Alternate FA Scenarios: LAS and NKA

mepbmlist
#1

For others, that's the attraction. It is a time of
rebirth after decades of great upheaval. There are
people scattered throughout, all the old lore is lost,
various tribes and clans with their leaders and odd
characteristics (SNA's) are attempting to begin anew.
All that remains is a vague knowledge of the whole map,
and the memories of the Twin Kingdoms. Develop your
nation and join the new world...very appealing..

I prefer the NKA vs LAS. It is really the kidnap/ass
at +20 that is unbalanced. How many of those silly
horror stories do people have regarding double scouting?
Without the k/a, scout all you want.....without the k/a,
who will want it anyway - let the market decide....!

Brad Brunet

···

On Sun, 07 January 2001, "Laurence G. Tilley" wrote:

Thanks very much for that. I thought the ideas very interesting.
Personally I think that 4th Age stinks - mostly due to that fact that I
think that not knowing where your enemy's pops are is rather stupid.

__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com

#2

Hi Brad,

I might not have been clear about NKA.
With NKA, the kidnap and assassination orders
are not allowed. So not only do you not
kidnap or assassinate at +20 -- you don't do
either order at all, no matter what your rank!
Both 615 and 620 are verboten. Because of that,
the +20 SNA is not allowed, but that is just
to prevent confusion. If you were allowed to
put 12K of your SNA's into it, the 12K would
be wasted because you can't use the orders.

Jeremy Richman

···

--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, ditletang@c... wrote:

I prefer the NKA vs LAS. It is really the kidnap/ass
at +20 that is unbalanced. How many of those silly
horror stories do people have regarding double scouting?
Without the k/a, scout all you want.....without the k/a,
who will want it anyway - let the market decide....!

Brad Brunet

#3

Hello. I'm in the first NKA, which does have an interesting and
different feel. There is one thing that I would very, very strongly
recommend for future versions of this type: geographic balance.
I would divide up the map into four sections, for example the Misties
and Northwest; Mirkwood, Sea of Rhun, Rhovannion; Mordor and the SE
hills/rough; south Dunland, Gondor, Corsairs and SW hill/rough.
Two dark/free alliance capitals in each quadrant, one neutral each in
NK/SK turf, 3 neutrals in each of the other two quadrants and one
neutral in any area.

The reason is simple. In a normal game characters have a lot of
reach, so even if they are in some godforsaken corner you can hit them
with assassins/emmys in a few turns. In NKA, there is *nothing* but
an army that can take a pop center with 100 men at arms and a
commander. This is fine if the nations start out close enough that
this is possible. I'm afraid that NKA#1 has the potential to turn
into a dreary exercise given that the free and dark set up very far
away; I can say that the neutrals have potential boredom as one big
consideration in choosing alliances, which is not entirely a good
thing. This isn't a fatal flaw, but it is a real concern.

I also happen to think this would give a faster and more interesting
early game and cut down on abuses in the setups. It would be fairly
straightforward in a first come/first served setup; fill positions by
alliance and sector.

cheers,

Marc Pinsonneault

···

--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, JeremyRichman@c... wrote:

--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, ditletang@c... wrote:
> I prefer the NKA vs LAS. It is really the kidnap/ass
> at +20 that is unbalanced. How many of those silly
> horror stories do people have regarding double scouting?
> Without the k/a, scout all you want.....without the k/a,
> who will want it anyway - let the market decide....!
>
> Brad Brunet

Hi Brad,

I might not have been clear about NKA.
With NKA, the kidnap and assassination orders
are not allowed. So not only do you not
kidnap or assassinate at +20 -- you don't do
either order at all, no matter what your rank!
Both 615 and 620 are verboten. Because of that,
the +20 SNA is not allowed, but that is just
to prevent confusion. If you were allowed to
put 12K of your SNA's into it, the 12K would
be wasted because you can't use the orders.

Jeremy Richman

#4

Hi Marc,

I've been in several FA games now where
by chance the FP and DS are far apart.
Even in regular (non-LAS) scenarios,
the agents don't make much difference
in the underlying structure of the game.
The sheer distances between the alliances
will usually causes those games to go on
for a long time, and require lots of extra
scouting/scrying.

(I like that -- it gives an extra richness
to those games for me. The other type,
where natural enemies are more closely
intermixed, can sometimes turn into a slugfest
that is over all too soon.)

BTW, when it comes to taking out pc's with
100 MA, don't forget the Weakness spell.
I suspect that in NKA games it will find more
popularity. Not only because it is the best
"substitute" for assassinations, but also because
in a regular game (IMO) Weakness is pointless, your
mages have to be in the same hex as the target,
so fairly soon they will get assassinated one
by one. In fact I rarely use mages for conjuring
hordes or military spells because they are so
vulnerable to assassins, and whereas a dead
commander is easy to replace, it takes a long time
to build up a mage. One of the nice things about
NKA in my opinion is that mages are more practical,
so I can finally explore that aspect of the game,
including all the lost list spells they can take.

It is too bad that the layout in NKA#1 is so
extreme, though. All the FP at one end, and
all the DS/N intermixed throughout the rest.
Must be some way to figure out some way to
put together challenging alliances.

Jeremy Richman

#5

We have allocated areas of the map for this.

Clint

···

It is too bad that the layout in NKA#1 is so
extreme, though. All the FP at one end, and
all the DS/N intermixed throughout the rest.
Must be some way to figure out some way to
put together challenging alliances.

Jeremy Richman

#6

I meant, some way to figure out challenging
alliances in this particular game.

I don't see how in a regular "team" (non-grudge)
game as this is that we could ensure anything
about layout of FP and DS. The possibility
of them being far apart, which does tend to
slow the game down, seems to be part of the
FA scenario.

Jeremy

···

--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, "Harlequin Games" <pbm@h...> wrote:

We have allocated areas of the map for this.

Clint
> It is too bad that the layout in NKA#1 is so
> extreme, though. All the FP at one end, and
> all the DS/N intermixed throughout the rest.
> Must be some way to figure out some way to
> put together challenging alliances.
>
> Jeremy Richman

#7

ditletang@canada.com wrote

Personally I think that 4th Age stinks - mostly due to that fact that I
think that not knowing where your enemy's pops are is rather stupid.

For others, that's the attraction. It is a time of
rebirth after decades of great upheaval. There are
people scattered throughout, all the old lore is lost,
various tribes and clans with their leaders and odd
characteristics (SNA's) are attempting to begin anew.
All that remains is a vague knowledge of the whole map,
and the memories of the Twin Kingdoms. Develop your
nation and join the new world...very appealing..

For me there is a credibility gap here. I cannot suspend my disbelief
enough to come to terms with the potty lack of geographical information
available to governments in 4th age. Merchants can transport tonnes of
gold unhindered from one corner of the map to another in as little as 2
weeks. Characters can fly 12 hexes irrespective of terrain. But
there's an MT 6 hexes away, and you don't know who owns it, or whether
it's fried or foe?

When 2950 came out with its reduced economy, a lot of people slagged it
by claiming that it was just 1650 with an extra 10 turns for the gaming
companies to take our cash (i.e. it took you 10 extra turns to build an
economy and get going). I have never found this to be the case, BUT it
is something which I feel could be levelled at 4th age. A lot of time
is wasted, just finding out where the other nations are.

Conscious that I'm in a minority here, and that Clint and most of North
America seem to think its the best thing since sliced bread. Anyone
else dislike 4th Age? Perhaps I'll try it again one day. The games I
played were both team games (i.e.) sign up as a team. Perhaps I should
try it as an individual.

Regards,

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

#8

Laurence G. Tilley wrote:

Conscious that I'm in a minority here, and that Clint and most of North
America seem to think its the best thing since sliced bread. Anyone
else dislike 4th Age?

With an intensity you would not believe...

Gavin

#9

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

ditletang@c... wrote

Conscious that I'm in a minority here, and that Clint and most of

North

America seem to think its the best thing since sliced bread. Anyone
else dislike 4th Age? Perhaps I'll try it again one day. The games

I

played were both team games (i.e.) sign up as a team. Perhaps I

should

try it as an individual.

Regards,

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

I was curious about the number of US game starts, so I went back to
the old GSI web page. Around the start of 2000 they were beginning
games 50 (4th age), 105 (2950), and 307 (1650). The most recent
starts I've seen are 55 (4th age), 113 (2950), and 318 (1650), which
means that there have been 6 new 4th age games, 9 new 2950 games, and
12 new 1650 games in the last year. So, at least in the USA, 4th age
is the least popular, 2950 is in between, and 1650 is the most
popular. Note also that 4/6 of the 4th age games were either limited
agent or no kidnap/assassinate games (correct me here if I'm wrong
Jeremy), so there are even fewer straight 4th age games.

I'm in the NKA game as an experiment and will not play unmodified 4th
age given the volume of negative message board sentiment I've seen
about it on the DGE/GSI boards. I think the idea is a good one, but
there are some setup changes that are needed to avoid some serious
problems that have popped up in the games thus far.

cheers,

Marc Pinsonneault

#10

>> Personally I think that 4th Age stinks - mostly due to that fact that I
>> think that not knowing where your enemy's pops are is rather stupid.
>
>For others, that's the attraction. It is a time of
>rebirth after decades of great upheaval. There are
>people scattered throughout, all the old lore is lost,
>various tribes and clans with their leaders and odd
>characteristics (SNA's) are attempting to begin anew.
>All that remains is a vague knowledge of the whole map,
>and the memories of the Twin Kingdoms. Develop your
>nation and join the new world...very appealing..
For me there is a credibility gap here. I cannot suspend my disbelief
enough to come to terms with the potty lack of geographical information
available to governments in 4th age. Merchants can transport tonnes of
gold unhindered from one corner of the map to another in as little as 2
weeks. Characters can fly 12 hexes irrespective of terrain. But
there's an MT 6 hexes away, and you don't know who owns it, or whether
it's fried or foe?

RD: Laurence, FA is no different in these three respects from 1650 and 2950.
The geographical knowledge about the latter two is due to people collating
info over a number of games and publishing it. The level of geographical
knowledge delivered by the program itself is exactly the same in each
scenario!

When 2950 came out with its reduced economy, a lot of people slagged it
by claiming that it was just 1650 with an extra 10 turns for the gaming
companies to take our cash (i.e. it took you 10 extra turns to build an
economy and get going). I have never found this to be the case, BUT it
is something which I feel could be levelled at 4th age. A lot of time
is wasted, just finding out where the other nations are.

RD: I agree with you here.

Conscious that I'm in a minority here, and that Clint and most of North
America seem to think its the best thing since sliced bread. Anyone
else dislike 4th Age? Perhaps I'll try it again one day. The games I
played were both team games (i.e.) sign up as a team. Perhaps I should
try it as an individual.

Regards,

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

RD: I like 1650 best, FA second, and 2950 third. As Harlequin have shown
themselves willing to consider player-designed variants, this is surely the
way forward. I don't think they will ever change the (admittedly crazy) way
goods are teleported around the map, or the rather more defensible character
movement, any more than they will restrict the troops types available to
each nation (eg stop the DS fielding thousands of trolls, and Dwarves from
fielding hc), or add new spells.

What they are willing to do is juggle the number, power and geographical
distribution of pops, armies, characters, stores and/or special abilities.
This should keep inventive players busy for years to come and give us all
something a little bit different to try!

Regards,

Richard.

#11

Yes point taken. We routinely play 1650 and 2950 with access to the
start up data, and forget that the first players, of the first games
would not have had it. However, I have to say that the fact that the
startup data is available, merely corrects a weakness in the original
game. A weakness which is restored in 4th age - one would know basic
information about other nations on the same continent even in the Iron
Age.

The fact that the artefact powers and dragon encounter solutions were
collated and published, is a different matter entirely. That was
something which perhaps needed putting right. The solution would have
been to randomise the artefacts and dragon responses for each game.
What did they do for 4th age?... Dropped the dragons and curse
artefacts completely, randomised the nations, totally stripping
Tolkien's map of Tolkien's milieu. A huge case of throwing the baby out
with the bath water!

Regards,

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

···

Richard John Devereux <devereux@lineone.net> wrote

RD: Laurence, FA is no different in these three respects from 1650 and 2950.
The geographical knowledge about the latter two is due to people collating
info over a number of games and publishing it. The level of geographical
knowledge delivered by the program itself is exactly the same in each
scenario!

#12

`But

there’s an MT 6 hexes away, and you don’t know who owns it, or whether
it’s fried or foe?

RD: Laurence, FA is no different in these three respects from 1650 and 2950.
`

I still find it strange that a pop centre can appear on your map (speaking as a 1650 player) and you don't automatically know who owns it. I thought this area was where your populace wanders about frequently. I think you should be told whenever another nation creates or upgrades a pop centre on your map - not just at the start of game.

#13

Well here is my idea on the 4th age ...I like it ...

That being said I can understand why some people don't ... I like the flexibility it
affords though I don't like the same. While the first senerios are great there is the
fact that there are these boards and the lists and if you know where they are
people that are new have no chance even though they might be a better
strategist than you.
On the other hand I hate that you can have a group called the flying monkeys that
are a group of heavy calvary dwarves from the swamps (impausible as that is). I
think it s the people rather than the system though in a lot of cases. I have had
two games .. One as a sort of splinter, Black Numenorian group lke the Corsairs
from the far south. Researched and plausible it was a good fit. The other one was
a sort of new Beorning group that allowed flexibility but tradition the same time.
It sort of allowed some sort of characterization and roleplay since I was forming
it. Not just war game or strategy like chess since everything is visible with the lists
out there.
I also don't like that traditional characters can be taken out play and destroyed. I
mean what would the books be without some of the characters that in 2950 can
be killed. The familiarity is good but at the same time it is bad if the Riders of
Rohan are nuked and can't come to the aid of Gondor in 60 years etc ...

I think the way to go with FA is with a couple of friends at most groups of 2
maybe. It allows some communication and knowledge of the map but not too
much.

Anyway .. just a couple of points. Later