Choices

mepbmlist
#1

In a message dated 3/20/01 3:40:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,
me@MiddleEarthGames.com writes:

<< > Would it be
> fairer to eliminate player choice, though this would not be popular with
> certain players, in non-grudge games and assign nations randomly to those
who
> apply to play?

Players like choices I am afraid. With the bigger player base it's quite
interesting that there are definite flavours of play out there that people
like so some of the nations not particuarly liked by the Harl base is quite
enjoyed by the DGE pBase. Still the Woodmen and NM are hard to fill.

Clint
  >>
If they want choices they can play the Fourth Age game. I am playing the
Northmen nation for the second time in 2950. Northmen was my third choice
nation in this game and will not appear anywhere on my list of choices in the
future. Here's why.
1. Closest FP nation to DS on the eastern side of the map thus first to be
attacked by Dk.Lts, DogLord and LongRider armies, not to mention Khand
Easterlings who are a shoo-in to join the DS, plus weakening Northmen with
agent attacks encourages Rhun Easterlings, whose capital is adjacent to
Northmen capital, to ally with DS also.
2. Highest starting character challenge rank is 42, lowest in the entire
game including neutrals.
3. No starting character with stealth.
4. No second major town for backup capital.
5. No artifact.
6. All five starting PCs in "cold" climate in winter.
Any one or two of the above could be called a nuisance, but the combination
of all six is a disaster.
In short, you spend the entire game, so long as you survive, metaphorically
trying to pull yourself out of the quicksand.
Where is the fun in that?
(Shucks, I should have gone to bed hours ago.)
Ed

#2

Well, I'll say this about 2950 Northmen...
First, I agree with everything Ed said about the northman position being
weak. He forgot to add: Capital adjacent to NPC capital :stuck_out_tongue:
That said, I enjoyed playing the position. I had a very solid Dwarf and
Silvan player that made this a lot of fun. However, I don't know if this can
be counted on every game. What would fix this position?
1) I don't think they need artifacts. Would be nice, but really not a
"mandatory".
2) I don't think they need bigger challengers. The characters they have are
actually quite nice. I think its one of the better character mixes, although
light on agents.
3) I think making Esgorath a Major Town would help TREMENDOUSLY. The small
amount of extra income would not be as big of a deal as having a backup.
4) Making Esgorath the capital, but keeping the current map, would be the
other big help.

You see, my opinion on this is that the location of the capital is TOO close
to the Rhun and the DS. You never get capital orders off!

The problem is, you fix up the Northmen, then the Woodmen want something.
Then the Dragon Lord needs something, then....

(Big Snip).

···

In short, you spend the entire game, so long as you survive,
metaphorically
trying to pull yourself out of the quicksand.
Where is the fun in that?
(Shucks, I should have gone to bed hours ago.)
Ed

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/

#3

<< > Would it be
> fairer to eliminate player choice, though this would not be popular

with

> certain players, in non-grudge games and assign nations randomly to

those

who
> apply to play?

Players like choices I am afraid. With the bigger player base it's quite
interesting that there are definite flavours of play out there that

people

like so some of the nations not particuarly liked by the Harl base is

quite

enjoyed by the DGE pBase. Still the Woodmen and NM are hard to fill.

Clint
  >>
If they want choices they can play the Fourth Age game. I am playing the
Northmen nation for the second time in 2950. Northmen was my third choice
nation in this game and will not appear anywhere on my list of choices in

the

future. Here's why.
1. Closest FP nation to DS on the eastern side of the map thus first to be
attacked by Dk.Lts, DogLord and LongRider armies, not to mention Khand
Easterlings who are a shoo-in to join the DS, plus weakening Northmen with
agent attacks encourages Rhun Easterlings, whose capital is adjacent to
Northmen capital, to ally with DS also.
2. Highest starting character challenge rank is 42, lowest in the entire
game including neutrals.
3. No starting character with stealth.
4. No second major town for backup capital.
5. No artifact.
6. All five starting PCs in "cold" climate in winter.
Any one or two of the above could be called a nuisance, but the

combination

of all six is a disaster.
In short, you spend the entire game, so long as you survive,

metaphorically

trying to pull yourself out of the quicksand.
Where is the fun in that?
(Shucks, I should have gone to bed hours ago.)
Ed

RD: Bear with me; I will come to Northmen shortly, but first, concerning
Woodies: in 'The Hobbit' Tolkien wrote (describing the Battle of Five
Armies): 'Beorn... tossed wolves and goblins from his path like straws and
feathers. He fell upon their rear, and broke like a clap of thunder through
the ring... nothing could withstand him, and no weapon seemed to bite upon
him. He scattered the bodyguard, and and pulled down Bolg himself and
crushed him.'

So why, in the ME game, does GSI make Beorn such a weedy character compared
with Bolg? Beorn should obviously be a mighty warrior, with a far higher
challenge rank than Bolg. Beorn could change shape into a bear, and did so
for the battle. He also (earlier) conjured up both food and mounts for
Thorin and company. This makes him a mage as well as a warrior.

To reflect this in the game, the following changes should be made:
1) Beorn's ranks should be increased to C50 M50; indeed, he should have
agent skill and stealth as well.
2) Woodie mages should have access to conjuring (mounts and food) in
addition to their other SAs.
3) Beorn should have a 1000 combat artifact (at least!).

That would make Woodies worth playing. I have played Nor in 1650 but not in
2950, and it's VERY hard. You can make not a single mistake and still go
down against overwhelming enemy numbers. I can't justify it by a quote from
Tolkien, but in the interests of game balance, Nor should be beefed up
somewhat to make the nation more interesting with more chance of survival.

Would such changes unbalance the game? I don't think so. The stats I have
seen indicate that the DS win more often than the FP. I know there has been
a lot of argument as to whether these stats are valid are not after such
things as the tweaks to agent abilities, but IF they are valid, beefing up
Woodies and Nor as I suggest would actually improve balance. If not, then
amongst the DS, Dragon lord could do with a bit of help!

Regards,

Richard.

#4

Although DGE did not eliminate player choice, they *did* require
players to send in a list of nation preferences and assigned them in
some sort of round robin.

The most important choice is actually related to the nature of the
different positions rather than their power, which is why I don't
think a pure random draw is workable. Some folks like agents, some
like big armies; some people like frontline positions, others prefer
to build backfield ones.

The best solution is not to weaken/penalize the strong positions, it
is to give some strong incentive to encourage people to take the
weaker ones. I'll note that an (effective) score handicap would do
this if the scores meant something...so would tweaks in the SNAs,
starting characters, and so on to make some of the more feeble choices
more *interesting*, not necessarily more powerful. Honestly - if the
Northmen always started with a 40 emissary in their capital, does
anyone think this would seriously threaten the overall game balance?
Would a starting 30 agent make the woodmen too strong?
Things like this could make these positions more fun to run without a
wholesale change in the balance.

cheers,

Marc

--- In mepbmlist@y..., TaborekEJ@A... wrote:

In a message dated 3/20/01 3:40:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,
me@M... writes:

<< > Would it be
> fairer to eliminate player choice, though this would not be

popular with

> certain players, in non-grudge games and assign nations randomly

to those

who
> apply to play?

Players like choices I am afraid. With the bigger player base it's

quite

interesting that there are definite flavours of play out there that

people

like so some of the nations not particuarly liked by the Harl base

is quite

enjoyed by the DGE pBase. Still the Woodmen and NM are hard to

fill.

Clint
  >>
If they want choices they can play the Fourth Age game. I am

playing the

Northmen nation for the second time in 2950. Northmen was my third

choice

nation in this game and will not appear anywhere on my list of

choices in the

future. Here's why.
1. Closest FP nation to DS on the eastern side of the map thus first

to be

attacked by Dk.Lts, DogLord and LongRider armies, not to mention

Khand

Easterlings who are a shoo-in to join the DS, plus weakening

Northmen with

agent attacks encourages Rhun Easterlings, whose capital is adjacent

to

Northmen capital, to ally with DS also.
2. Highest starting character challenge rank is 42, lowest in the

entire

game including neutrals.
3. No starting character with stealth.
4. No second major town for backup capital.
5. No artifact.
6. All five starting PCs in "cold" climate in winter.
Any one or two of the above could be called a nuisance, but the

combination

of all six is a disaster.
In short, you spend the entire game, so long as you survive,

metaphorically

···

trying to pull yourself out of the quicksand.
Where is the fun in that?
(Shucks, I should have gone to bed hours ago.)
Ed

#5

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Richard John Devereux" <devereux@l...> wrote:

[snip interesting setup change ideas for Northmen/Woodmen]

It would be an interesting twist to give the dragon lord an off-map
hidden Misty Mt. camp. I also think the 2950 Dragon Lord should start
with Moria (mixed blessing, expensive fortifications!...and possibly
add an extra northern town to the Witch-king near Mt Gram. These
could balance the proposed changes to the northmen/woodmen...

cheers,

Marc

Would such changes unbalance the game? I don't think so. The stats

I have

seen indicate that the DS win more often than the FP. I know there

has been

a lot of argument as to whether these stats are valid are not after

such

things as the tweaks to agent abilities, but IF they are valid,

beefing up

Woodies and Nor as I suggest would actually improve balance. If

not, then

···

amongst the DS, Dragon lord could do with a bit of help!

Regards,

Richard.

#6

I've commented on this topic before, but I feel compelled to mention it
again. Even small changes can have a huge difference. A 30 WM agent
probably wouldn't make much difference, but a 40E could have a huge
economic difference for the NM. The fact that a new 40E could be named
on T1, thus moving camp posting up a turn, could cascade for a while.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to rebalance the positions, I just want
to make sure that everyone understands that small changes can make a
huge difference.

    jason

···

pinsonneault.1@osu.edu wrote:

more *interesting*, not necessarily more powerful. Honestly - if the
Northmen always started with a 40 emissary in their capital, does
anyone think this would seriously threaten the overall game balance?
Would a starting 30 agent make the woodmen too strong?
Things like this could make these positions more fun to run without a
wholesale change in the balance.

--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
Software developer, cryptography buff, gamer
Believer in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord

#7

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Jason Bennett <jasonab@a...> wrote:

pinsonneault.1@o... wrote:

> more *interesting*, not necessarily more powerful. Honestly - if

the

> Northmen always started with a 40 emissary in their capital, does
> anyone think this would seriously threaten the overall game

balance?

> Would a starting 30 agent make the woodmen too strong?
> Things like this could make these positions more fun to run

without a

> wholesale change in the balance.

I've commented on this topic before, but I feel compelled to mention

it

again. Even small changes can have a huge difference. A 30 WM agent
probably wouldn't make much difference, but a 40E could have a huge
economic difference for the NM. The fact that a new 40E could be

named

on T1, thus moving camp posting up a turn, could cascade for a

while.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to rebalance the positions, I just

want

to make sure that everyone understands that small changes can make a
huge difference.

    jason

Agreed. The 2950 NM have a 40 starting emmy, and the 1650 NM don't.
This alone accounts for why (IMO) the 2950 position is considerably
better, even given a hostile neutral next door. I wouldn't discount
the impact of a 30 starting agent with stealth, especially if the free
can coordinate and pool the agent artifacts. Din Ohtar is only a
30/30 at game start, and he can be incredibly deadly.
What I did mean was that even if the Northmen/Woodmen become
significantly stronger, I doubt it would by itself change the win-loss
ratio.

cheers,

Marc

···

--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@a...
Software developer, cryptography buff, gamer
Believer in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord

#8

I agree with NM 40Em and Woodies 30Agent. Any DS changes QA was mentioned
but this is a reasonably popular position with clear strengths and
weaknesses?

What do players think? I can suggest this to GSI - there might be something
there.

Clint

···

Although DGE did not eliminate player choice, they *did* require
players to send in a list of nation preferences and assigned them in
some sort of round robin.

The most important choice is actually related to the nature of the
different positions rather than their power, which is why I don't
think a pure random draw is workable. Some folks like agents, some
like big armies; some people like frontline positions, others prefer
to build backfield ones.

The best solution is not to weaken/penalize the strong positions, it
is to give some strong incentive to encourage people to take the
weaker ones. I'll note that an (effective) score handicap would do
this if the scores meant something...so would tweaks in the SNAs,
starting characters, and so on to make some of the more feeble choices
more *interesting*, not necessarily more powerful. Honestly - if the
Northmen always started with a 40 emissary in their capital, does
anyone think this would seriously threaten the overall game balance?
Would a starting 30 agent make the woodmen too strong?
Things like this could make these positions more fun to run without a
wholesale change in the balance.

cheers,

Marc

#9

I concur it could have a big impact on the game -maybe a similar detraction
from another FP nation to balance things? (A camp or two from some of the
stronger nations to redress the balance?)

···

...a 40E could have a huge
economic difference for the NM. The fact that a new 40E could be named
on T1, thus moving camp posting up a turn, could cascade for a while.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to rebalance the positions, I just want
to make sure that everyone understands that small changes can make a
huge difference.

#10

Um I think this would have a big swing in the game. If both were
implemented then this would be enormous.

Clint

···

It would be an interesting twist to give the dragon lord an off-map
hidden Misty Mt. camp. I also think the 2950 Dragon Lord should start
with Moria (mixed blessing, expensive fortifications!...and possibly
add an extra northern town to the Witch-king near Mt Gram. These
could balance the proposed changes to the northmen/woodmen...

#11

--- Middle Earth PBM Games <me@MiddleEarthGames.com>
wrote: > I agree with NM 40Em and Woodies 30Agent.
Any DS

changes QA was mentioned
but this is a reasonably popular position with clear
strengths and
weaknesses?

What do players think? I can suggest this to GSI -
there might be something
there.

I have always felt that if a nation has emissaries
start at 40, or mages at 40, then none of their
initial pure emissaries, or mages, should be less than
40.

I think its madness to have to sack an initial 30
pointer so that you can calll up a 40 pointer as his
replacement.

thanks
din

···

_____________________________________________________________________________
http://calendar.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Calendar
- Access your appointments and meetings online.

#12

This is in response to the thread regarding 2950 possible upgrades to some
nations.

1) Remember, even the smallest pebble makes a ripple in the lake. A small
change can be significant!
2) This game was originally designed to be played in a bit of a fog. Email
blew that out of the water. Communications and nearly full data on the game
make some otherwise valid positions less exciting.

Lets look at each position (and these are just my thoughts):

1) 2950 Woodmen. This is acutally a military powerhouse. They have GREAT
population centers for recruiting. What they DON'T have is an economy to
back it up, nor characters beefy enough to avoid issuing an "rfspc" in
combat. They also have no way of getting either without support from their
other nations. However, a strong Woodman position can defend against and
possibly take out 2305. I suggest that if the woodmen would get ANYTHING,
it would be slightly better characters. Certainly not armies or economy.
Just as a crude guess, I'd say increase Beorn's command and mage by 10 each
(greatly improving his command rank, and a shot at some battle magic) to
make him a bit more powerful, like he was in the Hobbit. I would then give
one of the other mages +20 in mage rank. They REALLY don't need to have
their agentry boosted (as they all have stealth) or emissary (as their
commanders are their initial camp placers).
However, this would give them a better chance in some of the initial
battles.

2) Dragon Lord. Wow. This is really a great position. However, its greatness
is SIGNIFICANTLY hamstringed by the FP being able to "chat" about how to
take it out with a complete breakdown of everything he's got and where its
at! Its extremely tough because you are so far forward. HOWEVER, increasing
Dol Goldur or Goblin Gate's initial army size would really throw Mirkwood
into a bind. I guess, if anything, I'd look at increasing Goblin Gate to a
town/tower. This will increase its defensability SIGNIFICANTLY without
dramatically increasing the DL starting gold. GG could then recruit MUCH
faster (300 per turn) and have a shot at staving off the Noldo and the
Woodmen. It also would give Khamul a reason to defend the Misties. If this
seems too dramatic, drop Sarn Goriwing to a camp, but I don't think that's
necessary. Remember the song "down down to Goblin Town. That's Town.

3) Witch King. I think boosting the Dragon Lord would help the WK a lot.
Alternatively, and here's a radical thought, locate his capital up north.
This would have two immeadiate impacts. a) Give the WK the recruiting power
where he can use it, and b) slightly reduce the pressure on N.Gondor.

4) Northmen. This is another position that is severely wounded by email and
a data base. IF the Northmen can get the +/- on the marketplace working,
they are huge! However, having their capital SO CLOSE to the DS is a real
problem. While it might be popular to say "Give the Northmen a 40 E at
start", I think a more dramatic impact would be to give Kynoden a 40 Agent
rank, and then boost Swithwulf to a 20 agent, and Girion to a 30 E (heck, he
WAS the Mayor after all). This would REALLY help against the Agent war.
Finally, I'd give Dilgul an extra 100 Archers to help stave off the initial
DS attack force. Nothing TOO significant, just something to tweak the odds.

There ya go! Some quick thoughts to ponder!

#13

Although DGE did not eliminate player choice, they *did* require
players to send in a list of nation preferences and assigned them in
some sort of round robin.

The most important choice is actually related to the nature of the
different positions rather than their power, which is why I don't
think a pure random draw is workable. Some folks like agents, some
like big armies; some people like frontline positions, others prefer
to build backfield ones.

The best solution is not to weaken/penalize the strong positions, it
is to give some strong incentive to encourage people to take the
weaker ones. I'll note that an (effective) score handicap would do
this if the scores meant something...so would tweaks in the SNAs,
starting characters, and so on to make some of the more feeble choices
more *interesting*, not necessarily more powerful. Honestly - if the
Northmen always started with a 40 emissary in their capital, does
anyone think this would seriously threaten the overall game balance?
Would a starting 30 agent make the woodmen too strong?
Things like this could make these positions more fun to run without a
wholesale change in the balance.

cheers,

Marc

RD: We agree that Woo & Nor characters need beefing up. While we're at it,
add Rhu to the list.

Regarding player choice, I believe it is more important to ask players if
there are any nations which they do NOT want to play (no more than 3) than
which ones they DO want. This makes things far easier for the organiser, be
it Harlequin or the guy putting together a grudge team, and should be
acceptable to most players.

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: <pinsonneault.1@osu.edu>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 2:51 AM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Choices

--- In mepbmlist@y..., TaborekEJ@A... wrote:
> In a message dated 3/20/01 3:40:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> me@M... writes:
>
> << > Would it be
> > fairer to eliminate player choice, though this would not be
popular with
> > certain players, in non-grudge games and assign nations randomly
to those
> who
> > apply to play?
>
> Players like choices I am afraid. With the bigger player base it's
quite
> interesting that there are definite flavours of play out there that
people
> like so some of the nations not particuarly liked by the Harl base
is quite
> enjoyed by the DGE pBase. Still the Woodmen and NM are hard to
fill.
>
> Clint
> >>
> If they want choices they can play the Fourth Age game. I am
playing the
> Northmen nation for the second time in 2950. Northmen was my third
choice
> nation in this game and will not appear anywhere on my list of
choices in the
> future. Here's why.
> 1. Closest FP nation to DS on the eastern side of the map thus first
to be
> attacked by Dk.Lts, DogLord and LongRider armies, not to mention
Khand
> Easterlings who are a shoo-in to join the DS, plus weakening
Northmen with
> agent attacks encourages Rhun Easterlings, whose capital is adjacent
to
> Northmen capital, to ally with DS also.
> 2. Highest starting character challenge rank is 42, lowest in the
entire
> game including neutrals.
> 3. No starting character with stealth.
> 4. No second major town for backup capital.
> 5. No artifact.
> 6. All five starting PCs in "cold" climate in winter.
> Any one or two of the above could be called a nuisance, but the
combination
> of all six is a disaster.
> In short, you spend the entire game, so long as you survive,
metaphorically
> trying to pull yourself out of the quicksand.
> Where is the fun in that?
> (Shucks, I should have gone to bed hours ago.)
> Ed

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/

#14

> more *interesting*, not necessarily more powerful. Honestly - if the
> Northmen always started with a 40 emissary in their capital, does
> anyone think this would seriously threaten the overall game balance?
> Would a starting 30 agent make the woodmen too strong?
> Things like this could make these positions more fun to run without a
> wholesale change in the balance.

I've commented on this topic before, but I feel compelled to mention it
again. Even small changes can have a huge difference. A 30 WM agent
probably wouldn't make much difference, but a 40E could have a huge
economic difference for the NM. The fact that a new 40E could be named
on T1, thus moving camp posting up a turn, could cascade for a while.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to rebalance the positions, I just want
to make sure that everyone understands that small changes can make a
huge difference.

jason

RD: I understand what you're getting at. I'm not sure about an E40 but it's
not unreasonable to boost a starting Nor character to E30.

Some nations which can name new characters at 40 don't actually start with a
character who can do it. Art & SGo don't start with M40s, Duns and IcK
don't start with A40s.

As the Nor position stands at present, one of the coms has to name ch as
E30. Nor is usually well and truly pummelled before that emi is capable of
naming an E40, so may not even be able to afford a new E40. Moreover by
then the camp limit has been reached so the new E40 can't cre camp anyway!

I retract my second sentence - let Nor START with an E40.

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Bennett" <jasonab@acm.org>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 2:56 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Choices

pinsonneault.1@osu.edu wrote:

--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
Software developer, cryptography buff, gamer
Believer in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord

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/

#15

I concur it could have a big impact on the game -maybe a similar

detraction

from another FP nation to balance things? (A camp or two from some of the
stronger nations to redress the balance?)

RD: Not necessary. Keep the total skill ranks the same. All you have to do
is deduct an A10 or E10 secondary rank from one or two starting characters,
and add E20 to a character who starts with E20 (that's the principle, not a
specific). No need to touch pop centres at all.

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Middle Earth PBM Games" <me@MiddleEarthGames.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Choices

>...a 40E could have a huge
> economic difference for the NM. The fact that a new 40E could be named
> on T1, thus moving camp posting up a turn, could cascade for a while.
>
> I'm not saying we shouldn't try to rebalance the positions, I just want
> to make sure that everyone understands that small changes can make a
> huge difference.

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/

#16

I'm all for beefing up Woodmen and Northmen.
But regarding an E40 for NM, consider that the
difference in their camp-creating is not the only
result. If the E40 starts at the NM capital, on
turn 1 names another E40. An E40 has a quite decent
chance to double-agent a mere A30, which is all
that Din Ohtar is. So this change may well mean
that Din Ohtar can no longer have his way with
impunity at the NM capital. That could have
big implications.

Another side effect of NM E40's is potentially
prolific camp creating, which could devour the
camp limit. One of the FP weapons against the
DS is to really go after that camp limit early;
it's one of the effective strategies for those
Noldo emmies.

I have to admit, an E40 would make the Northmen
actually attractive to play, but it might have
more effects than simply giving them a stronger
economy. An E30 might be a better compromise.

Jeremy Richman

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Richard John Devereux" <devereux@l...> wrote:

From: "Jason Bennett" <jasonab@a...>
To: <mepbmlist@y...>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 2:56 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Choices

> pinsonneault.1@o... wrote:
>
> > more *interesting*, not necessarily more powerful. Honestly -

if the

> > Northmen always started with a 40 emissary in their capital,

does

> > anyone think this would seriously threaten the overall game

balance?

> > Would a starting 30 agent make the woodmen too strong?
> > Things like this could make these positions more fun to run

without a

> > wholesale change in the balance.
>
> I've commented on this topic before, but I feel compelled to

mention it

> again. Even small changes can have a huge difference. A 30 WM

agent

> probably wouldn't make much difference, but a 40E could have a

huge

> economic difference for the NM. The fact that a new 40E could be

named

> on T1, thus moving camp posting up a turn, could cascade for a

while.

>
> I'm not saying we shouldn't try to rebalance the positions, I just

want

> to make sure that everyone understands that small changes can make

a

> huge difference.
>
> jason

RD: I understand what you're getting at. I'm not sure about an E40

but it's

not unreasonable to boost a starting Nor character to E30.

Some nations which can name new characters at 40 don't actually

start with a

character who can do it. Art & SGo don't start with M40s, Duns and

IcK

don't start with A40s.

As the Nor position stands at present, one of the coms has to name

ch as

E30. Nor is usually well and truly pummelled before that emi is

capable of

naming an E40, so may not even be able to afford a new E40.

Moreover by

then the camp limit has been reached so the new E40 can't cre camp

anyway!

I retract my second sentence - let Nor START with an E40.

Richard.
>
>
> --
> Jason Bennett, jasonab@a...
> Software developer, cryptography buff, gamer
> Believer in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord
>
>
> 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/

···

----- Original Message -----
>
>
>

#17

The 2950 northmen start with a 40 emissary, and the nation is still by
no means a powerhouse. The only difference? It is actually possible
for the northmen to develop an emissary corps, and they can even
double Din Ohtar on his obligatory turn 1 visit to Shrel-Kain.

This is the one proposed setup change for 1650 that we have real
information on; I understand that most folks haven't run 2950 so they
probably aren't aware of this. It will not imbalance 1650, and it
makes the Northmen considerably more interesting to play. They still
have the probably hostile Easterlings, and the Long Rider agents and
armies, and the Blind Sorceror army, and quite likely the Dog Lord,
and a lousy climate, and a pathetic set of challenge ranks...

cheers,

Marc

--- In mepbmlist@y..., JeremyRichman@c... wrote:

I'm all for beefing up Woodmen and Northmen.
But regarding an E40 for NM, consider that the
difference in their camp-creating is not the only
result. If the E40 starts at the NM capital, on
turn 1 names another E40. An E40 has a quite decent
chance to double-agent a mere A30, which is all
that Din Ohtar is. So this change may well mean
that Din Ohtar can no longer have his way with
impunity at the NM capital. That could have
big implications.

Another side effect of NM E40's is potentially
prolific camp creating, which could devour the
camp limit. One of the FP weapons against the
DS is to really go after that camp limit early;
it's one of the effective strategies for those
Noldo emmies.

I have to admit, an E40 would make the Northmen
actually attractive to play, but it might have
more effects than simply giving them a stronger
economy. An E30 might be a better compromise.

Jeremy Richman

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Richard John Devereux" <devereux@l...>

wrote:

>
> From: "Jason Bennett" <jasonab@a...>
> To: <mepbmlist@y...>
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 2:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Choices
>
>
> > pinsonneault.1@o... wrote:
> >
> > > more *interesting*, not necessarily more powerful. Honestly -
if the
> > > Northmen always started with a 40 emissary in their capital,
does
> > > anyone think this would seriously threaten the overall game
balance?
> > > Would a starting 30 agent make the woodmen too strong?
> > > Things like this could make these positions more fun to run
without a
> > > wholesale change in the balance.
> >
> > I've commented on this topic before, but I feel compelled to
mention it
> > again. Even small changes can have a huge difference. A 30 WM
agent
> > probably wouldn't make much difference, but a 40E could have a
huge
> > economic difference for the NM. The fact that a new 40E could be
named
> > on T1, thus moving camp posting up a turn, could cascade for a
while.
> >
> > I'm not saying we shouldn't try to rebalance the positions, I

just

want
> > to make sure that everyone understands that small changes can

make

a
> > huge difference.
> >
> > jason
>
> RD: I understand what you're getting at. I'm not sure about an

E40

but it's
> not unreasonable to boost a starting Nor character to E30.
>
> Some nations which can name new characters at 40 don't actually
start with a
> character who can do it. Art & SGo don't start with M40s, Duns

and

···

> ----- Original Message -----
IcK
> don't start with A40s.
>
> As the Nor position stands at present, one of the coms has to name
ch as
> E30. Nor is usually well and truly pummelled before that emi is
capable of
> naming an E40, so may not even be able to afford a new E40.
Moreover by
> then the camp limit has been reached so the new E40 can't cre camp
anyway!
>
> I retract my second sentence - let Nor START with an E40.
>
> Richard.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jason Bennett, jasonab@a...
> > Software developer, cryptography buff, gamer
> > Believer in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord
> >
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >

#18

I'm all for beefing up Woodmen and Northmen.
But regarding an E40 for NM, consider that the
difference in their camp-creating is not the only
result. If the E40 starts at the NM capital, on
turn 1 names another E40. An E40 has a quite decent
chance to double-agent a mere A30, which is all
that Din Ohtar is. So this change may well mean
that Din Ohtar can no longer have his way with
impunity at the NM capital. That could have
big implications.

Another side effect of NM E40's is potentially
prolific camp creating, which could devour the
camp limit. One of the FP weapons against the
DS is to really go after that camp limit early;
it's one of the effective strategies for those
Noldo emmies.

I have to admit, an E40 would make the Northmen
actually attractive to play, but it might have
more effects than simply giving them a stronger
economy. An E30 might be a better compromise.

Jeremy Richman

RD: I understand what you're saying Jeremy. But firstly, Din O should NOT
be able to have his way with impunity at the Nor capital - this unbalances
the game from turn 1!

Secondly, if a starting E40 named another E40, he wouldn't be able to Double
Din O. He could do one or the other, not both!

Thirdly, a Nor E40 would not cause 'prolific' camp creating. Nol, WiK & DkL
ALL start with powerful emis, the latter two with em artifacts as well!
Giving Nor an E40 would perhaps mean the camp limit being reached one turn
sooner, but at least one or two camps would go to a poor nation which really
needs them!

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: <JeremyRichman@compuserve.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 1:03 AM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Choices

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Richard John Devereux" <devereux@l...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jason Bennett" <jasonab@a...>
> To: <mepbmlist@y...>
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 2:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Choices
>
>
> > pinsonneault.1@o... wrote:
> >
> > > more *interesting*, not necessarily more powerful. Honestly -
if the
> > > Northmen always started with a 40 emissary in their capital,
does
> > > anyone think this would seriously threaten the overall game
balance?
> > > Would a starting 30 agent make the woodmen too strong?
> > > Things like this could make these positions more fun to run
without a
> > > wholesale change in the balance.
> >
> > I've commented on this topic before, but I feel compelled to
mention it
> > again. Even small changes can have a huge difference. A 30 WM
agent
> > probably wouldn't make much difference, but a 40E could have a
huge
> > economic difference for the NM. The fact that a new 40E could be
named
> > on T1, thus moving camp posting up a turn, could cascade for a
while.
> >
> > I'm not saying we shouldn't try to rebalance the positions, I just
want
> > to make sure that everyone understands that small changes can make
a
> > huge difference.
> >
> > jason
>
> RD: I understand what you're getting at. I'm not sure about an E40
but it's
> not unreasonable to boost a starting Nor character to E30.
>
> Some nations which can name new characters at 40 don't actually
start with a
> character who can do it. Art & SGo don't start with M40s, Duns and
IcK
> don't start with A40s.
>
> As the Nor position stands at present, one of the coms has to name
ch as
> E30. Nor is usually well and truly pummelled before that emi is
capable of
> naming an E40, so may not even be able to afford a new E40.
Moreover by
> then the camp limit has been reached so the new E40 can't cre camp
anyway!
>
> I retract my second sentence - let Nor START with an E40.
>
> Richard.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jason Bennett, jasonab@a...
> > Software developer, cryptography buff, gamer
> > Believer in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord
> >
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >

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/

#19

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Richard John Devereux" <devereux@l...> wrote:

Secondly, if a starting E40 named another E40, he wouldn't be able

to Double

Din O. He could do one or the other, not both!

He could name a a second E40 on turn 1, then on
turn 2 attempt to double Din Ohtar while the new
emmy does something else, perhaps name a third E40.

Thirdly, a Nor E40 would not cause 'prolific' camp creating. Nol,

WiK & DkL

ALL start with powerful emis, the latter two with em artifacts as

well!

Giving Nor an E40 would perhaps mean the camp limit being reached

one turn

sooner, but at least one or two camps would go to a poor nation

which really

needs them!

I've been in games where the FP were so aggressive in
creating camps that the DS were literally all but defeated
by turn 8, when the camp limit was reached and the DS
had only barely expanded their economies. Some FP grudge
games have learned to use this as their main strategy.
If I were the NM I would name at least three additional E40's
and I think the effect on the camp limit would not be
at all trivial.

I'm not trying to take a stand against a NM E40; it
can hardly tip the game balance from 2/3 DS victories
to 2/3 FP victories; and anywhere in between would
be a satisfactory result from an initial set of
tweakings. I merely wanted to widen the discussion
of the likely effects of the proposed tweaks to
a fuller appreciation of those effects.

Jeremy

#20

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Richard John Devereux" <devereux@l...> wrote:
> Secondly, if a starting E40 named another E40, he wouldn't be able
to Double
> Din O. He could do one or the other, not both!

He could name a a second E40 on turn 1, then on
turn 2 attempt to double Din Ohtar while the new
emmy does something else, perhaps name a third E40.

>
> Thirdly, a Nor E40 would not cause 'prolific' camp creating. Nol,
WiK & DkL
> ALL start with powerful emis, the latter two with em artifacts as
well!
> Giving Nor an E40 would perhaps mean the camp limit being reached
one turn
> sooner, but at least one or two camps would go to a poor nation
which really
> needs them!

I've been in games where the FP were so aggressive in
creating camps that the DS were literally all but defeated
by turn 8, when the camp limit was reached and the DS
had only barely expanded their economies. Some FP grudge
games have learned to use this as their main strategy.
If I were the NM I would name at least three additional E40's
and I think the effect on the camp limit would not be
at all trivial.

I'm not trying to take a stand against a NM E40; it
can hardly tip the game balance from 2/3 DS victories
to 2/3 FP victories; and anywhere in between would
be a satisfactory result from an initial set of
tweakings. I merely wanted to widen the discussion
of the likely effects of the proposed tweaks to
a fuller appreciation of those effects.

Jeremy

RD: Understood. I'm just taking part in the discussion, but playing
'devil's advocate' if you like. You guys in North America have been
playing the game a lot longer than us in Europe, and it's interesting to see
that your FP use mass camp building as a game-winning strategy whilst the
team I usually play with is still divided over its usefulness.

Surely this could be countered by the DS naming more emis themselves?

I see your point that if starting with an E40, Nor could name 3 more, but
would any player dare do so? Nor is bound to lose pops to a competent DS
team, and needs new coms to hire armies to defend them. If DS keep taking
Nor pops because he has only named emis, Nor loy will tumble everywhere and
the extra camps created by the E40s will not last long. Correct me if I'm
wrong!

Richard.