Curse counters

mepbmlist
#1

I like the idea of randomizing which artifacts (all initially lost?) provide
curses. If you did that alone you would slow down the development of curses
at least 10 turns.

There is also a precedent for tweaking success chances. Look at the agent
changes. That would be the very easiest and invisible to normal play.

Matt

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Pinsonneault [mailto:pinsonneault.1@osu.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 12:44 PM
To: mepbmlist@egroups.com
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Curse counters

I like the idea of not having artifacts improve the cast chance for
the curse list (OK for them to help in research). Curses are a nice
tool, but in 1650/2950 all of the mage artifacts can be used to make
it 100% certain, which is not consistent with the other kill orders.
It is simple to program, and would have the effect of placing more of
a premium on sickness/weakness squads rather than curse squads, or at
least add some uncertainty to using them. The cast percentages could
be tweaked higher, and Harlequin could also add the ability to more
artifacts (random each game) to both give a purpose to research
artifact spells and make them somewhat easier to learn.

IMO simple changes are more likely than complex ones.

cheers,

Marc Pinsonneault

--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, "Ashley, Matthew" <Ashley.Matthew@h...>
wrote:

Now, I think a set of spells that would counter or mitigate curses

might be

useful. I would limit them to a specific target at the lower levels

(easy,

average) and maybe allow you to protect an entire hex at the hard

levels. I

think a spell that would stop curses in a blanket region is way to

much.

I think the spell should reduce the damage suffered in some fashion

from a %

reduction in damage to total immunity.

This spell would give your mages something to do (hang about casting
protection spells) but would not totally throw out the curses

ability. This

counter needs to be localized and defensive to prevent throwing

things out

of balance.

I have been on teams where we were able to get sickness/weakness

kills on

T2. That is a powerful tool and a team should be rewarded for doing

so (and

the death of several NG commanders at Minas Tirith in a row was

nice!).

Also, even if the Noldo?BS can put together a curse squad by t9 all

the more

power to him. He and his team spent the time and resources to make

it

happen. They should stand a better chance of winning.

Matt

Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm

#2

In a 1650 game, with curses artifacts all known,
there is first a race for them (plus agent artifacts)
then during the course of the game they are stolen
and re-stolen back and forth.

I don't think it would work very well to randomize
them. The first side that was lucky enough to discover
one would not only get a big advantage, but the other
side wouldn't even know that it had been discovered
or what its number was -- couldn't even try to steal it.

(Personally I don't see the current curses as needing
fixing, and as I've said, I see it as the only deterrent
to superpowerful agents. Also as others have pointed
out, the effort to create a company and field
it in terms of number of orders is enormous,
and it only kills one per turn. In 1650, both
sides start on a fairly level playing field regarding
curses potential, mage-wise. Compare that to the
power of agents and the imbalance toward the DS.
While we are weakening curses, how about doubling
the power of guards, or making all guard orders by
guards over 60 rank be automatically successful?<g>)

Jeremy

--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, "Ashley, Matthew" <Ashley.Matthew@h...>

wrote:

I like the idea of randomizing which artifacts (all initially lost?)

provide

curses. If you did that alone you would slow down the development

of curses

at least 10 turns.

There is also a precedent for tweaking success chances. Look at the

agent

changes. That would be the very easiest and invisible to normal

play.

Matt

From: Marc Pinsonneault [mailto:pinsonneault.1@o…]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 12:44 PM
To: mepbmlist@egroups.com
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Curse counters

I like the idea of not having artifacts improve the cast chance for
the curse list (OK for them to help in research). Curses are a nice
tool, but in 1650/2950 all of the mage artifacts can be used to make
it 100% certain, which is not consistent with the other kill orders.
It is simple to program, and would have the effect of placing more

of

a premium on sickness/weakness squads rather than curse squads, or

at

least add some uncertainty to using them. The cast percentages

could

be tweaked higher, and Harlequin could also add the ability to more
artifacts (random each game) to both give a purpose to research
artifact spells and make them somewhat easier to learn.

IMO simple changes are more likely than complex ones.

cheers,

Marc Pinsonneault

--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, "Ashley, Matthew"

<Ashley.Matthew@h...>

wrote:
> Now, I think a set of spells that would counter or mitigate curses
might be
> useful. I would limit them to a specific target at the lower

levels

(easy,
> average) and maybe allow you to protect an entire hex at the hard
levels. I
> think a spell that would stop curses in a blanket region is way to
much.
>
> I think the spell should reduce the damage suffered in some

fashion

from a %
> reduction in damage to total immunity.
>
> This spell would give your mages something to do (hang about

casting

> protection spells) but would not totally throw out the curses
ability. This
> counter needs to be localized and defensive to prevent throwing
things out
> of balance.
>
> I have been on teams where we were able to get sickness/weakness
kills on
> T2. That is a powerful tool and a team should be rewarded for

doing

so (and
> the death of several NG commanders at Minas Tirith in a row was
nice!).
> Also, even if the Noldo?BS can put together a curse squad by t9

all

the more
> power to him. He and his team spent the time and resources to

make

···

-----Original Message-----
it
> happen. They should stand a better chance of winning.
>
> Matt
>

Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm

#3

RD: I agree. Leave Curses as they are. Certainly I do NOT want to see
counter-curse spells.

Regards,

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: <JeremyRichman@compuserve.com>
To: <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 4:18 AM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Curse counters

In a 1650 game, with curses artifacts all known,
there is first a race for them (plus agent artifacts)
then during the course of the game they are stolen
and re-stolen back and forth.

I don't think it would work very well to randomize
them. The first side that was lucky enough to discover
one would not only get a big advantage, but the other
side wouldn't even know that it had been discovered
or what its number was -- couldn't even try to steal it.

(Personally I don't see the current curses as needing
fixing, and as I've said, I see it as the only deterrent
to superpowerful agents. Also as others have pointed
out, the effort to create a company and field
it in terms of number of orders is enormous,
and it only kills one per turn. In 1650, both
sides start on a fairly level playing field regarding
curses potential, mage-wise. Compare that to the
power of agents and the imbalance toward the DS.
While we are weakening curses, how about doubling
the power of guards, or making all guard orders by
guards over 60 rank be automatically successful?<g>)

Jeremy