Agents trying to assassinate/kidnap characters are subject to the
character catching them "in the act" and a "personal challenge"
results with the "victim" being enraged (having their challenge rank
significantly boosted).
Kevin
_________________________________________________________________
Check out Election 2004 for up-to-date election news, plus voter tools and more! http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx
Agents trying to assassinate/kidnap characters are subject to the
character catching them "in the act" and a "personal challenge"
results with the "victim" being enraged (having their challenge rank
significantly boosted).
Kevin
_________________________________________________________________
Check out Election 2004 for up-to-date election news, plus voter tools and
more! http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx
My take is that, if an agent fails in an assassination, an automatic challenge would ensue, instead of "John doe injured Ji Indur and foiled his assassination attempt" or so. That would really help to intimidate agent action against tough commanders. Also it would improve the importance of guards, since even a detection of these should trigger the challenge. Although i dont agree with the "rage boost" .
Also I think these changes shoul be considered carefully, or we can end up in a no-agent scenario, and in the 1650 scenario that means massive FP superiority
Rodrigo Maia
···
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Brunet
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 12:41 PM
Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] Counter agent actions - suggestion for a change
What's challenge got to do with it..? I thought there was a 5% crapola chance for all orders...?
Here is another thought: Agents who challenge or get challenged already
have 5% deducted from their random agent roll.
Ed Mills
>From: "Kevin Brown"
>Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
>To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [mepbmlist] Counter agent actions - suggestion for a change
>Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:53:47 -0000
>
>
>Here's a thought for changing the rules:
>
>Agents trying to assassinate/kidnap characters are subject to the
>character catching them "in the act" and a "personal challenge"
>results with the "victim" being enraged (having their challenge rank
>significantly boosted).
>
>Kevin
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Check out Election 2004 for up-to-date election news, plus voter tools and
more! http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx
First of all, there are a few character-targeted agent actions:
kidnap, assassinate and steal artifact. I always thought there should
be some other way to counter these actions than having a guard.
Something more active that the character could do. Something like a
miscellaneous 'hide' order.
The obvious effect of this order is to make these actions more
difficult because the agent has a harder time trying to find a
character.
Here's some not-so-obvious modifiers on this order:
1. It's more effective in cities than it is in camps. More places to
hide, more people to search through, etc.
2. It's less effective if the character that issues the order does
something other than a refuse challenge. Most every order requires a
character to interact with other characters to some extent. If a
character is doing something other than just hiding, someone somewhere
will notice.
3. It's more effective when issued twice in the same turn by a
character. This would leave you open to a personal challenge, however.
4. Agents are probably better at hiding than any other class. Army
commanders are probably not very good at hiding.
5. Hiding would not affect magical spells such as reveal character.
The real downside of this order would be that it should affect a lot
more orders than just these; orders like issue personal challenge,
bribe, double, transfer artifact, join company, etc., and as such
would cause a large number of changes to the program.
Don't think I'd like this. Might make high-level characters less likely
targets, but if you stack an agent with a high combat arty, and you'd be
assured of killing low level characters. If the assassination fails, you
get a free challenge. It would be more like an "auto-assassination"
then.
My take is that, if an agent fails in an assassination, an automatic
challenge would ensue, instead of "John doe injured Ji Indur and foiled his
assassination attempt" or so. That would really help to intimidate agent
action against tough commanders. Also it would improve the importance of
guards, since even a detection of these should trigger the challenge.
Although i dont agree with the "rage boost" .
Also I think these changes shoul be considered carefully, or we can
end up in a no-agent scenario, and in the 1650 scenario that means massive
FP superiority
Rodrigo Maia
RD: I agree changes should be considered carefully. In the example you give
above, John Doe challenges Ji Indur. What if Ji Indur wins? Does the
intended victim, Tarondor armed with a glowing sword maybe, allow Ji Indur
to walk free? I don't think so! I like the idea that if an assassination
fails, it should result in death or capture more often than not, but
challenge doesn't fit the bill.
Take 2: John Doe injured Ji Indur and foiled his assassination attempt.
John Doe failed to kill Ji Indur but raised the hue and cry. Ji Indur was
caught by a mob of citizens and beaten to death.
Or: Ji Indur was caught by the militia as he attempted to escape, and
imprisoned.
Or (but this should be the smallest chance): although wounded, by skill and
cunning Ji Indur made his escape.
Richard.
From: Brad Brunet
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 12:41 PM
Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] Counter agent actions - suggestion for a change
What's challenge got to do with it..? I thought there was a 5% crapola
chance for all orders...?
Brad
Here is another thought: Agents who challenge or get challenged already
have 5% deducted from their random agent roll.
Ed Mills
>From: "Kevin Brown"
>Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
>To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [mepbmlist] Counter agent actions - suggestion for a change
>Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:53:47 -0000
>
>
>Here's a thought for changing the rules:
>
>Agents trying to assassinate/kidnap characters are subject to the
>character catching them "in the act" and a "personal challenge"
>results with the "victim" being enraged (having their challenge rank
>significantly boosted).
>
>Kevin
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Check out Election 2004 for up-to-date election news, plus voter tools
and
···
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rodrigo Maia" <g0th@bol.com.br>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Counter agent actions - suggestion for a change
First of all, there are a few character-targeted agent actions:
kidnap, assassinate and steal artifact. I always thought there should
be some other way to counter these actions than having a guard.
Something more active that the character could do. Something like a
miscellaneous 'hide' order.
The obvious effect of this order is to make these actions more
difficult because the agent has a harder time trying to find a
character.
Here's some not-so-obvious modifiers on this order:
1. It's more effective in cities than it is in camps. More places to
hide, more people to search through, etc.
2. It's less effective if the character that issues the order does
something other than a refuse challenge. Most every order requires a
character to interact with other characters to some extent. If a
character is doing something other than just hiding, someone somewhere
will notice.
3. It's more effective when issued twice in the same turn by a
character. This would leave you open to a personal challenge, however.
4. Agents are probably better at hiding than any other class. Army
commanders are probably not very good at hiding.
5. Hiding would not affect magical spells such as reveal character.
The real downside of this order would be that it should affect a lot
more orders than just these; orders like issue personal challenge,
bribe, double, transfer artifact, join company, etc., and as such
would cause a large number of changes to the program.
Andy Sheppard
RD: So are you saying that when Tarondor is holding court in Minas Anor, and
Ji Indur shows up, Tarondor should go and hide somewhere in his own capital?
If he hides and refuses, he can't do anything useful... not even down
relations v ClL beforer he dies.
Richard.
···
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Sheppard" <vorcyon@gmail.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Counter agent actions - suggestion for a change
My idea of a "hide" order is predicated on the assumption that agent
actions do not otherwise change and that a high-level agent can still
walk into your capital and pretty much whack whoever he chooses.
Using your example, but without a hide order, Tarondor is dead. Not
much you can do about it unless you have a great agent to guard him or
a great emissary to double Ji Indur. This isn't very realistic,
however, since all of your great emissaries are out trying take DS pop
centers and the only agent you have around is some guy at a 38 skill
who isn't going to stop his own grandmother from assassinating anyone.
With a hide order, you have a chance to have Tarondor save his own
skin. You may decide not to use it because there are orders that
Tarondor just has to issue, or you may decide to hedge your bets by
having Tarondor both hide and downgrade with the CL or something along
those lines. But, at least you have the option.
Whether or not it makes sense that Tarondor should have to hide in his
own capital or that an assassin can do these sorts of things is
another topic entirely.
RD: So are you saying that when Tarondor is holding court in Minas Anor, and
Ji Indur shows up, Tarondor should go and hide somewhere in his own capital?
If he hides and refuses, he can't do anything useful... not even down
relations v ClL beforer he dies.
