I am still here and should hopefully begin doing some damage… I might come after you next Black Ogre…
Babylon Project
Well things are finally getting wicked in this deathmatch.
Are you freeps flagging? Looks like 2 of your teammates didn’t process turns.
Blacky
Is it too early to ask for a concession?
SK
WHAT ??? I have team-mates, bloody hell… Where have they been hiding this entire game ?
You can ask for a concession SK, and well you wont get much of a reply, but sadly when asking no one got much of a reply from this team. Besides why should we concede to a nation who turned on us when we needed them the most ?
It doesn’t help enthusiasm much when the set-ups are so screwed that one of our nations loses pop centres without any chance to defend them either though…
Babylon Project
"It doesn’t help enthusiasm much when the set-ups are so screwed that one of our nations loses pop centres without any chance to defend them either though…
Babylon Project"
Here here! The start-up method of intertwining PCs makes it challenging from the beginning for some Nations. Although, when your allies decide to go on vacation, and forget to run turns, it hurts a lot too. I do like the more-powerful set-ups in this version of 4th Age, but it really helps to have the Kingdom close to you friendly . . . .
Mark F.
Scions of Erech
PS: Expand roadbuilding to all Nations - maybe make the difficulty / resource costs different based on terrain. I’d love to put a road over some mountains!
Babylon Project – Congrats on taking that bit of Dark Reavers turf – you may be the one FP doing something useful for your side! But I hope you realize that do to a mixup on orders, the PREVIOUS Dark Reavers player had 500 fewer steel-armored HC than he should have had to defend the region with, AND didn’t get rolling on recruiting additional defending forces like he should have. But that is all in the past – you’ll have a bit more of a fight on your hands at this point, as I have taken over the position and have a bit more experience (been playing since game 3 of 1650 run by GSI way too many years ago…). You have the advantage, certainly, but while you are having a little fun down here in Umbar, we are indeed gaining ground in many other places around the world.
Dave (Stacia) – sorry about taking your holding in Dunland – I was supposed to be taking it away from the Tuatha, but your guys took charge just before we got there. Too bad the Tuatha’s friends the Woses just were not powerful enough to stop my Ravens from littering the battlefield with their dead on the shore nearby and pressing onwards. The Tuatha had some fun beating up on the Stoneking, it is true, but their days of glory are ended it seems, while the Stoneking may be resting a bit but is by no means dead, poetic postings aside.
Adam (BO supremo!) – Hey, I finally registered and wasted some time perusing and posting here! Aren’t you proud of me? But I probably won’t be visiting all that often – it is way too easy to spend too much time here, when I should be spedning it actually figuring out my orders for the 8 or so positions I am playing… 
– Ernie Hakey III / drakaragm@aol.com / ME145 Raven King and new Dark Reavers
[QUOTE=DrakaraGM]Babylon Project – Congrats on taking that bit of Dark Reavers turf – you may be the one FP doing something useful for your side! But I hope you realize that do to a mixup on orders, the PREVIOUS Dark Reavers player had 500 fewer steel-armored HC than he should have had to defend the region with, AND didn’t get rolling on recruiting additional defending forces like he should have. But that is all in the past – you’ll have a bit more of a fight on your hands at this point, as I have taken over the position and have a bit more experience (been playing since game 3 of 1650 run by GSI way too many years ago…). You have the advantage, certainly, but while you are having a little fun down here in Umbar, we are indeed gaining ground in many other places around the world.
Do you know what the scary thing is… I also have 500 less ST/ST HC in umbar <grin>… All least he took down the bridge early otherwise the Haradrian Elves would have been in there too… I always expected a hard fight down here since it takes me three turns to get there even with Fed Cavalry…
How about sending half your team to manage our nations ? We are kind of down on people playing!
Thomas Crane
Babylon Project
Hi Thomas,
hats off to you and Dave and the few others on your team who have been fighting like mad dogs all along. I know how it goes when your teammates won’t play the darn game. There’s not much you can do in those straights.
We blew the bridge against the original Dark Reavers players wishes – just knew that would be trouble. And now we’re getting pretty strong in the middle of the board and pressing out all around. If you guys are going to make a go of it, you’ll have to replace the deadwood on your team with people interested in playing pretty quickly otherwise I’m afraid this one will roll over on you.
As for the many setup errors and such – I guess that’s to be expected in a playtest game, which this and 144 certainly are. Unfortunate about that, but overall, I think the new rules are an improvement.
So far though I see the same basic configuration as the old rules: start in the mountains, take forts on your popcenters, run cav and agents. But then Ernie will tell you what an uncreative player I am. 
Anyway, good gaming, and good luck. It’s been a pleasure playing against you guys so far.
Best Regards,
Adam
Black Ogre
This game proves to me once again that SNA 31 should go the way of the dinosaurs… It is far too powerful, far too early. Let the silly agents do their whacking, but let it take 10 turns or so for them to get to the skill rank needed by doing all those agent things they like to do that aren’t so destabilizing.
That’s my #1 lesson from playtest 145. SNA 31 must go.
144 just ended. there was no SNA 31 in that game. The number of K/As going on was SIGNIFICANTLY lower than in 145. for example, the game-end stat on highest number of kills was 4. To be technically honest, my nation had 4 kidnaps + 1 assass, so that’s 5. But heck, there were turns in 145 where almost that many FP characters were kidnapped or assassinated. SNA 31 is just broken.
Dave
If we are going a bit into game analysis of the new FA setup, I’d like to add my impressions from game 144:
- I completely agree with Dave about SNA 31, nothing to add
- the additional fortifications are definitely an improvement. Dan Newman has expressed reluctance about those and that they would make agents even stronger, but I cannot agree to that. I find they make for a better game, since now it takes combined effort to take out a nation, no military nation can roll over a character nation easily any more. my 144 nation is the best example, I was situated in Rhun with a military nation on my doorstep. I did not expect this kind of setup, which I (and also my opponent John Briggs) considered screwed. But anyway with the old setup rules I would not have spend any money for a fort on my capital. Now it came for free and saved me - my enemy took out almost everything I had, but failed to take the capital, thanks to the fort.
- the pop centre bonus/malus for regions depending on their resource production is a good thing and makes the northern wastes a real alternative to khand
- my personal opinion is that FA games should be pre-aligned in any case. free neutrals, whose impact and potential to spoil a game is debated in the 1650/2950 scenarios, are even a greater factor of uncertainty in FA due to the random setups. regional unbalances can leave nations without any chance, or make up a boring game for others. 144 was decided in the moment 4 of 5 neutral nations joined us. though I profited from it, that was not my original idea of a fun game, I have to admit.
My team will probably disown me for posting this, but:
If you could only see it from the other side… of the 13 DS agents that started the roster at 50+, only 2 were 50’s… the rest were 60’s… and one of them got a +10 agent bonus. I am not sure of the starting agents how many of them had stealth, but I can say that it was a popular choice. That is a total of 11 60+ agents from the start, many with stealth. Compare that to 144… better yet, compare that to 2950 or 1650, both games with NO agent starting at rank greater than 40.
Furthermore, the nation with +20 K/A has failed to K/A more often than not. Obviously, the problem is NOT SNA 31.
Finally, let’s not forget where your nation was located: 3017… surrounded by 3 DS and within agent range of nearly every other nation. They all just piled right in… cavalry, HI AND all those nice big agents supporting the attack.
I can definately agree that the number of nations that can take SNA 31 needs to be curtailed, but the same could easily be said of Conjure Mounts or Hire for Free, and perhaps others. The problem is NOT #31, the problem is the potential volume of agents starting at rank 60+… for those of you who don’t want to count, the total number is 30 (thirty)… do you honestly think that in a game with 30 agents starting at 60+ that the 3 with SNA 31 would REALLY be the problem?
Ever see a nation eliminated because it actually lost all it’s characters? Anyone wanna play a 4th age grudge?
Jason Mele
Interesting points guys.
Dave, you felt the worst of the agent brunt because you were the lynchpin in the FP setup. Not only were you smack in the middle, you were also leading the team so we decided to pummel you mercilessly.
FYI, about half the kills on you were by non SNA 31 agents. And many of our +20 agents failed to take out army commanders of 50 or 60 rank – we just couldn’t be successful vs them at first and wasted many orders trying to take them out.
Overall though, Jason is right – 11 60+ agents were bound to take a heavy toll on you guys no matter what. You will lose 4 characters every turn with those odds. Over 10 turns that will grind you up. If a FP team doesn’t have someone with double scout, and someone with +20 kills, and a few 50/10s agents, it’s in deep trouble. Even then, it will be far behind a DS team with, on average 10-12 60+ agents. Someone on the DS side always takes +20 kills, but it seems in about half the FA games I’ve played no FP player does.
So, the FP start at an agent disadvantage no matter what, and tend to make the problem worse by not building agent focused nations.
But ultimately I agree with Jason – it’s not SNA 31 that is the problem, it’s those starting 60 agents.
I would much rather see no starting 60 agents, but every race able to pick its skill type for 60 point caracters – either mage, commander, or emmy. There’s no reason for it to be limited by race – Gothmog shows what kind of commanders non-humans can make. (This may be a code change thoughwhich was beyond the scope of the FA modifications).
As for the starting fortifications, I agree they are a welcome addition. If you are going to play a military nation however, they make starting war machines a must. They also don’t diminish the benefits of starting in the mountains as the single best defensive measure.
As for neutrals, SK is more powerful than NK because of its strategic location and better resources. NK usually builds big in his heartland, plus 2212, and leaves 2119 nd 2121 with just towers. SK sacrifices the south and Mirkwood and builds powerfully in N. Mordor and along the Anduin. This gives him a much wider scope of action – Mirkwood, Rhun, Rhovanion, Mordor, Lorien, and Harad are all in easy reach. NK on the other hand often ends up only being able to really affect business west of the Misties with it a real chore to dig out enemies holed up on the Western peninsulas, Angmar, or the Dunland crevice.
If the games are to start pre-aligned I would rather see the NK team get 13 players and the SK team 12. This might overcompensate a bit however.
One other thing that was very different about FA 145 (was it so in FA 144?) was the economy. The increased gold stores kept prices much higher than in original flavor FA games. This allowed us to carry much bigger armies and deficits than usual. This is is a huge difference, but I haven’t seen anyone comment on it. Was FA 145 just out of whack or is this a standard occurrence with the new rules?
cheers,
Adam
as for the economy, I can’t say that 144 was a big difference to usual FA games. most nations were running a deficit and the market was flat most of the time and we DS just got over it by several successful buyouts. due to the greater number of pop centres, the tax base is somewhat higher, so you are right that the new setup supports larger armies (or other expenses). I think that is a good thing basically, it tends to get boring if you have to build up for some turns until the real fun begins. it gives nations a chance to survive even if they don’t take part in the crazy emmi race that can be seen in almost any FA game, which means that camp limit mostly is hit before turn 7.
yikes! how did you figure i was leading the FP team? far from it. I was just leading the discussions with the SK (and you can see how persuasive I was…) oh well.
it is true that ME Games contacted the FP to offer a SNA31, but noone took them up on it. In my personal opinion, that’s because FP agent nations are seriously disadvantaged vs. DS agent nations. So people that like agents play DS…
I didn’t know that you guys had sooo many agent nations in the 145 DS. I remain opposed to SNA 31 as I think it’s just wrong. I like Adam’s idea of being able to (independent of race/allegiance) decide the specialty of a nation. That would make for MUCH more balanced games and might solve this problem. If you did that, then it would be possible to enforce that the number of agent nations per allegance were balanced (+/- 1).
I don’t necessarily agree that getting rid of the neutrals is a good idea, but I do agree that if there are to be neutrals, there needs to be minimum 7. that’s 9v9v7 and with the 2 kingdoms in the 7, is actually relatively interesting. What we haven’t seen in 144 or 145 (don’t know about 146-149) is a viable neutral allegiance. a 9v9v7 actually makes the game significantly more interesting. Now the DS can’t just automatically attack the FP and vice-versa. If they do that, they allow the neutrals to grow strong un-molested. Thus, the diplomatic dynamics would be significantly better, and the gameplay richer as a result.
I agree that SK is more powerful than NK, but don’t have any suggestion as to what to do about it.
An observation from 144 is that while the bonus pop centers in the north give a bit of additional tax base to the northern nations, these nations are still very starved financially. In 144, Oystein, Mike Mulka, and I were all economically strapped and yet had to be military machines in order to advance the war effort of the DS. Because of teamwork, this was viable. Without good teamwork, nations in the north will have significant difficulties if they have to fight vs. their neighbors. Was this what happened to Runehorn? he never seemed to recruit troops to fight vs. Oystein’s and my assaults… I can only surmise that the FP in 144 didn’t support him financially the way our teammates supported us. If you look at the nations in the south in 144, they were money machines! So while the extra pops in the north are nice, they don’t yet balance out the economic power of production in the south.
oh, and re: 145 - my (sad) congratulations to the DS for whacking my nation so utterly. I felt that 145 would be an interesting game if Jason went FP. But when SK joined the DS, the game was decided. period. And try as I might to convince Jason of this, he felt it would be better to just go for the quick victory, than the long slog against all those billions of DS agents…
Not sure I agree. I used to think this was a great idea, but it seems FP and DS always attack each other regardless of the threat of a neutral team forming. I’ve seen three FA games that had neutral teams, and in all of them the FP and DS slaughtered each other mercilessly right up to the point (and beyond) that the neutrals jumped them.
In two games the FP and DS then joined forces, but in both cases many players quit out of frustration, shock, or disappointment before the final battles were waged.
Although FA is supposed to be an “open” game where all sorts of alliances can be formed, and one can even militarilly attack members of their own allegiance (unlike in 1650 and 2950), most players still enter it expecting a classic good vs. bad struggle and play that way.
And honestly, 99% of players are apt to attack an immediate neighbor of opposing allegiance ASAP. Especially considering one doesn’t start with their address, and usually can’t get turn 0 communications open with them. So in the cloud of suspicion, people always attack first and ask questions later.
Also there is an inherent problem with a neutral team – strategic site victory. They own em all, and only have to transfer them to a non kingdom nation to win. It’s a cheap out, but the only thing preventing it is their self restraint.
Lastly, I believe Clint has gotten pretty difinitive feedback from most players that they want a FP vs. DS game and aren’t interested in a 3 way battle.
It’s a bummer really, because I agree a 3 way game is much more interesting. Maybe if it was declared that way from the start it would be more applicable though.
Adam
What slightly annoys me is how everyone on the FP side dropped just as most of our Agents with stealth were beginning to reach the 60-70 mark. With careful work we could have taken out certain annoying characters and we do have a Double Scout.
But limiting starting Agents to 40 would be a good move in my opinion. I mean take a look at 1650 and 2950 just how many starting characters have Agent rank above 40 ?
Thomas
Babylon Project Game 145
Not really… when there is a Neutral Team, at least in the past, they cant win With Strategic Site Victory. Its not allowed. I speak from experience of what we believe to be the First Neutral Win in 4th Age. I like the addition of a Neutral Team… It adds a nice edge to it.
Thomas
Babylon Project
I think limiting starting agents to 40 would have drastic balancing effects by essentially removing any agent advantage the DS typically has at game start. The best argument for this is the comparison to 1650 & 2950, but there are more:
It will also help foster a longer game while folks develope their agents. Further, with limit 40 starting agents, the artifact chase would be much more important, and some of the gold traditionally spent on 60A’s would probably be spent on mages. Finally, with an across the board balance in agents, the agent SNA prices could be reduced to allow for more strategic use by all nations…
Who in the world would take the stealth SNA at it’s current cost… ?
Thomas… what is happening with 145? Are the FP dropping? Please let me know.
Jason Mele
Well perhaps we could play-test it out and see what happens. Reducing the cost of the Agent SNA’s to what they were before…
Well I can really say what is happening in 145 since I haven’t heard from many that are left. I can tell you I am still playing… but thats about all I know really. (Yes this is what it has been like, with a few exceptions)
Thomas
Babylon Project
I think a play-test would be a great idea. I would play.
Thanks for the heads-up on the FP status.
Jason Mele