Digest Number 1160

mepbmlist
#21

Christopher wrote:

I think limiting newbies in any way is silly. No one nation is
crucial to a victory (e.g., neutrals). Again, again, and again I
hear the argument that this is a team game. If so, why limit anyone
in playing a particular nation?

Chris, if you build a baseball team out of all all-stars, and have me pitching, the team is going to lose, no matter what. If you build an american football team out of Pro Bowlers, with me as quarterback, that team will lose. Same goes for soccer with me as goalie.

On the other hand, a team of all-stars, with me in left field, might have a chance, as long as I bat last.

My point: just because it's a team game, doesn't make all nations equal. Some are more important than others, and those nations need to be played by someone who's at least seen someone else play it, hopefully well.

No doubt about it, MEPBM is a complex game. Some newbies find that
complexity alluring. Some newbies might like the challenge of
playing a nation that is considered "critical" to the team. How
among you are going to tell them that sorry you cannot play that
position because you have only played x games, and are not
experienced enough? Or wait, will you simply do so behind the
scenes - sort of a star chamber of days ago?

Star Chamber, no. No one's getting gunned down in the street. There's nothing wrong with allocating positions based on a modicum of skill and experience. I don't see what's wrong with telling someone that this nation is likely over their head for the moment.

As a consumer I believe the consumer should decide what positions
they should play. Not an ad hoc committee of veteran players,
company hacks (no offense Clint), and vocal minority.

You, however, are not the only consumer. Clint's whole point in this is to balance his economic base between new players who want certain nations, and old players who want to have a fighting chance in their games.

Personally, I would probably be less likely to play ME if I felt that Clint was doling out nations willy-nilly. There's no worse feeling than not having your fate in your hands. One of the most frustrating games I've played was a 2950 game where the Sinda/North Gondor player refused to communicate with anyone, by any means. His Sinda got taken out on turn 3 (yep, 3), and North Gondor was overrun by DS by turn 10. Having a new player is a critical position is just as bad: you either do their turns for them, or you lose. That's a frustrating place to be for both players.

      jason

···

--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
E pur si muove!

#22

Jason:

I have played a total of two games (both 2950). Team lost both
times. I dropped both times (sametime) due my mother-in-law being
diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer. Mom-in-law died a few months
later. No apologies for dropping, family first.

The first nation I played was Dog Lord. A great nation to stumble
into the real world without my driver's license. Lasted over 20+
turns before dropping (family crisis).

The second nation I played was South Gondor. Another good nation
for a starter, but more challenging position then Doggie.

The fun really started when I volunteered to pick up North Gondor
after a sudden drop. No one, I repeat no one wanted to pick up
North Gondor - early in the game after a special service turn. I
found that out of any of the positions I had played, North Gondor
was the one I learned most about the game.

Having the DS swarming all over my map and cities crawling with DS
characters, helped me learn what is important and not so important
in terms of army movement, camp placement, economies, orders,
agents, bridges, etc.

Admittidly, it was trial by fire. However, I think I did okay. I
brought a nearly bankrupt nation back to within a fighting chance of
making it to the end. I think if you ask any of my teammates, I
held my own while playing both Gondor nations.

Now, if you or say some older players would have had their way, I
would not have had an opportunity to play North Gondor in a future
game. Look at my track record - two games played - both of my teams
lost. In fact, I am a horrible player for that position - I dropped
both games I played. Right?

Bottom line is, I simply want an opportunity to play Quarterback or
Goalie. Don't tell me that if I do, we will lose. A part of
playing a game is playing. For all those kids still riding the
bench - put them in coach.

Chris

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

Christopher wrote:

>
> I think limiting newbies in any way is silly. No one nation is
> crucial to a victory (e.g., neutrals). Again, again, and again I
> hear the argument that this is a team game. If so, why limit

anyone

> in playing a particular nation?

Chris, if you build a baseball team out of all all-stars, and have

me

pitching, the team is going to lose, no matter what. If you build

an

american football team out of Pro Bowlers, with me as quarterback,

that

team will lose. Same goes for soccer with me as goalie.

On the other hand, a team of all-stars, with me in left field,

might

have a chance, as long as I bat last.

My point: just because it's a team game, doesn't make all nations

equal.

Some are more important than others, and those nations need to be

played

by someone who's at least seen someone else play it, hopefully

well.

> No doubt about it, MEPBM is a complex game. Some newbies find

that

> complexity alluring. Some newbies might like the challenge of
> playing a nation that is considered "critical" to the team. How
> among you are going to tell them that sorry you cannot play that
> position because you have only played x games, and are not
> experienced enough? Or wait, will you simply do so behind the
> scenes - sort of a star chamber of days ago?

Star Chamber, no. No one's getting gunned down in the street.

There's

nothing wrong with allocating positions based on a modicum of

skill and

experience. I don't see what's wrong with telling someone that

this

nation is likely over their head for the moment.

> As a consumer I believe the consumer should decide what positions
> they should play. Not an ad hoc committee of veteran players,
> company hacks (no offense Clint), and vocal minority.

You, however, are not the only consumer. Clint's whole point in

this is

to balance his economic base between new players who want certain
nations, and old players who want to have a fighting chance in

their games.

Personally, I would probably be less likely to play ME if I felt

that

Clint was doling out nations willy-nilly. There's no worse feeling

than

not having your fate in your hands. One of the most frustrating

games

I've played was a 2950 game where the Sinda/North Gondor player

refused

to communicate with anyone, by any means. His Sinda got taken out

on

turn 3 (yep, 3), and North Gondor was overrun by DS by turn 10.

Having a

new player is a critical position is just as bad: you either do

their

turns for them, or you lose. That's a frustrating place to be for

both

···

players.

      jason

--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@a...
E pur si muove!

#23

Played a FP game once where the Dwarves were using Bain to
improve Iron Hills pops to MT's while the DS were massacreing
the rest of us - ignoring him because they didn't even know
there WAS a Dwarf in this game...Newbie there. We only found
out what he was doing because he sent his pdf by mistake to
us with his first email in over 5 turns to the team, asking
where we wanted a foodless HI army with st/st and 2 new mages
in it to move to...

I would personally LOVE to see a "newbie pack" sent to new
players that started with something along the lines of:
"MEPBM is a Team Game that requires extensive communication
with allies scattered around the world in order to succeed."
If there's anything to make a big issue of, it's this.

Brad

···

--- Jason Bennett <jasonab@acm.org> wrote:

One of the most frustrating games I've played was
a 2950 game where the Sinda/North Gondor player refused
to communicate with anyone, by any means. His Sinda got
taken out on turn 3 (yep, 3), and North Gondor was
overrun by DS by turn 10.

______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

#24

Christopher wrote:

Now, if you or say some older players would have had their way, I
would not have had an opportunity to play North Gondor in a future
game. Look at my track record - two games played - both of my teams
lost. In fact, I am a horrible player for that position - I dropped
both games I played. Right?

Well, not really. You did exactly what most people here are advocating: take a reasonable position for your first game, a slightly stronger one your second. You picked up NG as a drop, which I don't think anyone would have a problem with, and you learned a lot. You seem to have done exactly what you're arguing against.

Bottom line is, I simply want an opportunity to play Quarterback or
Goalie. Don't tell me that if I do, we will lose. A part of
playing a game is playing. For all those kids still riding the
bench - put them in coach.

If this were a weekend game with friends, or Little League, I might agree with you. When you're talking about real money, though, I think caution is prudent.

        jason

···

--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
E pur si muove!

#25

Been tried I think. The problem is that lots of newbies drop - they're just trying the game after all. MEPBM is naff when other nations drop. That means the other newbies who might have what it takes to be a player, have a bad experience of their first game, so we lose more of them than we otherwise might.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

···

At 18:34 11/11/2002, Christopher wrote:

Laurence:

As I newbie, I have a suggestion. Put all the newbies together in
one game and all the elder gamers in another.

#26

YES, YES, YES! And can we have it tattooed on their 'eads please as well?

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

···

At 05:58 12/11/2002, Brad Brunet wrote:

I would personally LOVE to see a "newbie pack" sent to new
players that started with something along the lines of:
"MEPBM is a Team Game that requires extensive communication
with allies scattered around the world in order to succeed."
If there's anything to make a big issue of, it's this.

#27

Hi

I'm newer than a newbie because I am waiting to start up my first
game, namely BOFA but I have been following this thread.

Having read the input of some experienced players, I would hate to
have the finger pointed at me for letting the team down or ruining
someone's game or making someone's ratings drop, just because I
didn't play my chosen nation (be it a key nation or not) the way
it's "supposed to be played." With this in mind, I would be inclined
to not bother with any of the other games after BOFA cos it just
seems like lot of hassle on a new player. If for some reason I didn't
have time to answer or send emails, I don't want to be accused of
being uncommunicative and unhelpful. The pressure to "perform" seems
very high which to my mind, is not fun.

I've played PBMs for over 6 years and had never heard of MEPBM until
recently (ooh I hear you all gasp!) so I thought I'd give it a whirl.
If I had seen similar discussions about what newbies should and
should not do and how they can spoil games for older players, I don't
think I would have ever started playing any PBM games at all.

I appreciate that not all PBMs are as geared towards teamwork as
MEPBM but I don't think I have read anything that assures me that as
a newbie I will have a much fun unless I do as I am told.

This is probably just me being very negative, but there's not a lot
that has been said that has assured me that I will have a lot of fun,
for fear of putting a foot wrong.

cheers
weenie

#28

It IS a team game, and communication IS important. Nobody would say you'd let the team down, provided you do communicate. I'm sorry if that fact makes the game (so beloved of many of us) seem unattractive to you, but if you honestly can't commit to checking your e-mails at least every other day, and spending perhaps an hour or so a week reading and responding, then, without offense I would advise you to stick to BOFA, or try "Gunboat" the no-communications scenario.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

···

At 10:28 12/11/2002, weenierogue wrote:

I'm newer than a newbie because I am waiting to start up my first
game, namely BOFA but I have been following this thread.

Having read the input of some experienced players, I would hate to
have the finger pointed at me for letting the team down or ruining
someone's game or making someone's ratings drop, just because I
didn't play my chosen nation (be it a key nation or not) the way
it's "supposed to be played." With this in mind, I would be inclined
to not bother with any of the other games after BOFA cos it just
seems like lot of hassle on a new player. If for some reason I didn't
have time to answer or send emails, I don't want to be accused of
being uncommunicative and unhelpful. The pressure to "perform" seems
very high which to my mind, is not fun.

#29

I appreciate that not all PBMs are as geared towards teamwork as
MEPBM but I don't think I have read anything that assures me that as
a newbie I will have a much fun unless I do as I am told.

*** Not the case. Some games are more competitive than others. Grudge games are the ultimate in competition though and do need extensive team-work, planning, co-ordination and input from team members. This can be daunting. There are not many games on the PBM market that need such co-ordination. BUT then the rewards of a successfully implemented plan are excellent as well and help it make the game the best Fantasy Wargame on the market. For the majority of the games like anything in life what you put in is directly related to what you get out of the game. On the surface ME is a very simple wargame, in actuality I have found it to be one of the more complex endeavours in PBM with a lot of hidden depth and interesting methods of using orders than many others.

In terms of team-play it's unparalleled in the PBM world... :slight_smile:

This is probably just me being very negative, but there's not a lot
that has been said that has assured me that I will have a lot of fun,
for fear of putting a foot wrong.

*** ALL Players make mistakes. Note this is only a handful of player's opinions. Mostly new players are allowed to find their own feet. That's why I advocate less complex/important nations, where you can discover the game at your own pace. Play with the orders and see what they do, find out what's cost effective and what's poor (or get assistance from team-mates) and work from there.

Gunboat is a game where no diplomacy or "advice" is offered. Not something I advise for new players but it's something I have found fun.

Clint

#30

It IS a team game, and communication IS important. Nobody would say you'd
let the team down, provided you do communicate. I'm sorry if that fact
makes the game (so beloved of many of us) seem unattractive to you, but if
you honestly can't commit to checking your e-mails at least every other
day, and spending perhaps an hour or so a week reading and responding,
then, without offense I would advise you to stick to BOFA, or try "Gunboat"
the no-communications scenario.

I would strongly not agree with this. Some games need extensive communication and others do not. You can "tootle" along at your own pace in many games. Some players and teams need a lot of communication, but they are rarer than the others. I would estimate that 1 in 3 is intense communication or high levels of commitment.

Checking the games that get won and lost the factors that apply are:
1) Getting your turn in.
2) Getting your turn IN!!!!
3) Not Special Servicing
4) Getting your turn in.....
5) Competent orders
6) Team-work.

Clint (GM)

As a player the major concern I have is that my team-mates get a turn in. Anything else is a bonus. :slight_smile: If players on my team want more advice I sometimes am able to help there as well.

Clint (Player)

#31

Weenie:

Welcome. Which BOFA nation? I think the BOFA is a great idea. I
wish it had been available when I started to play. From what I hear,
it gives you a flavor of the game.

Interestingly, several veteran players warned me that my first MEPBM
game was like drinking water from a fire hose. Honestly, the game is
complex. The rules are challenging. Even so, the game is fun on so
many different levels - economics, militarily, characters, etc.

I hope you try a MEPBM. FYI - I am new to PBM and have no connection
to Clint and company. I think a fresh set of players keep things
interesting. (No offense to those players who have played for
umpteen years - I would love to learn some of your secrets).

Chris

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "weenierogue" <weenie_rogue@h...> wrote:

Hi

I'm newer than a newbie because I am waiting to start up my first
game, namely BOFA but I have been following this thread.

Having read the input of some experienced players, I would hate to
have the finger pointed at me for letting the team down or ruining
someone's game or making someone's ratings drop, just because I
didn't play my chosen nation (be it a key nation or not) the way
it's "supposed to be played." With this in mind, I would be

inclined

to not bother with any of the other games after BOFA cos it just
seems like lot of hassle on a new player. If for some reason I

didn't

have time to answer or send emails, I don't want to be accused of
being uncommunicative and unhelpful. The pressure to "perform"

seems

very high which to my mind, is not fun.

I've played PBMs for over 6 years and had never heard of MEPBM

until

recently (ooh I hear you all gasp!) so I thought I'd give it a

whirl.

If I had seen similar discussions about what newbies should and
should not do and how they can spoil games for older players, I

don't

think I would have ever started playing any PBM games at all.

I appreciate that not all PBMs are as geared towards teamwork as
MEPBM but I don't think I have read anything that assures me that

as

a newbie I will have a much fun unless I do as I am told.

This is probably just me being very negative, but there's not a lot
that has been said that has assured me that I will have a lot of

fun,

···

for fear of putting a foot wrong.

cheers
weenie

#32

Hi Chris

I don't know what nation I've got yet but my order of preference of
nation was Goblins, Wargs, Dwarves (or maybe Dwarves then Wargs).
Have read the BOFA rulebook several times now from cover to cover
now - seems pretty straightforward and am just waiting for the game
to start - been waiting 3 weeks now.

Have kinda already thought about what I plan on doing in the first
few turns (depending on what nation I get) but will leave the more
radical turns til later! :slight_smile:

cheers
weenie

Welcome. Which BOFA nation? I think the BOFA is a great idea. I
wish it had been available when I started to play. From what I

hear,

it gives you a flavor of the game.

Interestingly, several veteran players warned me that my first

MEPBM

game was like drinking water from a fire hose. Honestly, the game

is

complex. The rules are challenging. Even so, the game is fun on

so

many different levels - economics, militarily, characters, etc.

I hope you try a MEPBM. FYI - I am new to PBM and have no

connection

···

to Clint and company. I think a fresh set of players keep things
interesting. (No offense to those players who have played for
umpteen years - I would love to learn some of your secrets).

Chris

#33

At 14:57 12/11/2002, Middle Earth PBM Games wrote, quoting initially LGT:

>It IS a team game, and communication IS important. Nobody would say you'd
>let the team down, provided you do communicate. I'm sorry if that fact
>makes the game (so beloved of many of us) seem unattractive to you, but if
>you honestly can't commit to checking your e-mails at least every other
>day, and spending perhaps an hour or so a week reading and responding,
>then, without offense I would advise you to stick to BOFA, or try "Gunboat"
>the no-communications scenario.

I would strongly not agree with this. Some games need extensive
communication and others do not. You can "tootle" along at your own pace
in many games. Some players and teams need a lot of communication, but
they are rarer than the others. I would estimate that 1 in 3 is intense
communication or high levels of commitment.

Checking the games that get won and lost the factors that apply are:
1) Getting your turn in.
2) Getting your turn IN!!!!
3) Not Special Servicing
4) Getting your turn in.....
5) Competent orders
6) Team-work.

Clint (GM)

As a player the major concern I have is that my team-mates get a turn
in. Anything else is a bonus. :slight_smile: If players on my team want more advice
I sometimes am able to help there as well.

Clint (Player)

Well I have to say that I'm completely gobsmacked by these remarks from you. It is in your commercial interest to give the game broad appeal, so I suppose I can sort of see why as a businessman you might want to fudge the need for communication issue. But I'm genuinely shocked by the fact that you can say the above with your player hat on as well.

If you genuinely believe what you say, then we REALLY need to start looking at some sort of league system, with Pre-arranged Team Games, being in an upper league for serious players, and "Tootling along" games being elsewhere. Because if you continue to stick groups of newbies into games with committed players, and do not endorse the expectation of good communication, you are going to have more disappointing games. And that means that sooner or later your Regulars will leave Middle Earth on the Elven ships headed West, never to return.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

#34

Well I have to say that I'm completely gobsmacked by these remarks from
you. It is in your commercial interest to give the game broad appeal, so I
suppose I can sort of see why as a businessman you might want to fudge the
need for communication issue. But I'm genuinely shocked by the fact that
you can say the above with your player hat on as well.

*** Um no fudging. I have looked at the games and who wins. There is a clear correlation between teams who get turns in and who wins. So from my experience as a GM or 10 years of running games, 4 years of running Middle Earth I would stick to these as the major things that impact on the games outcome. Communication, skill, diplomatic skill (diff. to communication), and other factors are important but I have found that time and time again it's who gets turns in who win. Actually in addition I have also found that the team that gets its orders in last has a tendency to win (around 70/30 at present from a very non-scientific appraisal over the years), but that's an aside. :slight_smile:

As for playing experience I have not so much as that but still got quite a lot. I am presently playing 8 positions, and co-ordinating two teams and strongly avoiding co-ordinating 2 more... :slight_smile: Note for old hands as well it is good to bring new blood into the hobby. I have seen teams break up due to various pressures and only be able to run with small numbers - specifically a UK problem but some teams from other environs as well. So that's my opinion based on that experience.

If you genuinely believe what you say,

*** Uh?!

then we REALLY need to start looking
at some sort of league system, with Pre-arranged Team Games, being in an
upper league for serious players, and "Tootling along" games being
elsewhere. Because if you continue to stick groups of newbies into games
with committed players, and do not endorse the expectation of good
communication, you are going to have more disappointing games. And that
means that sooner or later your Regulars will leave Middle Earth on the
Elven ships headed West, never to return.

*** We can't please everyone all of the time I am afraid. We have regulars leave and new players join all the time - the game is still very successful. I have to look at the broad spectrum here. For older players I encourage the development of new gaming formats and other bits and pieces specifically because players do get jaded. I am implementing the PRS... :slight_smile: Players do like to play at different levels of commitments. The same player has different levels of commitment. We can support both styles. I try to encourage the difference between "tootling" players and "hard core fanatics" to Individual and Grudge games. I would count myself more as hard core player here and love the thrill and annoyance of Grudge games myself. Part of the reason that (personal preference and as a GM seeing a player desire for such things) that I created the Grudge team rating.

Players often represent their own viewpoint - I generally have to represent the viewpoint of the broad spectrum of players as I perceive it and that of the business and support that viewpoint. Although I would love to support the 1 and half player variant of Bofa with 20,000 extra pcs and 98 characters all starting on 100/100/100/100 there is no player base for it. [Don't ask! :slight_smile: ] In the same way communication, although a serious point is not how lots of players play or enjoy the game. For those that do I suggest Grudge games as often more appropriate as they want to get more out of the game. Lots of communication can and does occur in the Individual games - I hope that helps clear up any misunderstandings that might have occurred here.

Sometimes I put in my opinion as player but I try to make it clear whether or not it is the GM hat or the player hat I am wearing. They are very different - I hope that I don't fuzz the lines too often.

Clint

#35

--- Middle Earth PBM Games <me@MiddleEarthGames.com> wrote: >

>Well I have to say that I'm completely gobsmacked by these remarks
from
>you. It is in your commercial interest to give the game broad
appeal, so I
>suppose I can sort of see why as a businessman you might want to
fudge the
>need for communication issue. But I'm genuinely shocked by the fact
that
>you can say the above with your player hat on as well.

*** Um no fudging. I have looked at the games and who wins. There
is a
clear correlation between teams who get turns in and who wins

Um, anyone else out there with a chicken or an egg???

Who gets their turns in?

Teams who communicate.

Put COMMUNICATION on the top of the Newbie Note/Pack/Memo

P L E A S E

Thanks,

Brad

···

______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

#36

Clint,

There may be a little of an over generalization occurring in your
analysis.

I put forward the theory that the team that communicates often will
have a greater incentive to submit their turn orders as a great deal
of thought & effort went into their development. These people would
also feel a greater commitment to their teammates and put the extra
effort in to submit turns. Therefore it is not the act of getting
orders in that wins the games, it is the act of feeling involved and
committed enough as a result of communication which results in the
turn orders being submitted regularly.

Your comment about the team that gets orders in the latest winning
70% of the time could also go to support that communication is the
root cause. These teams are likely in such in depth planning that
the only thing the stops the current turn's debate is the due date.
Hence, turn orders are submitted as late as possible.

Chris

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Middle Earth PBM Games <me@M...> wrote:

*** Um no fudging. I have looked at the games and who wins. There

is a

clear correlation between teams who get turns in and who wins. So

from my

experience as a GM or 10 years of running games, 4 years of running

Middle

Earth I would stick to these as the major things that impact on the

games

outcome. Communication, skill, diplomatic skill (diff. to

communication),

and other factors are important but I have found that time and time

again

it's who gets turns in who win. Actually in addition I have also

found

that the team that gets its orders in last has a tendency to win

(around

70/30 at present from a very non-scientific appraisal over the

years), but

···

that's an aside. :slight_smile:

#37

I put forward the theory that the team that communicates often will
have a greater incentive to submit their turn orders as a great deal
of thought & effort went into their development. These people would
also feel a greater commitment to their teammates and put the extra
effort in to submit turns. Therefore it is not the act of getting
orders in that wins the games, it is the act of feeling involved and
committed enough as a result of communication which results in the
turn orders being submitted regularly.

** I would agree that players who enjoy the game, communicate with team-mates and enjoy that aspect of the game, are playing in a position that is doing well, have spare time and the effort to implement that time, understand what is going on etc all mean that you are more likely to put in a turn. BUT I get a lot of players drop due to the pressures of team-mates, quantity of information, clash of personalities, pressure to conform to a plan or to be more individual etc - all based on communication as well. There's give an take on the communication is the be-all and end-all to winning the game. A team of competent players will mostly do fine, with minimal communication. In Grudge games more team orientated play is essential and that does mean more communication. So with that in mind I would agree with yours and Laurence's statement.

Your comment about the team that gets orders in the latest winning
70% of the time could also go to support that communication is the
root cause. These teams are likely in such in depth planning that
the only thing the stops the current turn's debate is the due date.
Hence, turn orders are submitted as late as possible.

*** I would agree with that... :slight_smile: It was somewhat tongue in cheek. Maybe I need a PR consultant? :slight_smile:

Clint

#38

Clint,

  There may be a little of an over generalization occurring in your
  analysis.

  I put forward the theory that the team that communicates often will
  have a greater incentive to submit their turn orders as a great deal
  of thought & effort went into their development. These people would
  also feel a greater commitment to their teammates and put the extra
  effort in to submit turns. Therefore it is not the act of getting
  orders in that wins the games, it is the act of feeling involved and
  committed enough as a result of communication which results in the
  turn orders being submitted regularly.

  Your comment about the team that gets orders in the latest winning
  70% of the time could also go to support that communication is the
  root cause. These teams are likely in such in depth planning that
  the only thing the stops the current turn's debate is the due date.
  Hence, turn orders are submitted as late as possible.

  Chris
  RD: Absolutely spot on, Chris! Did you say you were a newbie (or am I confusing you with a diferent Chris?)? You were kidding - weren't you?

  Richard.

  --- In mepbmlist@y..., Middle Earth PBM Games <me@M...> wrote:
  > *** Um no fudging. I have looked at the games and who wins. There
  is a
  > clear correlation between teams who get turns in and who wins. So
  from my
  > experience as a GM or 10 years of running games, 4 years of running
  Middle
  > Earth I would stick to these as the major things that impact on the
  games
  > outcome. Communication, skill, diplomatic skill (diff. to
  communication),
  > and other factors are important but I have found that time and time
  again
  > it's who gets turns in who win. Actually in addition I have also
  found
  > that the team that gets its orders in last has a tendency to win
  (around
  > 70/30 at present from a very non-scientific appraisal over the
  years), but
  > that's an aside. :slight_smile:

        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]

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Chris
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 4:31 PM
  Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Gobsmacked

#39

Chris wrote:

Your comment about the team that gets orders in the latest winning
70% of the time could also go to support that communication is the
root cause. These teams are likely in such in depth planning that
the only thing the stops the current turn's debate is the due date.
Hence, turn orders are submitted as late as possible.

*** I would agree with that... :slight_smile: It was somewhat tongue in cheek. Maybe
I need a PR consultant? :slight_smile:

Clint

RD: I don't think it was meant to be tic. Possibly ott. Nontheless it has a kernel of truth. A team whose armies and/or characters are closely co-ordinating need to wait until the slowest player has circulated his news before they can plan the next co-ordinated moves. These players will obviously take longer to get their turns in than those who play more independently.

They will also win more often!

Richard.

      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]