Digest Number 1171

Ok, i've logged on to throw more money into my
account. In a very short while I'll go away till the
money runs out again (which means trying to debate
with me won't be very useful), but I decided to throw
my two cents into something that was mentioned in the
last couple of messages

I don't like new players, or newbies, playing certain
position, as some positions played poorly at the start
of the game will severly hurt the other nations (I
believe the main aim of playing middle earth is to
gain enjoyment - not to make clint rich, or to always
win, but to simply enjoy the experience of the game).
And its hard to enjoy a game when your allies stuff up
really badly at the start.

While the experienced players can help out the newbies
with advice, I don't think its a good idea for the
experienced players to do all the orders for the
newbies (as its the newbies money being used, and they
might resent paying for a turn where they didn't make
any decisions). But I do like giving options, eq you
can do option A since it means you can do this, this
and this, or you can do option B since it means these
other things can now happen. This way the newbie can
decide on how they want to play. If they call it
wrong, then at least it was their call. Hopefully the
newbie will get experience in understanding the ideas
behind why nations do certain things. I would also
mention the types of things that the other side can
do, and give options on how to combat them.

ie A newbie might see that they are playing NG and
notice that they are losing money, so they might want
to disband their armies and make money. I would give
them the advantages and disadvantages of such an
option. Hopefully they would notice that the
disadvantages is larger than the advantages :slight_smile:

If a newbie was given options, then I don't think it
matters what nation they played, but its hard for the
experienced players to mention all the decisions that
the harder nations need to make, so I would perfer the
newbies to play 'easier' nations.

While I won't comment on which nations shouldn't be
played by newbies (since I don't have the knowledge to
make a correct call), I think it should be stressed
that all nations are different. So some nations are
harder to play than others, or have a different focus.
And they should think about what type of game they
want, and then pick a nation accordingly.

Not sure if it was mentioned, but I seem to remember
reading on the neutral advice that neutrals can attack
neutrals. Hopefully it also said that free/dark can
also attack neutrals. Being a neutral doesn't mean you
are safe from attack, it just means that you have the
possibility of being a friend to each side.

thanks
din

p.s While it won't prove my case, I think the current
team leader for the aussie grudge game (which has not
yet lost a grudge game) played 1650 NG in his first
game since players like me didn't want to play that
nation. Its another issue on how to get players to
choose to play a nation that is going to be stomped
on.

pps death to the corsairs in 1650 g31 :slight_smile:

···

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com

I don't like new players, or newbies, playing certain
position, as some positions played poorly at the start
of the game will severly hurt the other nations (I
believe the main aim of playing middle earth is to
gain enjoyment - not to make clint rich,

*** I wish. :slight_smile: I agree if you ain't enjoying the game don't play or find a way to get enjoyment out of it again.

p.s While it won't prove my case, I think the current
team leader for the aussie grudge game played 1650 NG in his first
game since players like me didn't want to play that
nation.

** Partially the game is more competitive now I think so danger nations are very much under more stress than they were in the past. So there's some change in the game that way.

I think the overall feel that I have is that experienced players would like to restrict the nations offered to new players so that the more complex, important or dangerous ones are not played (or discouraged from being played) by new players. Some feel that new players should not be allowed certain nations, others that they should be if they request them.

New players seem to be of the opinion of allowing a freer choice. Is that roughly the case or am I well off case?

As to what nations I still need something written for 2950 if at all possible. The debate for the nations I think is not possible to resolve, although I have taken a lot of the feedback and implemented those changes and will offer that as advice to new players. Thanks for the feedback - much appreciated.

Thanks

Clint

Clint wrote:

I think the overall feel that I have is that experienced players would like
to restrict the nations offered to new players so that the more complex,
important or dangerous ones are not played (or discouraged from being
played) by new players. Some feel that new players should not be allowed
certain nations, others that they should be if they request them.

New players seem to be of the opinion of allowing a freer choice. Is that
roughly the case or am I well off case?

  RD: And who can blame them? A newbie's money is as good as the money of the most senior veteran. You start restricting the nations which a newbie is "allowed" to play (what a breathtakingly arrogant concept!) and you will cut off the flow of new blood into the game. Does anybody REALLY want that?
  The frustrations of playing with newbies are part of the game. If you don't want to play with newbies, stick with your veteran friends. Simple.

  The only "regulation" of newbies which I favour, is that Clint shares them as equally as possible between teams.

  Richard.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi RD

This is the most POSITIVE comment I have seen re this thread.
Thank you.

weenie <one of them newbies...>

  RD: And who can blame them? A newbie's money is as good as the

money of the most senior veteran. You start restricting the nations
which a newbie is "allowed" to play (what a breathtakingly arrogant
concept!) and you will cut off the flow of new blood into the game.
Does anybody REALLY want that?

  The frustrations of playing with newbies are part of the game.

If you don't want to play with newbies, stick with your veteran
friends. Simple.

  The only "regulation" of newbies which I favour, is that Clint

shares them as equally as possible between teams.

···

  Richard.

Richard DEVEREUX wrote:

  RD: And who can blame them? A newbie's money is as good as the money of the most senior veteran. You start restricting the nations which a newbie is "allowed" to play (what a breathtakingly arrogant concept!) and you will cut off the flow of new blood into the game.

You mean, as opposed to the "breathtakingly arrogant" concept of showing up your first game and demanding the biggest, most important nation, regardless of advice to the contrary?

I still do not understand the controversy of having people "step up" in difficulty over the course of 2-3 games. Everyone benefits in the long run. New players get less frustrated because their nations don't get stepped on (and they don't get yelled at), and experienced players are less frustrated because their games go more smoothly.

    jason

···

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

Here is a stab at a list of suggested nations for new players in 2950.
I have three categories: good, mixed, poor; I also discuss the pros
and cons of running the "big" positions at the end.

In designing this list, I've considered a few factors. The ideal
nation has some breathing room; it is no fun to have your nation
hammered in the first few turns when you're figuring out the rules. A
good choice also has some flexibility (e.g. you could pick a military
or character-based path). Finally, you'd like a position where you
are not going to be under tremendous economic pressure; there are a
number of nations that run a real risk of bankruptcy, especially in
winter.
For all nations, name at least 2 emissaries as soon as you can and
place camps. Each nation starts with 5-6 pop centers, and there are
200 slots for new camps. These new spaces fill up within the first 10
turns; you will have a far easier game with 15 pop centers on turn 10
than you will with 5.

Good choices for the free:

Rangers.

The Rangers are safe and the local climate is good; try to place camps
in the hills/rough and on or below row xx09. Your main tactical goal
is to work with the Noldo to take 2006 from the Witch-King. This is a
flexible nation - you can play banker to your team and develop in any
of the 4 main skill classes.

Dwarfs.
The dwarfs are a secure position that can also play a military role in
the east. Use your far western armies only to post camps; they are
too far from the servants to use militarily. Your main tactical goal
is to work with the Northmen in the east; try to set up a shuttle
sending troops from 3707 to 3916. This nation is probably best as a
military nation, although you can do a decent job with emmys or agents.

Good neutral choice:

Corsairs, Khand. Fairly isolated, reasonably powerful. The Corsairs
can reasonably join either alliance and tough enough to withstand an
attack from either. In practice the Khand usually join the dark
servants. Talk to people for a better game; there is some risk of
isolation if you are not strong at communicating.

Good dark servant choices:

Quiet Avenger; Blind Sorceror; Fire King.

All three nations are reasonably secure and permit you to build up a
strong nation. Each has a different specialty - emissary/agent (QA),
military (Fire King), mage (Blind S.) The fire king should expect to
run a shuttle from 3426 to 3224 to the Ithil pass and work with the
Mordor nations; place camps in spots where you can use that
hire-for-free ability to get the free. The BS can do the
artifact-hunting game or develop curse squads; expect a lot of
requests for intelligence-gathering. The QA needs to talk to the
neighboring neutrals, and usually develops into a character-based
position by midgame.

Poor choices: the following nations make poor picks for new players
for different reasons. Nations on this list have several of the
following features: 1) they come under early pressure; 2) they require
a good understanding of the "opening moves" that place new players at
a big disadvantage; 3) they provide little freedom to name characters,
learn the rules, build up your nation, etc. I put Rohan on this list
for several reasons. Rohan can be badly hurt if either the WW or Duns
go dark; if the servants choose to target it, Rohan can also really
struggle with survival in the early game.

Northmen, Northern Gondor, Rohan (free)
Rhun (neutral)
Witch-King, Dragon Lord (dark)

Mixed choices: the following nations may be reasonably spots for new
players. Relative to the best nations, they are more vulnerable to
deadly early enemy attack. They can also have a tendency to get very
poor, and running them requires a higher level of interaction with
other players. At the same time, many of these nations also have some
strong assets and can be enjoyable *if* you go into the game well
aware of their strengths and weaknesses.

Woodmen, Silvans, Sinda (free): The WM and Sinda can be subjected to a
deadly early attack by the servants that place them on the defensive.
If they survive the early going they can be good choices. The WM
should never be afraid to ask for gold early and often. The Silvans
can be run effectively as an agent nation. They are cursed with a
poor climate and the ability to raise more troops than they can
afford, while it takes longer than it looks like to get those troops
to the front lines. Any of these nations should coordinate closely
with the other Mirkwood powers.

WW, Duns (neutrals): Both are strong nations, but it can be tricky to
run neutrals like these in your initial game. If either goes dark it
is a huge benefit to the dark servants but a big challenge to fend off
the free; if they go free they are more secure but a bit far from the
action. I'd suggest trying these positions - with their subtle
military and diplomatic challenges - after you have a good feel for
the game.

Ice King, Long Rider (dark): the Long Rider position is fun but
requires a lot of skill; if it was an animal it would be a cheetah.
You have to make the most of your position in the first few turns, and
it is easy to get stuck with few camps, no armies, and a boring
position. The Ice King is usually faced with lots of demands and can
easily come under severe cash shortage pressure; for a player with
some experience it can be a lot of fun (armies and agents, which
require emissaries to develop the economy to support them.)

"Powerhouse" nations:

The Noldo and SG (free), along with the Cloud Lord, Dog Lord, and Dark
Lts. (dark) are strong positions. Running any of these in your first
game has some significant drawbacks that you should be aware of. All
are faced with some complex strategic decisions that will have a big
impact on the game. Three of them (cloud lord, dark lts., noldo) are
relied upon heavily by their teams to perform specialized roles. You
will need a higher than usual level of co-ordination with your
teammates to enjoy these nations, and if you stumble the consequences
for the entire game will be severe. I would strongly advise avoiding
the cloud lord, dark lts., or noldo in your first game for the above
reasons.

Of these five, the two most suitable are the dog lord and SG.
I've put the Dog Lord on this "caution" list because of the
complexities of raising large cavalry armies and the bewildering array
of possible military options (ithil pass, rohan, mirkwood, rhun.)
Southern Gondor needs to co-ordinate closely with Northern Gondor, the
naval movement rules are tricky, and you will be expected to ship lots
of gold to your teammates. It can also be difficult to fend off a
dark corsair nation. Either is a great choice for a second or
subsequent game.
cheers,

Marc

Excellent - this is exactly the sort of thing I need. It gives new players an insight into why. Lots of new players pick Elves "because they're in LoTR" not from any actual reading of Brees of the like. Any more like this would be very welcome - thanks Marc.

Clint

···

Here is a stab at a list of suggested nations for new players in 2950.
I have three categories: good, mixed, poor; I also discuss the pros
and cons of running the "big" positions at the end.

In designing this list, I've considered a few factors. The ideal
nation has some breathing room; it is no fun to have your nation
hammered in the first few turns when you're figuring out the rules. A
good choice also has some flexibility (e.g. you could pick a military
or character-based path). Finally, you'd like a position where you
are not going to be under tremendous economic pressure; there are a
number of nations that run a real risk of bankruptcy, especially in
winter.
For all nations, name at least 2 emissaries as soon as you can and
place camps. Each nation starts with 5-6 pop centers, and there are
200 slots for new camps. These new spaces fill up within the first 10
turns; you will have a far easier game with 15 pop centers on turn 10
than you will with 5.

Good choices for the free:

Rangers.

The Rangers are safe and the local climate is good; try to place camps
in the hills/rough and on or below row xx09. Your main tactical goal
is to work with the Noldo to take 2006 from the Witch-King. This is a
flexible nation - you can play banker to your team and develop in any
of the 4 main skill classes.

Dwarfs.
The dwarfs are a secure position that can also play a military role in
the east. Use your far western armies only to post camps; they are
too far from the servants to use militarily. Your main tactical goal
is to work with the Northmen in the east; try to set up a shuttle
sending troops from 3707 to 3916. This nation is probably best as a
military nation, although you can do a decent job with emmys or agents.

Good neutral choice:

Corsairs, Khand. Fairly isolated, reasonably powerful. The Corsairs
can reasonably join either alliance and tough enough to withstand an
attack from either. In practice the Khand usually join the dark
servants. Talk to people for a better game; there is some risk of
isolation if you are not strong at communicating.

Good dark servant choices:

Quiet Avenger; Blind Sorceror; Fire King.

All three nations are reasonably secure and permit you to build up a
strong nation. Each has a different specialty - emissary/agent (QA),
military (Fire King), mage (Blind S.) The fire king should expect to
run a shuttle from 3426 to 3224 to the Ithil pass and work with the
Mordor nations; place camps in spots where you can use that
hire-for-free ability to get the free. The BS can do the
artifact-hunting game or develop curse squads; expect a lot of
requests for intelligence-gathering. The QA needs to talk to the
neighboring neutrals, and usually develops into a character-based
position by midgame.

Poor choices: the following nations make poor picks for new players
for different reasons. Nations on this list have several of the
following features: 1) they come under early pressure; 2) they require
a good understanding of the "opening moves" that place new players at
a big disadvantage; 3) they provide little freedom to name characters,
learn the rules, build up your nation, etc. I put Rohan on this list
for several reasons. Rohan can be badly hurt if either the WW or Duns
go dark; if the servants choose to target it, Rohan can also really
struggle with survival in the early game.

Northmen, Northern Gondor, Rohan (free)
Rhun (neutral)
Witch-King, Dragon Lord (dark)

Mixed choices: the following nations may be reasonably spots for new
players. Relative to the best nations, they are more vulnerable to
deadly early enemy attack. They can also have a tendency to get very
poor, and running them requires a higher level of interaction with
other players. At the same time, many of these nations also have some
strong assets and can be enjoyable *if* you go into the game well
aware of their strengths and weaknesses.

Woodmen, Silvans, Sinda (free): The WM and Sinda can be subjected to a
deadly early attack by the servants that place them on the defensive.
If they survive the early going they can be good choices. The WM
should never be afraid to ask for gold early and often. The Silvans
can be run effectively as an agent nation. They are cursed with a
poor climate and the ability to raise more troops than they can
afford, while it takes longer than it looks like to get those troops
to the front lines. Any of these nations should coordinate closely
with the other Mirkwood powers.

WW, Duns (neutrals): Both are strong nations, but it can be tricky to
run neutrals like these in your initial game. If either goes dark it
is a huge benefit to the dark servants but a big challenge to fend off
the free; if they go free they are more secure but a bit far from the
action. I'd suggest trying these positions - with their subtle
military and diplomatic challenges - after you have a good feel for
the game.

Ice King, Long Rider (dark): the Long Rider position is fun but
requires a lot of skill; if it was an animal it would be a cheetah.
You have to make the most of your position in the first few turns, and
it is easy to get stuck with few camps, no armies, and a boring
position. The Ice King is usually faced with lots of demands and can
easily come under severe cash shortage pressure; for a player with
some experience it can be a lot of fun (armies and agents, which
require emissaries to develop the economy to support them.)

"Powerhouse" nations:

The Noldo and SG (free), along with the Cloud Lord, Dog Lord, and Dark
Lts. (dark) are strong positions. Running any of these in your first
game has some significant drawbacks that you should be aware of. All
are faced with some complex strategic decisions that will have a big
impact on the game. Three of them (cloud lord, dark lts., noldo) are
relied upon heavily by their teams to perform specialized roles. You
will need a higher than usual level of co-ordination with your
teammates to enjoy these nations, and if you stumble the consequences
for the entire game will be severe. I would strongly advise avoiding
the cloud lord, dark lts., or noldo in your first game for the above
reasons.

Of these five, the two most suitable are the dog lord and SG.
I've put the Dog Lord on this "caution" list because of the
complexities of raising large cavalry armies and the bewildering array
of possible military options (ithil pass, rohan, mirkwood, rhun.)
Southern Gondor needs to co-ordinate closely with Northern Gondor, the
naval movement rules are tricky, and you will be expected to ship lots
of gold to your teammates. It can also be difficult to fend off a
dark corsair nation. Either is a great choice for a second or
subsequent game.
cheers,

Marc

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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

****************************************************************
                    Middle Earth Games
Mailto: me@middleearthgames.com
Website: www.middleearthgames.com

UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP UK
US: PO Box 280, Medford, Oregon OR97501-0019 USA

Phone Times: 10am-6.30pm UK Time (BST);5am-1.30 (EST)
UK: 029 2091 3359 (029 2062 5665 can be used if main is engaged)
(Dial 011 44 2920 913359 if US)
UK Fax: 029 2062 5532 24 hours
US Fax: 1-503-296-2325
US Alternate: Phone and Fax: 541 772 7872 10-5pm PST Weekdays, Fax 24hrs
****************************************************************