to Threaten an MT, but as we know, Gothmog doesn’t read the rulebook, which goes on to add for Threats that

“To be successful, the Army must be large enough to overcome the Population Center’s instrinsic defenses, which are based on size, loyalty, fortifications, and the presence of their defending Armies.”

Again, just not true. Threaten does seem to depend on Command rank – which isn’t even mentioned there – and it can be done by an army too small to Capture the pc. Also, the above “explanation” suggests Threaten can be attempted in “the presence of…defending armies.” It can’t, as it says later in the rulebook.

Finally, some orders are inscrutable. Specifics about Siege Population Center, certain rules concerning naval movement and combat, many details of turn sequence – all those can be guessed by experience, but not by reading the rulebook.

Experienced players know and take for granted omissions in the rulebook (that issuing 285 Flee is the same as ignoring an encounter, or that a nation can live without an MT as a capital between orders 250 and 949), and it’s fine to rely on experience or experienced friends.

But don’t count on the rulebook.

Nanook

#16

Originally posted by nanook
[b]Oh, man – don’t get me started.

First, the rules are often dead wrong. The combat algorithm, for instance, says that results of pop center assaults are calculated before troop losses are assessed. That’s just not true.[/b]

I’ve had successful pop centre combat and then had my army disbanded because they’re under 100.

The turn sequence for hostage escape attempts is also wrong; it’s listed after agent orders, but can occur both before and after.

You’ll note under Sequence of Events on the Orders Quick Reference page (109) it says “The following list provides a general indication of the sequence of events in ME-PBM” The italics are not mine, they’re in the book.

[b]
Second, in many more places, the rules are misleading. The table that under “Force Needed to Threaten” that you need 2500 troops to Threaten an MT, but as we know, Gothmog doesn’t read the rulebook, which goes on to add for Threats that

“To be successful, the Army must be large enough to overcome the Population Center’s instrinsic defenses, which are based on size, loyalty, fortifications, and the presence of their defending Armies.”

Again, just not true. Threaten does seem to depend on Command rank – which isn’t even mentioned there – and it can be done by an army too small to Capture the pc. Also, the above “explanation” suggests Threaten can be attempted in “the presence of…defending armies.” It can’t, as it says later in the rulebook.
[/b]

The paragraph format rules are VERY rarely taken as how things go. I have long ago tossed them away as potentially useful archived material and rely almost solely on the actual order descriptions. For example, on page 83 one reads: “Threaten Populatin Centre: Success is based on the Command Rank, the size of the Population Centre, the Loyalty rank of the populace, the size of the threatening army, the presence of any war machines, and the presence of any fortifications.” You’ll also note under “Prerequisites” the point “Enemy armies are not present”

[b]Finally, some orders are inscrutable. Specifics about Siege Population Center, certain rules concerning naval movement and combat, many details of turn sequence – all those can be guessed by experience, but not by reading the rulebook.

Experienced players know and take for granted omissions in the rulebook (that issuing 285 Flee is the same as ignoring an encounter, or that a nation can live without an MT as a capital between orders 250 and 949), and it’s fine to rely on experience or experienced friends.[/b]

Um, the Encounter Message on your pdf tells you that issuing no response is taken as FLEE…

[b]
But don’t count on the rulebook.

Nanook [/b]

When taken into full account, I strongly suggest DO count on the rulebook. Whenever I’ve been the victim of either a misinterpretation or, frankly, insufficient rule research, I’ve always been able to discover my error.

I’ll repeat, MY error. I’ve made many, but I cast not the blame elsewhere.

#17

Thanks Jason for the research finding Stuart’s post.

I know that all other hostaged characters escape or what have you, to those 7 hexes, but could not find the specific description of such in the rules (quick perusal, I admit). Is it even there? If so, I’m curious as to how those situations are described. I would make sense that All such circumstances whereby a character is alive but unable to issue orders at all and is then “released” would work the same way.

As for the seige order, well, that’s obviously an error in the program, no? How is a navy, without anchoring ships, expected to cut off all the roads leading to the population centre that happens to be on coastal flatlands or have docks? Silly that, but those poor much-maligned rules take the heat…

#18

I’ve had successful pop centre combat and then had my army disbanded because they’re under 100.

Fine, but you know that if you attack a pc with enough strength to take it but too little con to survive – say, an army of MA with a combat arty – then miraculously, the pc is NOT burned to the ground, because your troop losses are counted first. The sequence listed is just plain wrong.

You’ll note under Sequence of Events on the Orders Quick Reference page (109) it says “The following list provides a general indication of the sequence of events in ME-PBM” .

Well, if you read “general” as meaning “possibly incorrect” rather than “rough outline without all details,” fine. But it’s still misleading at best.

You’ll also note under “Prerequisites” the point “Enemy armies are not present”.

Right, which is why I said

It can’t, as it says later in the rulebook.

In any case, the point is that some things in the rulebook, such as the description quoted in my above post, are simply incorrect.

Um, the Encounter Message on your pdf tells you that issuing no response is taken as FLEE…

Um, surely you’ve been in games where newbies issued it anyway. In any case, it isn’t, um, in the rulebook.

And isn’t the other example still troubling? You can live without one of the requirements for a nation (a Major Town or City) until order 949, while another – the need for a non-negative treasury – can’t wait until Gold arrives via order 948. That is NOT clear in the rulebook. On the contrary, it suggests the two needs are equivalent.

And what about details for naval movement, which you’ve asked about, or the elusive mechanics of sieges? Weakly documented at best.

The rulebook seems clear only once you have enough experience to know which parts of it to trust.

Nanook

#19

Originally posted by Arthedain73
Simon let me turn your question back on you. You play this game for many years. You subconciously evaluate hundreds of agent orders. You intuitively arrive at the correct conclusion, vis-a-vis national relations and agent orders. Suddenly you distrust your own good judgement. Why was that?

Quite simply because there are so many variables and I haven’t played many agent-strong nations in the past, in fact up until very recently just about none. The problem is with perceptions about the rules is that the only non-circumstancial evidence we have is the rulebook and clearly I’m doing even that a favour here!

I’ve seen it all too often in the past that perceptions somehow metamorphasise into fact and very soon become gospel without anyone noticing just how they got there. And this is in all walks of life not just mere PBM rules!

That’s why I ask . . .

Simon.

#20

You can generally send us an email about any aspect of the game that is pertinent to your situation. Generally I won’t answer questions on game mechanics here - too broad a spectrum and too time consuming - but if you have a specific question about something you are about to do and you need clarity then get in touch in time for us to answer.

Note we might just inform you “to be discovered in the course of play”, but more often we are able to assist.

Clint