Yep, if any of you guys do decide to bow out it would be gentlemanly of you to let us know. No point dragging this thing out longer than necessary if everyone is ready to move onto a new game with more interesting agent rules.
I agree with Jason that limiting agents to 40 would increase the value of mages which would be a good thing.
I also think it wold be a good thing to experiment further with the rules and conduct more playtests now that Harley owns the game. The best way to build a better game is to experiment.
Getting the agent balance right has been a constant theme since the earliest games of MEPBM under GSI – no surprise many of us feel it needs a bit more tweaking to get it right.
…and despite being officially logged in, and the site allowing me to type to my hearts content, it would not actually allow me to post, when I try to do so it tells me I am not logged in. Evidently an issue with “cookies” that I just cannot figure out how to solve…
Anyway, I was trying to post on the same game 145 string, in response to Thomas (Babylon Project) and his claim to have been part of first 4th Age Neutral win…
If you feel like it, you could post this there. I am really, really giiving up on the forum again – it is enough of a waste of time if the postings actually get there, but spending 45 minutes to type something that the forum then doesn’t let me post is truly frustrating!
– Ernie III
Hey Thomas –
Not sure what you mean by the first Neutral win in 4th Age – starting from when, run by which company?
Under GSI, yes, the original game designers, several years ago, I was part of a Neutral victory. I had joined with the SK, with my capital at 3524 and some fortified pop centers to my south and southeast, protecting the Mordor borders of the SK, and we managed to fend off both the DS and the FP and gain a victory as Neutrals. I don’t know if it was the first Neutral victory in 4th Age, but it may well have been, it was one of the first dozen or so games of 4th Age ever run, though it was so long ago that I forget the game number, though I think it was game 11. (And unlike MEGames, GSI did not recycle game numbers within the same scenario.)
And it has happened periodically over the years since then as well, under GSI, DGE, etc.
Under the original rules, non-grudge 4th Age games were always set up in one of the following combinations:
7 FP, 7 DS, 2 Kingdoms, 9 regular Neutrals, or
8 FP, 8 DS, 2 Kingdoms, 7 regular Neutrals
Up to four nations could join as a team, but a Kingdom could join with at most 1 other player. There was no automatic “no strategic victory” limitation assigned to any teams, neutral or otherwise. Neutral victories were indeed pretty darn rare, because (a) in many cases, individual Neutrals found it more to their benefit to join nearby nations of either the FP or the DS, leaving too few Neutrals to form a successful alliance, and (b) when a Neutral alliance did form, even if not all the FP and DS got together to prevent a Neutral win, enough of them would fight Neutrals that the Neutrals would not be strong enough to go on to victory.
Now, Clint has a bunch of things he does during setup. I have seen some pretty amusing setup situations over time – everywhere from having 13 Neutrals (including the Kingdoms) to having only 3. One game which consisted of 12 Neutrals (with both Kingdoms) and 13 FP with no DS! A game where because three Neutral players including a Kingdom joined together, they were forbidden to change allegiance. And so on. There is nothing in the basic rules that says a Neutral team cannot win with a strategic victory – any such limitation would be one imposed by Clint for a specific game. For example in a 4th Age gunboat game, a strategic victory is not allowed.
Anyway, I have been playing ME-PBM since game 3 (Fire King, 1st place) of 1650 run by GSI – the very first non-playtest ME game ever run, which I signed up for at the Origins™ game convention where the game was released – and after the start of games 10 (Noldo, top 3 but not 1st) and 12 (Easterlings, crushed eventually by the FP) of 1650 by GSI, I have never had a period of time where I was not playing multiple games of ME-PBM at the same time. So I figure maybe my experience covers a little more ground, and things that others may be seeing for the first time, I saw before, under other game companies…
– Ernie Hakey III
Ernie, this is for you, if you are reading… if not, Dave, please pass this along to Ernie:
I have the same problem Ernie has… getting logged out very quickly and wasting all the time
I spend typing.
The solution is very simple. Before submitting, just highlight and copy (right click or control/c or whatever) everything you typed. After it has you log back in, just past and submit. Problem solved.
For those that are on the ME List set-up for the discussion on 1000 changes please feel free to comment there. The two start test games have now finished and so we can chat about the pros and cons of all the bits.
If you want to join that list get in touch with me and I’ll add you to it.
Speaking as the DS +20 kill nation in 145 and an experienced ME player, if anything is powerful, its not the +20 kill, its the double scout. Agents simply are not effective without information.
Also, the cost of that SNA is apparent in my position. All my position is effective at is being an agent nation. I am weak everywhere else. And even starting with three 60+20 agents, I have averaged less than 1 kill or kidnap per turn (6 kills, 3 kidnaps). That is not for lack of knowledge in how to apply agents. Also, I never encountered a guard. I know the typical attitude is that guarding is ineffective, however, it can be quite effective, especially at the start of the game against agents that aren’t toting around big agent artifacts. A 40-50 guard can easily stop one of my starting killers. I make it a point of killing gaurds first, but that’s where the double scout comes in. Cannot spot a guard without that.
So I really don’t think the +20 kill SNA is all that.
BTW, we got very few army cmdrs. Mostly we whacked backups and other characters at capitals. A tip to all you freeps, next time move your CM mages out of the capital pronto. In a game like this, those guys are prime targets.
I think the real solution to the agent question is pretty simple. Agent orders should cost gold. It costs to maintain a military, build forts, build pop centers, learn spells, but agents are free. If it cost several thousand to issue a kill/kidnap order, this would greatly even out for the loss of a 5k character. And that’s mostly what I killed. 30-40 point characters, cause they are the doable targets.
I never, NEVER post to the forums. I’ve believed it’s simply a waste of time, for the most part, filled with insipid taunts and jibes. My philosophy is simply that once the game begins and the other player is the enemy, you don’t talk to them until it’s over. That said, I do feel we who have playtested the FA revision should all be posting vigorously…
IN THE PROPER THREAD!!!
Clint, please add me to the FA 1000 test scenario thread.
I have some choice comments for those who feel the DS have too much of an agent advantage; it’s patently ridiculous, of course…if a FP side doesn’t design itself properly, it’s their own damn fault for taking hits from agents.
~Tom F, aka Zod
PS To Tom L, i.e. NK 145, you chose…poorly (shameless jibe).
Ummm… Tom F…
If you don’t like “insipid taunts and jibes,” why do you so readily offer them up yourself?
Now, getting beyond insipid-ness and jibing, with all due respect sir, each nation was designed individually, without knowledge of what other nations are selecting. In the playtest, many were designed to test/stretch specific new rules - to experiment. Thus, in the general case, it is difficult for a “side” to “design itself properly”, and in the specific case of the playtests, I think your tone is unnecessarily harsh.
As to agent “advantage”, yes, let’s take it to FASUp. See you there.
I think I have enough input ready for overall commentary on the FA 1000 revision that I can address the agent issues (currently in debate for 145) in a stand alone post here.
As to SNA 31 and the whining over DS agent 60’s in general, I feel it is wholly unfounded and quite honestly is compensation for poor play (and even poorer design).
Consider this - within the context of the new rules, both FP and DS can design nations with SNA 31 (on one nation per allegiance), agent 40’s, stealth and enhanced scouting (either +20, or doubled). Equal footing. The ONLY advantage that is posessed by the DS in the agent game is that one of their special racial limits is agent, allowing starting agent 60’s. That’s 10 extra ranks per agent, formidable…but wait…isn’t there a cap on characters named with special race limits? There IS. So let’s look at that, shall we? Under the new rules, you can name one 60 rank (under your racial special) at 1000g cost. The second is slightly reduced from normal cost, at a savings of 200; i.e 1300g cost. A third (and beyond) is available at the normal cost of 1500g. So, assuming you have a DS and a FP nation both with the same budget for agents and naming 3 offensive agents apiece you get something like…
DS
A60 1000
A60 1300
A60 1500
cost = 3800g
FP
A50 1000
A50, Ste10 1300
A60 1500
cost = 3800g
Not so huge and imbalancing a difference when you see it actually spelled out? Yes? No? Well, consider this…any of those agent sets would likely be thoroughly neutralized by 3 agent 40 ranked characters, if used properly. Add to that the fact that ANY allegiance can name those (for a cost less than HALF that of the above agent sets, I might point out) and it’s clear the the operative words above are IF USED PROPERLY. Personally, I look at the above and say that the FP are down 10 ranks…and that’s all.
It comes down to this…those who whine and whimper about DS agents (or enemy agents in general) simply are NOT adept at running agents of any allegiance and should only play in LA games. Period. This is one of the oldest bones of contention in MEPBM and it’s an old, worn one at that…it needs to get buried. I’ve played with those who dislike agent use and have joined scenarios that limit agent use to various degrees. Inevitably, the people who were anti-agent to begin with end up complaining about some aspect of what agent use was included. There should really be agent-free scenarios (similar to the emissary-free BOFA scenario) for the agent challenged/disinclined.
If you add to this the fact that the DS can only name two of the rankings at 60 for reduced cost (agent and emissary) as opposed to the FP who can name three (commander, emissary and mage) the DS agent advantage myth becomes even more ludicrous. Funny that you never hear DS players whining about FP challenge ranks on Dwarven commanders or Elven mages? Considering the likelier character clash being in an army versus army situation than an agent versus unprotected character one (assuming the targeted nation is silly enough to leave a key character unprotected), the complaint from the DS should be deafening. Odd that it’s not. Why? Because most DS players learn to work around it, somehow. Would that all the plaintive, agent incompetent FP players out there learned that same lesson.
I believe that all changes MEG have made in this FA 1000 revision were perfection; especially limiting SNA 31 to one per side. As far as game 145 goes, the FP were given the option and declined it. So much for competence of design. To their credit, I might have done the same thing…at the current cost of +20 K/A. I feel that is what really needs to be examined. It is VERY prohibitive. At the very least, it should be lowered in cost to accomodate a package of +20 K/A and +20 sco/recon for 20000. That would certainly make it viable for players desiring SNA 31 in FA 1000 (revised) Gunboat games and might have made the option more appealing to the FP in 145.
Just to allay any claims I will not put my money where my mouth is…I would happily play against a DS team as a FP team in a grudge game format, using the revised FA 1000 rules as is (or with slight modifications, for SNA 31, as per above).
~Tom F aka Zod
PS David, you might have noted my caveat of “until it’s over”…which I believe 145 is.
We all had the fluidity to experiment to the same degree with the revised scenario. That did not mean that we should cast aside covering “the basics”, such as defense against enemy agents. Failing to do so in design as well as play is a weak spot, plain and simple. I played the Witch Queen in game 145, my nation was thematic to a fault. It essentially was a perfected version of the Witch King from the two previous scenarios…built around the basics. A challenge monster, an offensive agent, some defensive agents, the proper number of commanders for the right sized pop centers and a few emmisaries shoehorned in around that were my basics. I have no idea what yours were, and either way…they didn’t seem to work.
~Tom F aka Zod
PS Despite having only one starting A60/Ste10 (with no special agent related SNA’s, no artifacts, and no other agents that were ever used offensively) I managed to get off 3 assassinates, and would have gotten a 4th this turn if I had not opted to 690 instead. A FP could have had near equal success with an A50/Ste10.
And Dave, when I say designed properly…I mean in a vacuum, not as a team. The Witch Queen was designed as a stand alone nation, to be played with minimal coordination. Admittedly I joined with another player…but…as Ernie Hakey can attest, playing with Eric Trznadel can feel a hell of a lot like a gunboat game! God knows, this one did!
Ok Tom F - Thanks for the thoughtful analysis. I have some quibbles with it though:
Your suggestion is for a military nation to name 3 of starting 8 characters somehow as A40s… This is a severe handicap on nation design and goes against the goal of increasing the variety of viable nation designs.
FA already imposes an implicit requirement to name at least one E50 (I tried naming only 2 E40s in 144 and got very few camps, so I think Ernie’s right and we have to accept the need for at least one E50).
Now you’re adding a requirement for 3 A40s. Well, just how many specialization character points are left after that? Not a heck of a lot, so we’ve winnowed down the variety in starting character options quite a bit to follow your “smart design” suggestion. And, given the current rules, maybe your 3-A40 smart design is a requirement, but I believe it’s not achieving our goal, and thus stick by my belief that the solution is getting rid of SNA 31 and
lowering agent rank to 50.
You additionally claim that there’s little difference between FP and DS as it relates to agents. You are ignoring human behavior in your analysis. People that like to play agent nations will choose DS because they get those 2 A60s to start with. People that like to play the other types of characters will gravitate to FP. That IS a lesson from 145 (if one game can be a lesson).
In 145, we had tons of agent nations on the DS and no agent nations on the FP… hmmm… bad design? or maybe natural selection (by human behavior) of people toward the alignment that gives them the best nation for the type of specialization they want…
Anyway, I do appreciate your thoughtful analysis. I just think you’re missing the human behavior element.
I remain convinced that the goal of FA redesign is to improve the variety of viable nation designs. Saying that the “Smart way” to design any nation is to name 3 of the starting 4 characters a certain thing (whatever that is) is against that design goal.
I would agree with this, but don’t think it is a valid reason to change the game. Its like saying, ‘let’s remove military cause some people don’t know how to use it’.
The question is: Do agents unbalance the game?
You argument is, ‘they unbalance the game because some people don’t know how, or don’t like, to play them’. So, should we change the game so they can handle it, or should they learn how to play the game?
If you choose to not start with 60 agents, cause that’s not your thing, then your plan should should account for how your choices in setup ARE going to help you win. 60 cmdrs will be pretty immune to those 60 agents, especially in charge of an army. 60 mages? You’d better get them out of the capital, they are only going to pay off in the long run. Personally, I like 60 starting emmys and name 40 agents (start with one 40 agent).
BTW, I can give you several other ways to defend against agents that doesn’t involve having three 40 agents.
Downgrade. It is amazing to me how many people don’t do this. As a team, you should all be trying to figure out who the enemy agent powers are and GET THEM TO HATED.
Move non-essential characters OUT OF THE CAPITAL. Mages in particular. Agents (of the normal 30 variety) are ideal for running capitals. Guard and a capital order. Only double scouts will spot them consitently, and they keep the enemy agents away from your cmdrs (by being targets, if nothing else).
Put all captial cmdrs in charge of armies. Makes them practically immune to starting agents. This is trivial if you have Hire for Free. Takes a little work otherwise. It might not fit some people’s pattern of 430/435 to make powerful cmdrs for later in the game. No sympathy here. If my early game tactic defeats your late game tactic … poor baby.
Put mid skill emmys where you think the agents will (or have) bothered you. For instance, in a fortified, non-capital PC that you recruit out of, that really bothers your enemy. Emmy cranks up the loyalty, you spot enemy agents on the PC report. A 50 emmy can double a 70 agent, and 500 order comes before 615.
Its not a matter of needing agents to beat agents. Agents are actually quite hard to use effectively against an opponent who plays (PLAYS, not designs his nation) to defend against them.
Personally, I think its double scout that unbalances the game.
