Article on Assassin

AGENTS ARE STILL OVER-POWERFUL

I'm not saying this just because the Free characters in ME 10 are getting
particularly the Cloud Lord, can churn out so many super-agents that they
can kill and kidnap with impunity. Any that are captured by guards escape
the following turn, any that are Doubled can be Countered, or re-doubled by
allied emissaries.

I don't object to assassins as such. They have their place to play in the
game like any other characters. What I do object to is the way their sheer
NUMBERS dominate the midgame and decide the endgame. No nation in history,
mythology or fantasy ever churned out agents of such power so quickly and

in

such numbers as the Cloud Lord can in ME. CL can name agents at rank 40,
plus 20 to assassinations/kidnaps, plus the chance of stealth.

NO other nation in Middle-earth can name new characters capable of carrying
out Hard orders from the second they are named! This is unfair on ALL

other

nations, not just the Free. It unbalances the game. Moreover it pushes

the

Cloud Lord to produce just one type of character. Those characters may be

a

game-winners, but when you have such HUGE advantages, is playing the
position really that much fun? So you win a game playing Cloud Lord, big
deal. Win a game as the Woodmen, then you have achieved something!

I suggest CL should name agents at 30 not 40, with plus 10 not 20 to
assassinations and kidnaps, but still with the chance of stealth. This is
the same level of advantage when creating new characters that other nations
have.

Secondly, something should be done to inhibit the way in which companies of
up to 9 of assassins can be deployed to hit up to 9 targets in a single pop
centre. Again, this has no justification in history, mythology or fantasy.
Assassins were and are SOLITARY killers. Show me a single instance where
assassins operated as a group. I don't think the word assassin is

mentioned

ONCE in all Tolkien's writings. So where is the justification for a gang

of

up to 9 of the bastards in the ME game?

I am against making rules that say: you can't do such-and-such; this
irritates players who want to know: why not? It's more intelligent to make
rules reflect history/mythology/fantasy. So what can be done to make
assassins behave in a realistic, solitary manner? Remember, this has to be
entered on a computer program!

How about: 1) only a nation's highest-ranking agent can attempt an
assassination/kidnap? This is explained very easily: the top guy takes
precedence. Yes, this is true in criminal fraternities as well as
government agencies!
2) only one assassination/kidnap order per nation per turn? Explained very
simply by the need for secrecy, plus the intelligence and logistic

resources

needed to get the assassin to the right place at the right time, and to

make

sure he was not intercepted!

Or 3), if a company moves onto an enemy pop centre, the chances of one or
more members of the company getting discovered could be multiplied by the
number of people in the company. Those discovered should be arrested by

the

local militia (with appropriate chance of escape to a neighbouring hex next
turn). Of course the chance of discovery should also be influenced by the
loyalty of the pop centre, and any fortifications (therefore guards). So a
pop centre with very low loyalty would offer little or no resistance, but a
fortified capital city would be realistically well guarded!

4) allow mages to cast a one-shot Warding spell on a pop centre, or Guard
spell on a character. Such spells would have to be renewed each turn to be
continually effective, would only be as strong as the mage's skill rank,

and

therefore an assassin/kidnapper who was skilful enough or possessed an
appropriate artifact would still get through to complete his mission.

On a related subject, the Steal gold order should be chucked out

altogether.

It is ludicrous that a thief, or even a number of thieves, can steal enough
gold to cripple a nation's economy. As for training your agents by having
them steal gold from your allies' pop centres, what real-life ally would
allow that? Stealing artifacts from enemies is one thing, stealing tons of
gold quite another.

Summary: the Dark servants win too often. This is due almost entirely to
their superiority in agents. My suggestions are intended to restore

balance

···

slaughtered. I wrote on this subject in the old Allsorts NL, and haven't >changed my opinion. The vast majority of ME games are won by the Dark >Servants. The reason is simple: if the game goes the distance, the DS, and
to the game. If you've any comments or better ideas, send 'em in!

Richard Devereux.

I have to disagree with Richard's line of thought. DS do not win the
majority of games because agents are so strong. The games in which
agents influence the outcome dramatically is because the Dark
Servants use their agents better, and the free do not.

With proper diplomacy and cooperation between the free there is no
unsurmountable agent advantange given to the DS. I played in a game
recently which illustrated that. So did Bobbins, and Ovatha 88, among
others. We were the free. It does take a lot of coordination and work
but the free can neutralize the agent advantage of the DS.

I don't see a need to change agent rules any more than they have been
changed from how they were originally written. What I see is a need
for people to think more and come up with ways to redress what are
perceived as national imbalances. The free have better economies,
better armies, better characters over all. The DS are more compact
for the most part, making it easier to coordinate, and have some
national advantages over the Free, but the neutrals have all the
advantages that the DS possess, so diplomacy is needed.

In our recent game, we could deal with the enemy agents. They did not
strike terror in our hearts. We lost both the southern neutrals in
that game by the way. Thus losing our economic advantage.

It is my opinion that the Free have just as much chance to win this
game with the rules as they are as the DS do. They have to work hard
at it but there is no built in advantage to either side. So again I
see no glaring imbalance that requires a change of the rules. The
rules are the rules, learn to work within them and to make them work
for you, don't lobby to have them changed to change the outcome of
games.

American Brad

-- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, "Harlequin Games"

>AGENTS ARE STILL OVER-POWERFUL
>
>I'm not saying this just because the Free characters in ME 10 are

getting
the DS, and

>particularly the Cloud Lord, can churn out so many super-agents

that they

>can kill and kidnap with impunity. Any that are captured by

guards escape

>the following turn, any that are Doubled can be Countered, or re-

doubled by

>allied emissaries.
>
>I don't object to assassins as such. They have their place to

play in the

>game like any other characters. What I do object to is the way

their sheer

>NUMBERS dominate the midgame and decide the endgame. No nation in

history,

>mythology or fantasy ever churned out agents of such power so

quickly and

in
>such numbers as the Cloud Lord can in ME. CL can name agents at

rank 40,

>plus 20 to assassinations/kidnaps, plus the chance of stealth.
>
>NO other nation in Middle-earth can name new characters capable of

carrying

>out Hard orders from the second they are named! This is unfair on

ALL

other
>nations, not just the Free. It unbalances the game. Moreover it

pushes

the
>Cloud Lord to produce just one type of character. Those

characters may be

a
>game-winners, but when you have such HUGE advantages, is playing

the

>position really that much fun? So you win a game playing Cloud

Lord, big

>deal. Win a game as the Woodmen, then you have achieved something!
>
>I suggest CL should name agents at 30 not 40, with plus 10 not 20

to

>assassinations and kidnaps, but still with the chance of stealth.

This is

>the same level of advantage when creating new characters that

other nations

>have.
>
>Secondly, something should be done to inhibit the way in which

companies of

>up to 9 of assassins can be deployed to hit up to 9 targets in a

single pop

>centre. Again, this has no justification in history, mythology or

fantasy.

>Assassins were and are SOLITARY killers. Show me a single

instance where

>assassins operated as a group. I don't think the word assassin is
mentioned
>ONCE in all Tolkien's writings. So where is the justification for

a gang

of
>up to 9 of the bastards in the ME game?
>
>I am against making rules that say: you can't do such-and-such;

this

>irritates players who want to know: why not? It's more

intelligent to make

>rules reflect history/mythology/fantasy. So what can be done to

make

>assassins behave in a realistic, solitary manner? Remember, this

has to be

>entered on a computer program!
>
>How about: 1) only a nation's highest-ranking agent can attempt an
>assassination/kidnap? This is explained very easily: the top guy

takes

>precedence. Yes, this is true in criminal fraternities as well as
>government agencies!
>2) only one assassination/kidnap order per nation per turn?

Explained very

>simply by the need for secrecy, plus the intelligence and logistic
resources
>needed to get the assassin to the right place at the right time,

and to

make
>sure he was not intercepted!
>
>Or 3), if a company moves onto an enemy pop centre, the chances of

one or

>more members of the company getting discovered could be multiplied

by the

>number of people in the company. Those discovered should be

arrested by

the
>local militia (with appropriate chance of escape to a neighbouring

hex next

>turn). Of course the chance of discovery should also be

influenced by the

>loyalty of the pop centre, and any fortifications (therefore

guards). So a

>pop centre with very low loyalty would offer little or no

resistance, but a

>fortified capital city would be realistically well guarded!
>
>4) allow mages to cast a one-shot Warding spell on a pop centre,

or Guard

>spell on a character. Such spells would have to be renewed each

turn to be

>continually effective, would only be as strong as the mage's skill

rank,

and
>therefore an assassin/kidnapper who was skilful enough or

possessed an

>appropriate artifact would still get through to complete his

mission.

>
>On a related subject, the Steal gold order should be chucked out
altogether.
>It is ludicrous that a thief, or even a number of thieves, can

steal enough

>gold to cripple a nation's economy. As for training your agents

by having

>them steal gold from your allies' pop centres, what real-life ally

would

>allow that? Stealing artifacts from enemies is one thing,

stealing tons of

>gold quite another.
>
>Summary: the Dark servants win too often. This is due almost

entirely to

>their superiority in agents. My suggestions are intended to

restore

···

<harlequin.games@xxxx.xxxxx.xxxx wrote:

>slaughtered. I wrote on this subject in the old Allsorts NL, and haven't > >changed my opinion. The vast majority of ME games are won by the Dark > >Servants. The reason is simple: if the game goes the distance,
balance
>to the game. If you've any comments or better ideas, send 'em in!
>
>Richard Devereux.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes the agent pover of the DS is grate but if the is made enny Futher limitesion on it the DS will not stand a chance but will lose to the power of gold and numbers you might as well remuve dragons.

David

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: kingoftherill
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 5:28 PM
  Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Article on Assassin

  I have to disagree with Richard's line of thought. DS do not win the
  majority of games because agents are so strong. The games in which
  agents influence the outcome dramatically is because the Dark
  Servants use their agents better, and the free do not.

  With proper diplomacy and cooperation between the free there is no
  unsurmountable agent advantange given to the DS. I played in a game
  recently which illustrated that. So did Bobbins, and Ovatha 88, among
  others. We were the free. It does take a lot of coordination and work
  but the free can neutralize the agent advantage of the DS.

  I don't see a need to change agent rules any more than they have been
  changed from how they were originally written. What I see is a need
  for people to think more and come up with ways to redress what are
  perceived as national imbalances. The free have better economies,
  better armies, better characters over all. The DS are more compact
  for the most part, making it easier to coordinate, and have some
  national advantages over the Free, but the neutrals have all the
  advantages that the DS possess, so diplomacy is needed.

  In our recent game, we could deal with the enemy agents. They did not
  strike terror in our hearts. We lost both the southern neutrals in
  that game by the way. Thus losing our economic advantage.

  It is my opinion that the Free have just as much chance to win this
  game with the rules as they are as the DS do. They have to work hard
  at it but there is no built in advantage to either side. So again I
  see no glaring imbalance that requires a change of the rules. The
  rules are the rules, learn to work within them and to make them work
  for you, don't lobby to have them changed to change the outcome of
  games.

  American Brad

  -- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, "Harlequin Games"
  <harlequin.games@xxxx.xxxxx.xxxx wrote:
  > >AGENTS ARE STILL OVER-POWERFUL
  > >
  > >I'm not saying this just because the Free characters in ME 10 are
  getting
  > >slaughtered. I wrote on this subject in the old Allsorts NL, and haven't > >changed my opinion. The vast majority of ME games are won by the Dark > >Servants. The reason is simple: if the game goes the distance,
  the DS, and
  > >particularly the Cloud Lord, can churn out so many super-agents
  that they
  > >can kill and kidnap with impunity. Any that are captured by
  guards escape
  > >the following turn, any that are Doubled can be Countered, or re-
  doubled by
  > >allied emissaries.
  > >
  > >I don't object to assassins as such. They have their place to
  play in the
  > >game like any other characters. What I do object to is the way
  their sheer
  > >NUMBERS dominate the midgame and decide the endgame. No nation in
  history,
  > >mythology or fantasy ever churned out agents of such power so
  quickly and
  > in
  > >such numbers as the Cloud Lord can in ME. CL can name agents at
  rank 40,
  > >plus 20 to assassinations/kidnaps, plus the chance of stealth.
  > >
  > >NO other nation in Middle-earth can name new characters capable of
  carrying
  > >out Hard orders from the second they are named! This is unfair on
  ALL
  > other
  > >nations, not just the Free. It unbalances the game. Moreover it
  pushes
  > the
  > >Cloud Lord to produce just one type of character. Those
  characters may be
  > a
  > >game-winners, but when you have such HUGE advantages, is playing
  the
  > >position really that much fun? So you win a game playing Cloud
  Lord, big
  > >deal. Win a game as the Woodmen, then you have achieved something!
  > >
  > >I suggest CL should name agents at 30 not 40, with plus 10 not 20
  to
  > >assassinations and kidnaps, but still with the chance of stealth.
  This is
  > >the same level of advantage when creating new characters that
  other nations
  > >have.
  > >
  > >Secondly, something should be done to inhibit the way in which
  companies of
  > >up to 9 of assassins can be deployed to hit up to 9 targets in a
  single pop
  > >centre. Again, this has no justification in history, mythology or
  fantasy.
  > >Assassins were and are SOLITARY killers. Show me a single
  instance where
  > >assassins operated as a group. I don't think the word assassin is
  > mentioned
  > >ONCE in all Tolkien's writings. So where is the justification for
  a gang
  > of
  > >up to 9 of the bastards in the ME game?
  > >
  > >I am against making rules that say: you can't do such-and-such;
  this
  > >irritates players who want to know: why not? It's more
  intelligent to make
  > >rules reflect history/mythology/fantasy. So what can be done to
  make
  > >assassins behave in a realistic, solitary manner? Remember, this
  has to be
  > >entered on a computer program!
  > >
  > >How about: 1) only a nation's highest-ranking agent can attempt an
  > >assassination/kidnap? This is explained very easily: the top guy
  takes
  > >precedence. Yes, this is true in criminal fraternities as well as
  > >government agencies!
  > >2) only one assassination/kidnap order per nation per turn?
  Explained very
  > >simply by the need for secrecy, plus the intelligence and logistic
  > resources
  > >needed to get the assassin to the right place at the right time,
  and to
  > make
  > >sure he was not intercepted!
  > >
  > >Or 3), if a company moves onto an enemy pop centre, the chances of
  one or
  > >more members of the company getting discovered could be multiplied
  by the
  > >number of people in the company. Those discovered should be
  arrested by
  > the
  > >local militia (with appropriate chance of escape to a neighbouring
  hex next
  > >turn). Of course the chance of discovery should also be
  influenced by the
  > >loyalty of the pop centre, and any fortifications (therefore
  guards). So a
  > >pop centre with very low loyalty would offer little or no
  resistance, but a
  > >fortified capital city would be realistically well guarded!
  > >
  > >4) allow mages to cast a one-shot Warding spell on a pop centre,
  or Guard
  > >spell on a character. Such spells would have to be renewed each
  turn to be
  > >continually effective, would only be as strong as the mage's skill
  rank,
  > and
  > >therefore an assassin/kidnapper who was skilful enough or
  possessed an
  > >appropriate artifact would still get through to complete his
  mission.
  > >
  > >On a related subject, the Steal gold order should be chucked out
  > altogether.
  > >It is ludicrous that a thief, or even a number of thieves, can
  steal enough
  > >gold to cripple a nation's economy. As for training your agents
  by having
  > >them steal gold from your allies' pop centres, what real-life ally
  would
  > >allow that? Stealing artifacts from enemies is one thing,
  stealing tons of
  > >gold quite another.
  > >
  > >Summary: the Dark servants win too often. This is due almost
  entirely to
  > >their superiority in agents. My suggestions are intended to
  restore
  > balance
  > >to the game. If you've any comments or better ideas, send 'em in!
  > >
  > >Richard Devereux.
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]