From: "richard devereux" <rd@pagan-47.fsnet.co.uk>
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:26:43 +0100
> [...]
> > 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.
>
> 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.
I agree. I like the concept of the "Hide" Order -- for one thing, it
is a recurring activity in the story.
I also agree that it should prevent other things from being done (or
apply a negative modifier to the odds of success).
One way is to rewrite all the Order descriptions to say "Character
must not be hidden". The easier way is to require it to consume both
Character slots like the OneRing command does. Or to permit it to
give a higher bonus if issued twice in a single turn, thus giving the
hiding Character some options if enemy Agents are camping his Capital,
but at some risk. A good game is all about tough decisions.
Alternatively, you could make Hide a fairly high-numbered order, which
means you could do something and then hide, next turn you could do
something and hide, but be vulnerable to assassnation when you poke
your head out to do that something else. HOWEVER if a hidden
Character issues two Hide orders, that Character remains hidden and
thus gets the bonus for the entire turn. But they would had to have
hidden on the previous turn.
Frankly, I like the first option better.
But the idea that you could gain a bonus against personal, nonmagical
attacks by hiding fits the storyline very well.
And you can hide in the hills. Even the plains offer some cover from
time to time. So a terrain effect on the hiding bonus should probably
matter.
The idea that the hiding bonus would improve in progressively larger
Pops seems logical, as there would be more places to hide, and it
would be statistically harder to search for an individual, etc.
Visiting the idea of hiding in an enemy Pop leaves a lot questions
that would need complex answering; perhaps simply disallowing it would
be easier.
Finally, if a Character were hiding in a Hidden Pop Center, it makes
sense that the hiding bonus would be best of all.
A Character's Stealth rating should affect the hiding bonus.
However, a hiding character cannot do very many other things without
risking exposure, so restricting a hiding Character by making it a
low-numbered order and double-slotting the order seems wise, or at
least permitting a double-slot usage for a noticeably higher bonus.
Regarding game balance, it could make for an interesting discovery to
see what results. I predict assassins would spread out, each tagging
a different Capital each turn. Maybe I can't kill all your
Characters, but I can make a whole lot of them go into Hiding and
disable (or at least severely limit) your ability to do NatSell and
NameChar commands. I still have a giant impact on your Nation.
Of course, as the number of Pops I'm hitting in a single turn goes up,
so does the odds that your Curse squad will tag & bag one of them. So
there'd be some kind of water-leveling that would take place where
players would eventually find the right balance between spreading the
effect and protecting the offensive Agents.
Could be interesting to watch it unfold.
Two cents and all that rot.
ยทยทยท
_________________
Steven K. Mariner
skmme@bhmk.com
http://home.earthlink.net/~marinersk/
http://www.whirlyjigmusic.com/
> From: ME Games Ltd <me@MiddleEarthGames.com>
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:53:37 +0100
> [...]
> > But, of course, the GM or GMs must look at the code and so
> > have the various interactions revealed to them. Perhaps
> > that is why Stassun and Feilds seldom played this game and
> > clearly identified themselves when they did. Ed Mills
> > (honest in Real Life but a wargame SOB)
>
> Sorry you're mistaken. I've not looked at the code, nor has
> any of my team. So as for your "must" comment please don't
> spread mis-information about our practices here. If we did
> look at it then we'll comment about it to you guys.
I think you're missing his point, Clint. You guys now own the code.
If you're going to fix bugs, make changes, etc., then you have to look
at the code. Either that, or your software engineering skills greatly
exceed mine.
Or are you saying that none of your GMs are also your programmers?
Anyay, I think his main point was that having *us players* volunteer
to do changes for you was unwise because *we* would be able to look at
the code and get an advantage, intentionally or otherwise. The GM
reference you quoted was, I suspect, merely a theoretical working
example of what might occur.
Leastwise, that's how *I* took it.
_________________
Steven K. Mariner
skmyg@bhmk.com
http://home.earthlink.net/~marinersk/
http://www.whirlyjigmusic.com/