Digest Number 1772

mepbmlist
#1

The same could be said about army encampments. The commander would normally have a detachment that would only allow known officers and camp servants into his presence. Going into an army encampment should be a suicide mission. Yes, he might kill the commander but, in all likelyhood, would not escape. In an army camp, justice would be swift and brutal, usually fatal.

Tie it to the morale of the army. The higher the morale, the more difficult it would be to waltz in and kill the commander and escape. This would also cause more armies to move fed and with food stores.

The other thing I have not liked about army commander assassinations is the army disbanding. How likely is it that an army would break apart and go home when a commander is killed. Wouldn't their be lower level commanders(non-coms) in the army? How about if the commander is killed, a non-com is given a field promotion, the nation's treasury is charged 5,000 gp and the new commander starts out with a 10 command rank. A desertion check could be made to see how many troops would actually leave. I would think the maximum desertion rate would be 50%. The same could be done for a commander killed in battle. Could also tie in training in here somehow...

Steve

Message: 16
  Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
  From: John Choules <chuck_john_61853@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: ME Announcement

The biggest problem(s) I'm having with the "hidden
pop" discssions and the game results are what happens
in the books. If an unbidden person or persons enter
into a hidden pop hex they are attacked by the
army/guards. If an unknown person(s) enter they are
captured and taken before the king and queen. Known
persons move about in relative freedom with a "pass"
given them by the rulers.

Thoughts?

JCC

Note: This AAIS e-mail, including attachments, may contain confidential, privileged, or copyrighted information and the sender does not waive any related rights or obligations. Any unauthorized distribution, use, or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains is prohibited.

#2

Heck, I'd be happy if there was an "assume command" order that was
done after movement. A commander of the same nation could move into
the hex and assume command of a commander-less army.

As you suggest, the number of troops that would be available to be
recruited would be based on army morale and how long the army had been
without a commander. The actual number of troops recruited would be
some percentage of that number based on the command skill of the
character that is assuming command.

Andy Sheppard

···

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 10:31:45 -0400, Steve Prindeville <stevep@aaisonline.com> wrote:

The other thing I have not liked about army commander assassinations is the army disbanding. How likely is it that an army would break apart and go home when a commander is killed. Wouldn't their be lower level commanders(non-coms) in the army? How about if the commander is killed, a non-com is given a field promotion, the nation's treasury is charged 5,000 gp and the new commander starts out with a 10 command rank. A desertion check could be made to see how many troops would actually leave. I would think the maximum desertion rate would be 50%. The same could be done for a commander killed in battle. Could also tie in training in here somehow...

#3

Given the medieval/ancients nature of ME combat, this is actually
reasonable. Armies tended to be held together by force of will and
dedication to the commander. Once the commander was gone (killed or fled),
the army did tend to disband (often at very high speed and sometimes in
mid-battle). Being the commander was quite a risky business: you had to be
at the front of the line in order for your troops to see you fighting, but
that put you right smack in the thick of the action. It's really only since
Marlborough's time that commanders have tended to stay away from the battle
itself, using subordinates to execute their orders and battle plans while
they watched from a nearby hill.

As for assassinating the commander being difficult because he would be
well-known to the troops: I'm in two minds on this one. He would be known
and recognisable to his close associates, making assassination difficult,
but not by most of the troops, making infiltration easy. The run of the mill
soldiers would recognise him by his standard or by some other highly visible
sign. Get an army camp of five thousand men milling around and one more
unknown face isn't going to stand out.

Gavin

Steve Prindeville wrote:

···

The other thing I have not liked about army commander assassinations is the
army disbanding. How likely is it that an army would break apart and go home
when a commander is killed. Wouldn't their be lower level
commanders(non-coms) in the army?

#4

But when Theoden fell, his army did not disband and flee! Yes he
was the King but still an army commander...

Given the medieval/ancients nature of ME combat, this is actually
reasonable. Armies tended to be held together by force of will and
dedication to the commander. Once the commander was gone (killed

or fled),

the army did tend to disband (often at very high speed and

sometimes in

mid-battle). Being the commander was quite a risky business: you

had to be

at the front of the line in order for your troops to see you

fighting, but

that put you right smack in the thick of the action. It's really

only since

Marlborough's time that commanders have tended to stay away from

the battle

itself, using subordinates to execute their orders and battle

plans while

they watched from a nearby hill.

As for assassinating the commander being difficult because he

would be

well-known to the troops: I'm in two minds on this one. He would

be known

and recognisable to his close associates, making assassination

difficult,

but not by most of the troops, making infiltration easy. The run

of the mill

soldiers would recognise him by his standard or by some other

highly visible

sign. Get an army camp of five thousand men milling around and one

more

unknown face isn't going to stand out.

Gavin

Steve Prindeville wrote:

> The other thing I have not liked about army commander

assassinations is the

> army disbanding. How likely is it that an army would break

apart and go home

···

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, Gavinwj <gavinwj@c...> wrote:

> when a commander is killed. Wouldn't their be lower level
> commanders(non-coms) in the army?

#5

But that army had a lot of other commanders... Eomer, Grimbold, Gamling, Erkenbrand, etc...

I believe Eomer became the army commander when Theoden died. :))

  But when Theoden fell, his army did not disband and flee! Yes he
  was the King but still an army commander...

  > Given the medieval/ancients nature of ME combat, this is actually
  > reasonable. Armies tended to be held together by force of will and
  > dedication to the commander. Once the commander was gone (killed
  or fled),
  > the army did tend to disband (often at very high speed and
  sometimes in
  > mid-battle). Being the commander was quite a risky business: you
  had to be
  > at the front of the line in order for your troops to see you
  fighting, but
  > that put you right smack in the thick of the action. It's really
  only since
  > Marlborough's time that commanders have tended to stay away from
  the battle
  > itself, using subordinates to execute their orders and battle
  plans while
  > they watched from a nearby hill.
  >
  > As for assassinating the commander being difficult because he
  would be
  > well-known to the troops: I'm in two minds on this one. He would
  be known
  > and recognisable to his close associates, making assassination
  difficult,
  > but not by most of the troops, making infiltration easy. The run
  of the mill
  > soldiers would recognise him by his standard or by some other
  highly visible
  > sign. Get an army camp of five thousand men milling around and one
  more
  > unknown face isn't going to stand out.
  >
  > Gavin
  >
  > Steve Prindeville wrote:
  >
  > > The other thing I have not liked about army commander
  assassinations is the
  > > army disbanding. How likely is it that an army would break
  apart and go home
  > > when a commander is killed. Wouldn't their be lower level
  > > commanders(non-coms) in the army?

  Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT

···

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, Gavinwj <gavinwj@c...> wrote:
             
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mepbmlist/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    mepbmlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

#6

But... Theoden had other *named* (in MEPBM terms) commanders around, didn't
he...?

sprindeville wrote:

···

But when Theoden fell, his army did not disband and flee! Yes he
was the King but still an army commander...

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, Gavinwj <gavinwj@c...> wrote:

Given the medieval/ancients nature of ME combat, this is actually
reasonable. Armies tended to be held together by force of will and
dedication to the commander. Once the commander was gone (killed

or fled),

the army did tend to disband (often at very high speed and

sometimes in

mid-battle). Being the commander was quite a risky business: you

had to be

at the front of the line in order for your troops to see you

fighting, but

that put you right smack in the thick of the action. It's really

only since

Marlborough's time that commanders have tended to stay away from

the battle

itself, using subordinates to execute their orders and battle

plans while

they watched from a nearby hill.

As for assassinating the commander being difficult because he

would be

well-known to the troops: I'm in two minds on this one. He would

be known

and recognisable to his close associates, making assassination

difficult,

but not by most of the troops, making infiltration easy. The run

of the mill

soldiers would recognise him by his standard or by some other

highly visible

sign. Get an army camp of five thousand men milling around and one

more

unknown face isn't going to stand out.

Gavin

Steve Prindeville wrote:

The other thing I have not liked about army commander

assassinations is the

army disbanding. How likely is it that an army would break

apart and go home

when a commander is killed. Wouldn't their be lower level
commanders(non-coms) in the army?

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

#7

He had 2 backups!!!

:wink:

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "sprindeville" <stevep@aaisonline.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 4:19 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Army disbands

But when Theoden fell, his army did not disband and flee! Yes he
was the King but still an army commander...

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, Gavinwj <gavinwj@c...> wrote:
> Given the medieval/ancients nature of ME combat, this is actually
> reasonable. Armies tended to be held together by force of will and
> dedication to the commander. Once the commander was gone (killed
or fled),
> the army did tend to disband (often at very high speed and
sometimes in
> mid-battle). Being the commander was quite a risky business: you
had to be
> at the front of the line in order for your troops to see you
fighting, but
> that put you right smack in the thick of the action. It's really
only since
> Marlborough's time that commanders have tended to stay away from
the battle
> itself, using subordinates to execute their orders and battle
plans while
> they watched from a nearby hill.
>
> As for assassinating the commander being difficult because he
would be
> well-known to the troops: I'm in two minds on this one. He would
be known
> and recognisable to his close associates, making assassination
difficult,
> but not by most of the troops, making infiltration easy. The run
of the mill
> soldiers would recognise him by his standard or by some other
highly visible
> sign. Get an army camp of five thousand men milling around and one
more
> unknown face isn't going to stand out.
>
> Gavin
>
> Steve Prindeville wrote:
>
> > The other thing I have not liked about army commander
assassinations is the
> > army disbanding. How likely is it that an army would break
apart and go home
> > when a commander is killed. Wouldn't their be lower level
> > commanders(non-coms) in the army?

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/ofVplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

#8

My .02.

Yes armies did collapse and disband after their commander was killed.
But not "huge" armies, the other commanders would assume command -
now some of the sub commanders might take their toys (soldiers) and
go home, but an entire "huge" army would not disband. Remember these
armies were the size of travelling cities. With that said, I don't
have a problem with armies going away with the loss of a lone
commander. It could be argued to be realistic and doesn't affect the
overall game that much.

However, agents going into an army a killing the commander and then
getting away scot free doesn't jive with most history/fiction. There
should be some additional risk to assassins - maybe these orders even
if successful should carry a higher risk of death if the victim was
travelling with an army, company or in a friendly pop center. A
player with a 150 agent might think twice about popping that huge
army commander if they knew that there was a good chance that the
army might string them up afterword. Many covert operations have been
considered "suicide" missions, this could be added to the game.

It appears to me that most people agree that the agents are too
important in this game Regardless of game balance, imho, offensive
agents are just too important to the game mechanics. Something should
be done to change - not game balance - emphasis on this one character
class. Also, I don't think the suggestion is to change one of the
existing game modules but to develop a new middle earth game. Don't
let game balance affect our suggestions or replies. I'm making the
assumption that the game will be balanced somehow and that all things
are possible.

Kevin

Given the medieval/ancients nature of ME combat, this is actually
reasonable. Armies tended to be held together by force of will and
dedication to the commander. Once the commander was gone (killed or

fled),

the army did tend to disband (often at very high speed and

sometimes in

mid-battle). Being the commander was quite a risky business: you

had to be

at the front of the line in order for your troops to see you

fighting, but

that put you right smack in the thick of the action. It's really

only since

Marlborough's time that commanders have tended to stay away from

the battle

itself, using subordinates to execute their orders and battle plans

while

they watched from a nearby hill.

As for assassinating the commander being difficult because he would

be

well-known to the troops: I'm in two minds on this one. He would be

known

and recognisable to his close associates, making assassination

difficult,

but not by most of the troops, making infiltration easy. The run of

the mill

soldiers would recognise him by his standard or by some other

highly visible

sign. Get an army camp of five thousand men milling around and one

more

unknown face isn't going to stand out.

Gavin

Steve Prindeville wrote:

> The other thing I have not liked about army commander

assassinations is the

> army disbanding. How likely is it that an army would break apart

and go home

···

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, Gavinwj <gavinwj@c...> wrote:

> when a commander is killed. Wouldn't their be lower level
> commanders(non-coms) in the army?

#9

Hi,
I agree with you, just more thinks to help you in the last issue,
The commander need to inspect his troops.
The commander need to find the best battle ground for his troops before the
battle
will occur, he will be alone or at least only a few men will follow him
making him a
target with arrows, blowpipes whatever (just take King Arthur).
After victory he will move around his troops to salute them ect...

Cheers,
Ben

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----

···

Fra: Gavinwj [mailto:gavinwj@compuserve.com]
Sendt: 26. oktober 2004 17:06
Til: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Emne: Re: [mepbmlist] Army disbands

Given the medieval/ancients nature of ME combat, this is actually
reasonable. Armies tended to be held together by force of will and
dedication to the commander. Once the commander was gone (killed or fled),
the army did tend to disband (often at very high speed and sometimes in
mid-battle). Being the commander was quite a risky business: you had to be
at the front of the line in order for your troops to see you fighting, but
that put you right smack in the thick of the action. It's really only since
Marlborough's time that commanders have tended to stay away from the battle
itself, using subordinates to execute their orders and battle plans while
they watched from a nearby hill.

As for assassinating the commander being difficult because he would be
well-known to the troops: I'm in two minds on this one. He would be known
and recognisable to his close associates, making assassination difficult,
but not by most of the troops, making infiltration easy. The run of the mill
soldiers would recognise him by his standard or by some other highly visible
sign. Get an army camp of five thousand men milling around and one more
unknown face isn't going to stand out.

Gavin

Steve Prindeville wrote:

The other thing I have not liked about army commander assassinations is

the

army disbanding. How likely is it that an army would break apart and go

home

when a commander is killed. Wouldn't their be lower level
commanders(non-coms) in the army?

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

#10

Still a suicide mission...

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, "Benny Nielsen"
<benny.engsig@g...> wrote:

Hi,
I agree with you, just more thinks to help you in the last issue,
The commander need to inspect his troops.
The commander need to find the best battle ground for his troops

before the

battle
will occur, he will be alone or at least only a few men will

follow him

making him a
target with arrows, blowpipes whatever (just take King Arthur).
After victory he will move around his troops to salute them ect...

Cheers,
Ben

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Gavinwj [mailto:gavinwj@c…]
Sendt: 26. oktober 2004 17:06
Til: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Emne: Re: [mepbmlist] Army disbands

Given the medieval/ancients nature of ME combat, this is actually
reasonable. Armies tended to be held together by force of will and
dedication to the commander. Once the commander was gone (killed

or fled),

the army did tend to disband (often at very high speed and

sometimes in

mid-battle). Being the commander was quite a risky business: you

had to be

at the front of the line in order for your troops to see you

fighting, but

that put you right smack in the thick of the action. It's really

only since

Marlborough's time that commanders have tended to stay away from

the battle

itself, using subordinates to execute their orders and battle

plans while

they watched from a nearby hill.

As for assassinating the commander being difficult because he

would be

well-known to the troops: I'm in two minds on this one. He would

be known

and recognisable to his close associates, making assassination

difficult,

but not by most of the troops, making infiltration easy. The run

of the mill

soldiers would recognise him by his standard or by some other

highly visible

sign. Get an army camp of five thousand men milling around and one

more

unknown face isn't going to stand out.

Gavin

Steve Prindeville wrote:

> The other thing I have not liked about army commander

assassinations is

the
> army disbanding. How likely is it that an army would break

apart and go

···

home
> when a commander is killed. Wouldn't their be lower level
> commanders(non-coms) in the army?

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

#11

That's because his subcommander Eomer took over :wink:

(Actually, Theoden had a _lot_ of subcommanders in that army --
which is not a bad idea for a force of 6000 HC.)

Eowyn's critical success against Murazor in challenge helped a LOT.

Tony Z

···

On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 03:19:26PM -0000, sprindeville wrote:

But when Theoden fell, his army did not disband and flee! Yes he
was the King but still an army commander...

--
Economics is not a zero-sum game, and the belief that
it is is at the root of all kinds of wickedness and nonsense.
--Firebug

#12

I like the suggestion that the army guard the commander with a rank
equal to its morale. (Or maybe just subtract the morale from the
assassin's attack roll?) This also helps build the importance of
morale -- which right now does pretty much diddly-squat except for
some nice flavor text during a battle.

Tony Z

···

On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 03:37:02PM -0000, Kevin Brown wrote:

However, agents going into an army a killing the commander and then
getting away scot free doesn't jive with most history/fiction. There
should be some additional risk to assassins - maybe these orders even
if successful should carry a higher risk of death if the victim was
travelling with an army, company or in a friendly pop center. A
player with a 150 agent might think twice about popping that huge
army commander if they knew that there was a good chance that the
army might string them up afterword. Many covert operations have been
considered "suicide" missions, this could be added to the game.

--
Economics is not a zero-sum game, and the belief that
it is is at the root of all kinds of wickedness and nonsense.
--Firebug

#13

I agree. The morale of the army should carry more weight and this
example would make excellent use of an army with high morale.
Conversely an army with lower morale would have a much more difficult
time in guarding it's commander.

The training of troops, reflecting their discipline, might hold more
weight than the armies morale.

Perhaps army commanders and subcommanders could recieve an automatic
GrdChar equal to an aggregate of the morale/training value of their
army.

Greg

> However, agents going into an army a killing the commander and

then

> getting away scot free doesn't jive with most history/fiction.

There

> should be some additional risk to assassins - maybe these orders

even

> if successful should carry a higher risk of death if the victim

was

> travelling with an army, company or in a friendly pop center. A
> player with a 150 agent might think twice about popping that huge
> army commander if they knew that there was a good chance that the
> army might string them up afterword. Many covert operations have

been

···

On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 03:37:02PM -0000, Kevin Brown wrote:
> considered "suicide" missions, this could be added to the game.

I like the suggestion that the army guard the commander with a rank
equal to its morale. (Or maybe just subtract the morale from the
assassin's attack roll?) This also helps build the importance of
morale -- which right now does pretty much diddly-squat except for
some nice flavor text during a battle.

Tony Z

--
Economics is not a zero-sum game, and the belief that
it is is at the root of all kinds of wickedness and nonsense.
--Firebug

#14

Eowyn's critical success against Murazor in
challenge helped a LOT.

Read the book again. It was Meriadoc's knife in the
back of the knee that killed Murazor, not Eowyn.

···

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

#15

Not true. It was Merry's blade that wounded the Witch King and
distracted him to where Eowyn was able to strike the killing blow.

She was all but crippled following a blow from Murazor's mace but
Merry bought her just enough time to strike. As it was both took a
long time to recover in The Houses of healing.

GB

···

> Eowyn's critical success against Murazor in
> challenge helped a LOT.

Read the book again. It was Meriadoc's knife in the
back of the knee that killed Murazor, not Eowyn.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

#16

This one gets argued out _endlessly_. I stand by what I said.

Tony Z

···

On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 09:55:30AM -0700, Darrell Shimel wrote:

> Eowyn's critical success against Murazor in
> challenge helped a LOT.

Read the book again. It was Meriadoc's knife in the
back of the knee that killed Murazor, not Eowyn.

--
Economics is not a zero-sum game, and the belief that
it is is at the root of all kinds of wickedness and nonsense.
--Firebug

#17

It was Meridoc's knife in the back of the knee that
made Murazor "vulnerable" to Eowyn's attack. It was,
however, Eowyn's attack that ultimately killed him.

JCC

···

--- Tony Zbaraschuk <tonyz@eskimo.com> wrote:

On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 09:55:30AM -0700, Darrell > Shimel wrote:
> > Eowyn's critical success against Murazor in
> > challenge helped a LOT.
>
> Read the book again. It was Meriadoc's knife in
the
> back of the knee that killed Murazor, not Eowyn.

This one gets argued out _endlessly_. I stand by
what I said.

Tony Z

--
Economics is not a zero-sum game, and the belief
that
it is is at the root of all kinds of wickedness and
nonsense.
--Firebug

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

#18

The other thing I have not liked about army commander assassinations is the army disbanding. How likely is it that an army would break apart and go home when a commander is killed. Wouldn't their be lower level commanders(non-coms) in the army? How about if the commander is killed, a non-com is given a field promotion, the nation's treasury is charged 5,000 gp and the new commander starts out with a 10 command rank. A desertion check could be made to see how many troops would actually leave. I would think the maximum desertion rate would be 50%. The same could be done for a commander killed in battle. Could also tie in training in here somehow...

Although I agree that disbanding the entire army is too radical a result, i dislike your proposal. A Din Ohtar could sit in 3024 and stuck u for life. After all, u could not give orders to this new commander, which means it wont move. Therefore, as long as a recon/scry is made on the hex, A good assassin can drain the adversary's treasury, forcing him to disband or move major manpower to handle this one agent. Rhe best one i've heard about this was a progressive deterioration of the army numbers as turno went by, giving a leaderless army a timespan of 2-5 turns to receive new command....

        Rodrigo Maia

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Steve Prindeville
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 12:31 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Digest Number 1772

  The same could be said about army encampments. The commander would normally have a detachment that would only allow known officers and camp servants into his presence. Going into an army encampment should be a suicide mission. Yes, he might kill the commander but, in all likelyhood, would not escape. In an army camp, justice would be swift and brutal, usually fatal.

  Tie it to the morale of the army. The higher the morale, the more difficult it would be to waltz in and kill the commander and escape. This would also cause more armies to move fed and with food stores.

  The other thing I have not liked about army commander assassinations is the army disbanding. How likely is it that an army would break apart and go home when a commander is killed. Wouldn't their be lower level commanders(non-coms) in the army? How about if the commander is killed, a non-com is given a field promotion, the nation's treasury is charged 5,000 gp and the new commander starts out with a 10 command rank. A desertion check could be made to see how many troops would actually leave. I would think the maximum desertion rate would be 50%. The same could be done for a commander killed in battle. Could also tie in training in here somehow...

  Steve

  >Message: 16
  > Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
  > From: John Choules <chuck_john_61853@yahoo.com>
  >Subject: Re: ME Announcement

  >The biggest problem(s) I'm having with the "hidden
  >pop" discssions and the game results are what happens
  >in the books. If an unbidden person or persons enter
  >into a hidden pop hex they are attacked by the
  >army/guards. If an unknown person(s) enter they are
  >captured and taken before the king and queen. Known
  >persons move about in relative freedom with a "pass"
  >given them by the rulers.

  >Thoughts?

  >JCC

  Note: This AAIS e-mail, including attachments, may contain confidential, privileged, or copyrighted information and the sender does not waive any related rights or obligations. Any unauthorized distribution, use, or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains is prohibited.

  Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
   
  Yahoo! Groups Links

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

#19

After all, i dont think Murazor had an "achilles knee", and such a wound, inflicted by a hobbit, could doubtfully slay him....

        Rodrigo Maia

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: compliance00
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 2:58 PM
  Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Army disbands

  Not true. It was Merry's blade that wounded the Witch King and
  distracted him to where Eowyn was able to strike the killing blow.

  She was all but crippled following a blow from Murazor's mace but
  Merry bought her just enough time to strike. As it was both took a
  long time to recover in The Houses of healing.

  GB

  > > Eowyn's critical success against Murazor in
  > > challenge helped a LOT.
  >
  > Read the book again. It was Meriadoc's knife in the
  > back of the knee that killed Murazor, not Eowyn.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > __________________________________
  > Do you Yahoo!?
  > Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
  > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

  Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
   
  Yahoo! Groups Links

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

#20

Either that or just 1 backup commander :slight_smile:

Although I agree that disbanding the entire army is too radical a result,

i dislike your proposal. A Din Ohtar could sit in 3024 and stuck u for life.
After all, u could not give orders to this new commander, which means it
wont move. Therefore, as long as a recon/scry is made on the hex, A good
assassin can drain the adversary's treasury, forcing him to disband or move
major manpower to handle this one agent. Rhe best one i've heard about this
was a progressive deterioration of the army numbers as turno went by, giving
a leaderless army a timespan of 2-5 turns to receive new command....