I find it interesting how so many find the FP have the advantage but they win only 1/3rd to 25% of the time at best. You can not assume people just “get dumb” when they play the free, there has been too many games of data to just rule that the free just “don;t know what they are doing”, there is a fundmental difference here which spans too long to be dismissed. The community is just not big enough…people (especially the best players) play both sides.
Does the game really need to be changed so the free win more? I do not think so. They are just harder to win with, all other things equal. The exception to this is if it is found a new strategy (such as the gold pile thing for the DS) provides a 100% or close win ratio. Then you have to concern yourself with the possibility that something needs to be done for the health of the game as a business. (i.e. if every game everyone knows the DS win, people lessen their number of games they involve themselves in).
terry on the other forum you have suggested giving the fp 70pts of agent artefact and taking artefacts and the cl SNA from the DS. i dont understand what u r saying. r they even at the mo or not?
if u r trying 2 put a view across pls make it… err… coherent
Read the article on why the dark servants win, I actually think there is some merit to that. Generally speaking I do better playing as a free side then a dark servants side. Maybe my style of play is more geared towards a free nation thinking strategy. I actually prefer playing dark servants more however.
Which article? I’ve read many of them. However you want to put it, it really does not matter why they win more, it is that they do. Theorys aside, the facts speaks for themselves. Too much time has passed with too many games to discard it as simple poor strategy, corridnation favors the DS, etc. In general the FP counters to the dark basic actions are harder to impliment and detract from the free’s capacities in other areas. If one side requires more effort to corridinate to win than the other, that is an inherant disadvantage that is part of the game as designed. The fact that is not singularly mechanic based, does not make it any less of an issue.
If the consensus is By turn 15 the DS are unbeatable becuase of the Agent power and nothing the FP can do except play a Perfect opening of a miltary strategy. Then yes a change is needed…
I simply took up my those differing my view and suggested a Change that would give the FP a chance in the light of those arguements against my view the game is balanced… What is incherent about that?
As far as giveing the FP 70 pts in artifacts at game start… Do the DS posses the capability of producing a 100 + adjusted agent at game start? It is well known they can produce more than one Killer agent at game start… and By turn 8 6 to 7.
If your going to throw stones at other people suggestions for leveling the playing and still argue the DS will win all games at midterm then make some real suggestions on how to truely balance 1650! Anyone can knock others ideas … Why not istead write an article yourself on how to play FP better come up with a realistic suggestion on how to get 1650 to 50/50 win percentage. I hope everyone fully understands this post!
My openers for rebalancing the game would be fairly modest. I would suggest
a Nmen character to start with 40 emmy
a Woodmen character to start with 40 agent and stealth
NG and EO to have the “hire armies for free” instead of some other crappy SNAS
a moderate upgrading of the guard value of fortifications of allied pops
a random bone or 2 for the WK and the Dragonlord. Maybe 1804, 2305, 2715 as cities and 2809 as a MT.
My aim would be to enhance the FP chances in the first 20 turns without changing the character of the game entirely (which imho your tongue-in-cheek suggestions would)
Finally, as a hygiene factor rather than as a attempt to shift game balance I would want some way of stopping the most violent market swings. Without knowing the algorithm it is hard to be specific, but maybe a starter for 10 would be: all prices to trade within a specific range (e.g. steel sell price to range from 2 - 12, buy price from 5-18), and no price can more than triple or halve in a single turn.
Gonna go and sit in my bunker in anticipation of some flak
Your suggestions are sound in as a whole… They are well thought out…
First off i really like the Wk and Drl capitol upgrades they really need it. If your survive playing these nations you have done an exceptional job.
Nm getting a 40 emmy at game start I do not like it… But them having a 30 is good. In 1650 it’s to easy to get a 30 emmy to a 40… As Easterlings by turn 10 I had a 60 that I named character on turn 1. Unlike FA 30 emmy’s work great for creating early camps. Camp limit was not hit until turn 8 in game i am playing currently.
I really do not see the difference here in giving the RoC to WM or giving them a 30 agent with stealth at game start… It seems more powerful with your suggestion here becuase saves WM gold… FP have an ambundance of wealth and should sponsor WM creating agents with stealth … I mean retiring all agents WM make without stealth…
Having NG and EO hire for free seems very logical and would assist them in their current roles as miltary powers so that works for me.
I differ on the guard value of fortifications mainly becuase why do they gaurd characters at all… Maybe slight increases in Guard values of characters in armies (greater for the larger sized ones) and slightly better effectiveness of the guard orders in general. I think it should be slightly tougher than it currently is… I mean outcome shouldn’t so strongly dteremined by agents as it is now… I would really like to see some agents die from botched assasination attempts.
Mostly I believe your suggestion require the infamous code changes… While i do believe they would all serve to improve the game. Hopefully we could do some Test games with veteran players to see how some of these would effect playability for better competiveness.
I love playing strategies myself. Combining a little bit of several nations into a devestating strike which takes down a nation. Lots of planning, lots of teamwork, and a very pleasing result.
One of my favorite was the ‘hidden city’ concept which took down the Cloud Lord. Around turn 10, I think. This was Tina’s Cardolan in Tina’s first ever game.
It works like this:
The strike works by bankrupcy. In a single turn, you ensure the CL has no gold, no capital orders, take out every pop centre he has apart from his capital.
Cardolan bulids a city in the sands of central Mordor, maybe around turn 5. On the turn the camp is built, the Noldo hide it, so it’s never visible.
You take out the towns using 166 HC on each unfortified town. The town at 2629 falls to massed emi action.
Use some method to interdict capital orders. Several are available: assassins are risky as their artefacts can be stolen. Stealthy challenge characters are good, a Woodman speciality. And a curse squad to take out any army commander is ideal if you have one. This is important, as the plan’s biggest risk is that the CL will be involved in a buyout and have enough at his capital to keep him alive.
He needs an empty treasury the turn the armies arrive. So you steal every last penny on the turn the armies move.
So CL player gets home from work. He looks at his turn to find armies on his towns, no gold in his treasury and no characters to Nat/Sell. He’s dead and there’s nothing his team can do to save him.
I offer this as an example. There are many strategies like this. It takes a lot of advanced planning - we started the first actions about 7 turns before executing the plan.
Here’s another strategy play Garmagel might recognize from G13. Peace and love from Arthedain.
A blitzkrieg saw the WK fall to a pacifist Arthedain, brilliantly supported by Cardolan and the Woodmen.
Cardolan mostly blocked and cleared the way for threats. Thet assaulted Mt Gram the turn Carn Dum fell. The Woodmen did their duty at Mt Gunderbad, but played no further role in that theatre.
Carn Dum fell to threat on turn 5. Arthedain assaulted a pop centre for the firts time around turn 10.
The WK did make some mistakes, though. So the strategy didn’t have its toughest test.
Sometimes it pays to take risks. Few players will risk a threat on a 50/50 if they have enough strength to burn the place, even though the threat might allow them another 50/50 netxt turn.
Likewise players rarely risk a challenge unless the odds are overwhelming.
But that need not be. One risky strategy play the Free could use is to terrorise DS capitals. Indeed the Woodmen nation seems designed for this task with the challenge bonus SNA and double-scouting. And perhaps the game designers gave the dwarves their scouting ability to help with this? Or the elves, lots of stealth and lots of weapons - what better use for a new commander or mage who gets lucky with his stealth?
Imagine a single turn - say, around turn 5 - where the Free put 2-3 minor challenge characters on half the DS Capitals. Most won’t show up. Some challengors will die. And who knows what the result would be.
Some things are quite likely, though.
The Free will sacrifice a lot of recruitment to do this.
There’s a fair chance that the economic disruption will knock out at least one DS nation. Or create an econmic shock it takes many turns to recover from (and maybe some disbanded armies).
And the DS will be paranoid for a long, long time. Which will probably cost them as many orders as the Free gave up to launch the strike.
There are other ways both sides could use challenges at capitals. Everyone always assumes you’ll need a ScoChar. But there are many circumstances where you can be pretty certain that particular characters are at home. Army commanders returning home, many mages, certain starting characters.
Anyone who has played DS will know the knife edge on which their economies teeter, and how easily a rash brawl could push them over the edge. My theory is that it’s the sheer uncertainty of the action which deters people.
The Mordor hidden city tactic was devised 12 years ago and its been used
to acheive mayhem in Mordor in many games since then. It was not a new
tactic when you guys did it…
Many inventions are reinvented. Mental flexibility and a willingness to solve the problems is what is paramount. Whimpering and expecting the GM to solve your problems is what irritates me the most.
Since we are talking FP tactics: One of my favorites is the “false agent”. You name a new commander, give him a command artifact and a 2250 combat artifact. He goes to a DS capital and does not have the slightest idea who may be there. Nazguls are normally gone by turn 7, or so. The fellow appears on the enemy’s pop report (thanks to the command artifact). The enemy breaks into a sweat—“Good Lord, the FP have already sent an agent to my capital!” This is a desperate moment, recall the agent company immediately. In the meanwhile, might as well challenge the dude, he is going to assassinate me anyway. So, whoever is there challenges the “agent” and gets killed by the oblivious commander.
Not just characters can have stealth. But the conventional thinkers certainly don’t want other players to have stealth.
That works in the 10-20 turn range, before any competent DS team will be
tracking the main FP agent arties. But it will cause a level of uncertainty
which according to the player might induce a return to base agent attitude.
I don’t recall Mike saying it was a new tactic. Heck, using a mage to follow around and heal your dragon challenger isn’t a new tactic either…I’m puzzled by this response. ???
That’s an interesting little one. One must sustain the derision of the Team Play, though, to make such a gambit. A whole character, AND Artifact, sent off on a blind and likely fruitless journey? There are Troops to Recruit! Agent Nations to Downgrade! You stupid, selfish old…
The WK in this game handed his nation over on a platter. It will be remembered by every DS in that game as the single greatest demonstration of total and complete horrid play ever. Frankly, as a FP in that area, you should be cursing the WK for not giving you an opportunity to even try this or any strategy. Nothing against the FP here, but if trying to prove a strategy works, it ideally would pass the “competant opposition” test and G13 WK, well, no…try again…
News to me, and somehow comforting. When one hears someone else came out with the same design, and it worked, it usually means one got something right!
Out of curiosity, who DID take out the CL that way all those years ago? And why don’t we see it more often?
Indeed, my point exactly, the idea needs a better test!
