In an effort to wrench discussion away from the subject of player
ratings, I'd like to pose a question about game play.
In 1650 and 2950, where the artifacts are largely the same and the
numbers are known at game start, how would you rate the top 7
artifacts that a team should locate?
If you don't mind, I'd appreciate it if you would identify whether
you are from the US or the UK, as I think there may be some
differences between the two countries' players on this subject. If
you are from neither the US nor the UK, my deepest respects to you -
I'd like to know your thoughts as well.
As a player who prefers to allow others on my team
to discuss (generally fight...) over the 940-428's,
I'd like to throw some consideration behind the
Pectoral (if you're a FP in 1650, try and steal it
before the Dragon Lord, WK, and their Rhudaur lackies
build toooo many cities and ...hidden... MT's)
Brad Brunet
from Canada, no more American or British than Angolan
In an effort to wrench discussion away from the subject of player
ratings, I'd like to pose a question about game play.
In 1650 and 2950, where the artifacts are largely the same and the
numbers are known at game start, how would you rate the top 7
artifacts that a team should locate?
If you don't mind, I'd appreciate it if you would identify whether
you are from the US or the UK, as I think there may be some
differences between the two countries' players on this subject. If
you are from neither the US nor the UK, my deepest respects to you -
I'd like to know your thoughts as well.
Brad Brunet
from Canada, no more American or British than Angolan
Having just spent 9 weeks in Canada, It seems that canadians are
wanna-be brits
The pectoral would have to be in my top 6 artifacts, having never had
the luck to wield it, I wouldnt know its power, but i can dream.
As Emi artifacts are a lot more rare in the game, then its
usefullness has got to be higher than a lot of the agent artifacts.
Rating Artifacts is difficult in the game, but a couple of things come to
mind.
First, the game is a game of Economics. You need to allocate x resources to
get y things done. Your source of resources is primarily Characters. The
more characters you have, the more you get to accomplish.
Second, anything that lets your characters succeed, or let you neutralize
other's characters, is a good thing in the game.
Third, the game mechanics favors character neutralization over Character
Enhancement. Look how easy it is to assassinate a character compared to how
hard it is for a nation to replace that character (Especially high level,
multi-classed starting characters).
I rank emmy higher because of the importance of placing camps and then
increasing the size of those popcenters. Mage artifacts get a higher nod
because of the difficulty of raising a mage's skill compared to that of
increasing a Commander's skill. Agent gets the HIGHEST nod because these
artifacts automatically add to Character Neutralization AND Enhancement. The
difference in my mind between 1 and 2 is negligible.
Before I had a chance to play the WK I would have agreed with Jeff's list
100%. But I would rate the Emissary artifacts above the Conjure artifacts.
I was able to put together an emissary company capable of infothr much
faster than I ever have before. If the game had not ended early I would have
denied the FP many popcenters.
Will
···
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffery A. Dobberpuhl" <webguys@lakenet.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 5:06 AM
Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] And now for something completely different:
artifacts
An interesting question, Mark.
Rating Artifacts is difficult in the game, but a couple of things come to
mind.
First, the game is a game of Economics. You need to allocate x resources
to
get y things done. Your source of resources is primarily Characters. The
more characters you have, the more you get to accomplish.
Second, anything that lets your characters succeed, or let you neutralize
other's characters, is a good thing in the game.
Third, the game mechanics favors character neutralization over Character
Enhancement. Look how easy it is to assassinate a character compared to
how
hard it is for a nation to replace that character (Especially high level,
multi-classed starting characters).
I rank emmy higher because of the importance of placing camps and then
increasing the size of those popcenters. Mage artifacts get a higher nod
because of the difficulty of raising a mage's skill compared to that of
increasing a Commander's skill. Agent gets the HIGHEST nod because these
artifacts automatically add to Character Neutralization AND Enhancement.
The
difference in my mind between 1 and 2 is negligible.
The difficulty is that both emmy artifacts start in DS possession, and they're
usually owned by emmies who use them and move every turn. Thus they're
almost impossible for the FP to recover except by chance.
Tony Z
···
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 10:27:57AM -0700, William Minnig Jr wrote:
Before I had a chance to play the WK I would have agreed with Jeff's list
100%. But I would rate the Emissary artifacts above the Conjure artifacts.
--
The real danger of lying to kids is not that they'll find out you
lied and stop trusting you; it's that they'll believe the lies and
try to live by them. --Eileen Lufkin
I understand your point of view and on every game "your mileage may vary".
For example, if all the ds start the game with mages who got some weakness
spells, maybe the spirit mastery stuff is more important.
Later,
Jeff
···
-----Original Message-----
From: William Minnig Jr [mailto:electricbill@sprintmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 12:28 PM
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] And now for something completely different:
artifacts
Before I had a chance to play the WK I would have agreed with Jeff's list
100%. But I would rate the Emissary artifacts above the Conjure artifacts.
I was able to put together an emissary company capable of infothr much
faster than I ever have before. If the game had not ended early I
would have
denied the FP many popcenters.
Will
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffery A. Dobberpuhl" <webguys@lakenet.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 5:06 AM
Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] And now for something completely different:
artifacts
> An interesting question, Mark.
>
> Rating Artifacts is difficult in the game, but a couple of
things come to
> mind.
>
> First, the game is a game of Economics. You need to allocate x resources
to
> get y things done. Your source of resources is primarily Characters. The
> more characters you have, the more you get to accomplish.
>
> Second, anything that lets your characters succeed, or let you
neutralize
> other's characters, is a good thing in the game.
>
> Third, the game mechanics favors character neutralization over Character
> Enhancement. Look how easy it is to assassinate a character compared to
how
> hard it is for a nation to replace that character (Especially
high level,
> multi-classed starting characters).
>
> That said:
>
> 1) Agent enhancing artifacts.
> 2) Stealth enhancing artifacts.
> 3) Spirit Mastery access artifacts.
> 4) Conjuring Lists access artifacts.
> 5) Emissary enhancing Artifacts.
> 6) Mage enhancing Artifacts.
> 7) Command enhancing Artifacts.
>
> I rank emmy higher because of the importance of placing camps and then
> increasing the size of those popcenters. Mage artifacts get a higher nod
> because of the difficulty of raising a mage's skill compared to that of
> increasing a Commander's skill. Agent gets the HIGHEST nod
because these
> artifacts automatically add to Character Neutralization AND Enhancement.
The
> difference in my mind between 1 and 2 is negligible.
>
> G'luck!
> Jeff Dobberpuhl
> USA
>
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
> To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
> Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
