My intention with FA games is to fill them as quickly as possible. The
MAJOR reason for this is that players waiting a long time drop out,
detracting from game play for their allies. (This then has a knock on
effect of funds for us of course).
With that in mind as there appear to be 2 schools of players out there (plus
teams which I can work on anyway). One want to play normal FA games, the
other variants - mostly NKA and LAS games. I want to alternate between them
(it takes me around 100 emails to get a game of FA going). Any objections
or obvious errors/missed bits? Creating 2 set-up lists is one way of doing
it all - BUT this (overall) slows game start up by more than a factor of 2!
Ie we don't get a game going for longer than as creating one game then
another of the other type. (If we had around 3x the player base for FA it
would be okay).
Clint
···
****************************************************************
Harlequin Games Middle Earth Games
pbm@harlequingames.com me@middleearthgames.com
www.harlequingames.com www.middleearthgames.com
340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP
Tel 029 2062 5665 12-6.30 Weekdays
Fax 029 2062 5532 24 hours
****************************************************************
Middle Earth - Legends - Serim Ral
CTF 2187 - Starquest - Crack of Doom
Battle of the Planets - Exile
Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:
With that in mind as there appear to be 2 schools of players out there (plus
teams which I can work on anyway). One want to play normal FA games, the
other variants - mostly NKA and LAS games.
Might I suggest another way to approach the 'agent problem' in FA -
personally I find the regular FA too agent-heavy but the NKA is
'unrealistic' and the LAS too limiting.
Instead of limiting what SNA's nations can have or what orders they
can use, why not just limit the number of nations that can have them?
1650 and 2950 have shown quite well that a game with the Double Scout
and +20 K/A abilities can work well, simply because not everyone has
them.
Suppose FA were modified by the simple rules that only one nation of
each allegiance can have the Double Scout or +20 K/A, and moreover they
could not be the same nation. This would spread out the more
devastating agent abilities without eliminating them entirely; it would
also force nations to work together for maximum effect - much like
certain other scenarios we could mention. You could call it EPS, for
Ed's Parsimonious Solution. 
-ED \1/
We did this before as well. One nation on each Alignment was allowed +20% -
it works well with Grudge games but less well with the others. As many
double scouters as you want (they would be less useful to back up the lower
numbers of +20%). Thoughts?
Clint
···
Instead of limiting what SNA's nations can have or what orders they
can use, why not just limit the number of nations that can have them?
1650 and 2950 have shown quite well that a game with the Double Scout
and +20 K/A abilities can work well, simply because not everyone has
them.
--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Middle Earth PBM Games" <me@M...> wrote:
With that in mind as there appear to be 2 schools of players out
there (plus teams which I can work on anyway). One want to play
normal FA games, the other variants - mostly NKA and LAS games. I
want to alternate between them (it takes me around 100 emails to get
a game of FA going). Any objections or obvious errors/missed bits?
Personally I'm the "Variants" department. Only FA game I've tried is
the Last Alliance one. Mostly because the appeal of the game to me is
playing out a set scenario from one Tolkien's books.
To me the FA has no real appeal because it's set beyond the Tolkien
books.
I like 1/2/3rd Age variants using the FA rules tho. The "Last
Alliance" game is a huge blast, mainly because it's totally new. There
are no list of artifacts, no tried and tested strategy as to what
works, and doesn't work with the scenario. Everything you try is
breaking new grounds with the scenario, and a mistake can be fatal
Øystein
I'd suggest playtesting a revised 4th age that deals with the balance
problems that prompted NKA/LAS/etc. Then you can have one pool of
players, games will start faster, and the problems that prompted the
LAS/NKA options will be reduced. I have some specific ideas below,
none of which require coding changes.
···
-------------------------------------
Start with geographic balance; without this the base scenario is
way too random and subject to setup abuses that lead to boring games.
This requires no coding changes - just somewhat more effort on setup.
You *still* get to setup your nation as you like within a large zone,
but you won't get bizzaro (and imbalanced, and boring) mixes such as
all free people in Khand country and all dark servants in the far NW.
Second, deal with the agent issue. Some folks just hate agents, and
they can run variant games. For the rest, the question is how to
integrate them so that they play roughly the same level of role that
they do in 1650/2950. The reason why they're less critical in
1650/2950 is
1) they start much weaker than in 4th age; Ji Indur or Din Ohtar would
be pathetically weak game-start 4th age agents.
2) there are many fewer starting agents than it is possible to get in
4th age; no 1650/2950 nation has more than 2 decent starters.
3) there are only a few nations with agent SNAs, and everyone knows
who they are.
Any fix has to deal with these three problems; there is a related but
less serious issue involving tons of emissaries.
The third problem is the easiest to fix.
I like the idea of having one double scout and one +20 k/a nation per
alliance. Furthermore, I'd make the nations with these SNAs known to
all nations at the start of the game - I have little doubt that even
with this handicap you'd still get all six in every game.
You get to run the cloud lord - but everyone at least *knows* that
you're the cloud lord.
I'd look at dropping the skill rank caps significantly for
agents and somewhat for emissaries.
There is a *reason* why there is no starting agent above 40 in
1650/2950; in fact, I'd argue for the same premium for a 40 agent that
you currently pay for a 60 agent. AND no more than two starting
agents 30 or better - which requires that the big agent corps build
up.
Make emissaries somewhat costlier as well to keep some kind of
agent/emissary balance.
I suspect that if you do this you'd get a unified pool that answered
most objections, and those who really hate agents (or love the old
setup) can run variants.
Marc Pinsonneault
--- In mepbmlist@y..., oysteint@i... wrote:
--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Middle Earth PBM Games" <me@M...> wrote:
>
> With that in mind as there appear to be 2 schools of players out
> there (plus teams which I can work on anyway). One want to play
> normal FA games, the other variants - mostly NKA and LAS games. I
> want to alternate between them (it takes me around 100 emails to
get
> a game of FA going). Any objections or obvious errors/missed
bits?
Personally I'm the "Variants" department. Only FA game I've tried is
the Last Alliance one. Mostly because the appeal of the game to me
is
playing out a set scenario from one Tolkien's books.
To me the FA has no real appeal because it's set beyond the Tolkien
books.
I like 1/2/3rd Age variants using the FA rules tho. The "Last
Alliance" game is a huge blast, mainly because it's totally new.
There
are no list of artifacts, no tried and tested strategy as to what
works, and doesn't work with the scenario. Everything you try is
breaking new grounds with the scenario, and a mistake can be fatal
Øystein
What mistakes have you made? 
Ray (LA game)
···
--- oysteint@ifi.uio.no wrote:
--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Middle Earth PBM Games"
<me@M...> wrote:
>
> With that in mind as there appear to be 2 schools
of players out
> there (plus teams which I can work on anyway).
One want to play
> normal FA games, the other variants - mostly NKA
and LAS games. I
> want to alternate between them (it takes me around
100 emails to get
> a game of FA going). Any objections or obvious
errors/missed bits?
Personally I'm the "Variants" department. Only FA
game I've tried is
the Last Alliance one. Mostly because the appeal of
the game to me is
playing out a set scenario from one Tolkien's books.
To me the FA has no real appeal because it's set
beyond the Tolkien
books.
I like 1/2/3rd Age variants using the FA rules tho.
The "Last
Alliance" game is a huge blast, mainly because it's
totally new. There
are no list of artifacts, no tried and tested
strategy as to what
works, and doesn't work with the scenario.
Everything you try is
breaking new grounds with the scenario, and a
mistake can be fatal
�ystein
Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin
Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
--- In mepbmlist@y..., Ray Devlin <hurly_burly_69@y...> wrote:
What mistakes have you made?
Ray (LA game)
*snicker* Ask your own side that
Øystein
The LAS game has resulted in precisely what you're looking for. Agent activities are
very much curtailed in the beginning, though later in the game they escalate. However,
they haven't escalated too much, since there only seem to be a max of 2-4
assassinations in a turn, (and not every turn). That's total, on BOTH sides. Of
course, there can also be 2-3 weakness deaths in a turn, as well.
I'm also in an NKA game, and the lack of kidnap/assassinations has it's ups and downs.
You see a LOT more armies running around, since you don't need a backup commander in
them. However, it's also MUCH harder to clear a PC of an army, since you've got to
work 5-6 mages up with weakness just to off ONE commander. Very much an army/emmy
game.
I personally think the LAS games have a good balance of army vs. agent action. I've
found that, as frustrating as it is to have your army assassinated out from under you,
agents are a necessary (though controversial) part of the game.
Mike
···
------Original Message-----
-From: pinsonneault.1@osu.edu [mailto:pinsonneault.1@osu.edu]
-Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 2:14 PM
-
-I'd suggest playtesting a revised 4th age that deals with the balance
-problems that prompted NKA/LAS/etc. Then you can have one pool of
-players, games will start faster, and the problems that prompted the
-LAS/NKA options will be reduced. I have some specific ideas below,
-none of which require coding changes.
--------------------------------------
-Start with geographic balance; without this the base scenario is
-way too random and subject to setup abuses that lead to boring games.
-This requires no coding changes - just somewhat more effort on setup.
-You *still* get to setup your nation as you like within a large zone,
-but you won't get bizzaro (and imbalanced, and boring) mixes such as
-all free people in Khand country and all dark servants in the far NW.
-
-Second, deal with the agent issue. Some folks just hate agents, and
-they can run variant games. For the rest, the question is how to
-integrate them so that they play roughly the same level of role that
-they do in 1650/2950. The reason why they're less critical in
-1650/2950 is
-
-1) they start much weaker than in 4th age; Ji Indur or Din Ohtar would
-be pathetically weak game-start 4th age agents.
-
-2) there are many fewer starting agents than it is possible to get in
-4th age; no 1650/2950 nation has more than 2 decent starters.
-
-3) there are only a few nations with agent SNAs, and everyone knows
-who they are.
-
-Any fix has to deal with these three problems; there is a related but
-less serious issue involving tons of emissaries.
-
-The third problem is the easiest to fix.
-I like the idea of having one double scout and one +20 k/a nation per
-alliance. Furthermore, I'd make the nations with these SNAs known to
-all nations at the start of the game - I have little doubt that even
-with this handicap you'd still get all six in every game.
-You get to run the cloud lord - but everyone at least *knows* that
-you're the cloud lord.
-
-I'd look at dropping the skill rank caps significantly for
-agents and somewhat for emissaries.
-There is a *reason* why there is no starting agent above 40 in
-1650/2950; in fact, I'd argue for the same premium for a 40 agent that
-you currently pay for a 60 agent. AND no more than two starting
-agents 30 or better - which requires that the big agent corps build
-up.
-
-Make emissaries somewhat costlier as well to keep some kind of
-agent/emissary balance.
-
-I suspect that if you do this you'd get a unified pool that answered
-most objections, and those who really hate agents (or love the old
-setup) can run variants.
-
-Marc Pinsonneault
-
