Game 29

I'm a little confused here, Richard, but I'd love to hear your opinion. From
everything I've read about the GSI days, the DS tended to win 2/3ds of the
games. It would seem the ratio is much better now (especially at Harlequin),
but do you really consider the original game balanced?

jason

···

--- Richard John Devereux <devereux@lineone.net> wrote:

The original 1650 game was, by luck or judgement, very carefully balanced:
the FP had a bigger economy and more troops. Basicly the FP strategy was,
eliminate one or more of the DS nations before turn 10 using overwhelming
military force, then we have a chance of winning the character game. The
DS, with a miserable economy, could not afford to recruit to capacity but
they knew, if they could keep all their nations alive till turn 10, agents
and dragons would slowly swing the game their way.

=====
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
Software developer, cryptography buff, gamer
Believer in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord
http://members.home.net/jasonab/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE.
http://im.yahoo.com/

The ratio is actually worse Jason.

Go to http://www.middleearthpbm.co.uk/main/statisti.htm

and see for yourself.

Kev

···

I'm a little confused here, Richard, but I'd love to hear your opinion. From
everything I've read about the GSI days, the DS tended to win 2/3ds of the
games. It would seem the ratio is much better now (especially at Harlequin),
but do you really consider the original game balanced?

jason

=====
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
Software developer, cryptography buff, gamer
Believer in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord
http://members.home.net/jasonab/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE.
http://im.yahoo.com/

Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm

> The original 1650 game was, by luck or judgement, very carefully

balanced:

> the FP had a bigger economy and more troops. Basicly the FP strategy

was,

> eliminate one or more of the DS nations before turn 10 using

overwhelming

> military force, then we have a chance of winning the character game.

The

> DS, with a miserable economy, could not afford to recruit to capacity

but

> they knew, if they could keep all their nations alive till turn 10,

agents

> and dragons would slowly swing the game their way.

I'm a little confused here, Richard, but I'd love to hear your opinion.

From

everything I've read about the GSI days, the DS tended to win 2/3ds of the
games. It would seem the ratio is much better now (especially at

Harlequin),

but do you really consider the original game balanced?

jason

RD: You're absolutely right that in the GSI days the DS won more than their
fair share of games. I think that whoever designed the original game
deserves a hell of a lot of credit not just for the game engine but for the
'balance' between the FP and DS I referred to above.

With 5 neutrals the overall game was bound to be unbalanced, so if a team
won when 3 or more neutrals joined the enemy, they could justifiably claim
to have done so thru skill.

Unfortunately what actually happened was that most of the neutrals joined
the DS most of the time, and this was a significant if not decisive factor
in the high number of DS wins. The Corsairs in particular (and Harad to a
lesser extent) won far more than their fair share of games when going DS
(source: Mouth of Sauron).

I strongly suspect that the reason the 2950 scenario has only one 'neutral'
in the south (altho that flies in the face of what Tolkien wrote in LoR!)
was to give a better overall balance to the game (2 neutrals in the east, 2
in west/central positions, one in the south).

There were NO neutrals in Tolkien's LoR - they ALL joined the DS! If there
is one place the designers of this game have gone wrong, it is in allowing
all nations to recruit whatever type of troops they like. This inevitably
results in everybody recruiting hc or hi. Everybody who has read the books
knows that a Noldo Elf or a Gondorian Man was equal to at least 5 of the
toughest orcs.

Just look at the Battle of Helm's Deep, where Legolas the Elf and Gimle the
Dwarf have a competition to see who can kill the most enemies. Even when he
has run out of arrows, the unarmoured Legolas, wielding just a knife, kills
fully-armed orcs and Dunlendings with ease.

I have said before that the ideal solution is to give the Elves, Dwarves and
good (?) Men a qualitative superiority over their DS opponents. The DS
should be compensated by overwhelming numbers of inferior troops, reinforced
by a relatively modest number of wolf-riders, a smaller number of Uruk-hai,
and an even smaller number of trolls.

Tactics would then come into their own: can a modest number of elite FP cut
their way thru hordes of DS (who may have a company of Uruk-hai or a squad
of trolls in ambush)? Or will the DS overwhelm the FP by numbers?

This unfortunately is beyond Harlequin's remit so the best we can do is
juggle the starting figures. All credit to Harlequin for being prepared to
do this.

Regards,

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Bennett" <jasonab@acm.org>
To: <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Game 29

--- Richard John Devereux <devereux@lineone.net> wrote:

Neuts can only flip icon on invites. Meaning, the Freep or DS needs to
issue an invite order b4 a Neut can flip icons. Stupid just because a Neut
says he's converted, everyone has to accept it. No more Neuts grabbing
last minute glories.

b.e.

Neuts can only flip icon on invites. Meaning, the Freep or DS needs to
issue an invite order b4 a Neut can flip icons. Stupid just because a Neut
says he's converted, everyone has to accept it. No more Neuts grabbing
last minute glories.

b.e.

RD: I like this! The only problem being that the DS and FP could,
theoretically, agree not to Invite ANY of the neutrals to join in, thus
making it impossible for neuts ever to win.

Regards,

Richard.

Neuts can only flip icon on invites. Meaning, the Freep or DS needs to
issue an invite order b4 a Neut can flip icons. Stupid just because a Neut
says he's converted, everyone has to accept it. No more Neuts grabbing
last minute glories.

    I would have to agree with this as it encourages the neutrals to be a
bit more dinamic in their game diplomacy and not just sit there and wait to
see which way the game is going before a last minute switch after
acomplishing their various victory conditions.

I R

Char Maintenance & Bankruptcy !

Stupidest things I ever heard off.

I don't see Mexico or any third world nation disappearing off the face
of Earth just because their national debts are more than they can afford
to pay.

And which Nazgul serves the cause of Evil because he has a choice ?
So what the game is saying, "Hey, I want a raise Or I Quit !" Do Aragorn
and the Rangers serve their nation because "Hey, the pay is good !", :).

Exactly just what happens when one of the ones behind the game's design
is I.C.E.

MEPBM is almost a game of mathematics. Hey, I agree that war is all
about logistics and such but NOT ALL generals will quit because their
pay is late, some foolishly high notioned ones will actually fight for loyalty,
cause, etc etc, blah blah.

Char Maint ... Plain Stupid

Bankruptcy ? ... More Stupid

Okay, you're broke. So your troops will desert, you can't raise more troops,
etc etc etc, But Elimination ? Hmm, way too severe.

Some things I know are there because of what would result if not, also, it's
not a game of me-pbm anymore if we change the game, but me-pbm
should not call itself a me-pbm because it insults Tolkien's original work(s).

If you read LoTR, exactly how many chars in there works for a pay ?

Now maybe if you call 2950 the Hobbit scenario perhaps, after all the short
treasure seekers sought some rewards, but I still say, for the Dwarves, it
was more for fame and honour, while for Bilbo, ? adventure ?, Bard, survival,
etc. etc.

babbling b.e.

Stupidest things I ever heard off.

I don't see Mexico or any third world nation disappearing off the face
of Earth just because their national debts are more than they can afford
to pay.

Check out the anit-debt lobbies - it is happening. That's what cash crops
are "all" about.

Bankruptcy ? ... More Stupid

Okay, you're broke. So your troops will desert, you can't raise more

troops,

etc etc etc, But Elimination ? Hmm, way too severe.

Germany in the war went effectively broke (as did the UK) - effectively
eliminated from play?

Some things I know are there because of what would result if not, also,

it's

not a game of me-pbm anymore if we change the game, but me-pbm
should not call itself a me-pbm because it insults Tolkien's original

work(s).

It's a game - some mechanism for such things were brought in. I reckon it's
a dead cool mechanism. Most other PBMs have no real end and just ease on
into senility until everyone gets bored and just drops never to be seen
again.

Now maybe if you call 2950 the Hobbit scenario perhaps, after all the

short

treasure seekers sought some rewards, but I still say, for the Dwarves, it
was more for fame and honour, while for Bilbo, ? adventure ?, Bard,

survival,

etc. etc.

How would you put in a mechanism for removing nations from the game? (Or is
that concept not a good one?) Example: Tom Bombadil was effectively removed
from play. (Sans one encounter).

So in finale, although I think some of the characters would continue the
fight (some such as the Elves which decided to go to the Gray havens) the
nation itself would quit fighting. I guess that's what bribing is about.
if the mechanism was replaced what would it be replaced with?

babbling b.e.

Clint

Char Maintenance & Bankruptcy !

Stupidest things I ever heard off.

I don't see Mexico or any third world nation disappearing off the face
of Earth just because their national debts are more than they can afford
to pay.

RD: And, moreover, ME is a dark age/heroic age setting. The idea of the
peasant populace paying taxes in gold is nonsense. Wealth was held in LAND,
and the produce thereof, predominantly food. Dark age/ heroic age kings
were presented with tribute (not taxes!) by the populace in kind (livestock,
food of various kinds, ale, mead, clothing etc). The amount of mining of
any kind was so small as to have a microscopic part in the economy and gold
(in Europe at least) so small as to be negligible.

The concept of a National Debt wasn't invented till the 18th/19th century, I
think by William Pitt the Elder. The expression 'Third World' wasn't
invented until the 20th. It had always been there, just nobody had coined
the phrase.

And which Nazgul serves the cause of Evil because he has a choice ?
So what the game is saying, "Hey, I want a raise Or I Quit !" Do Aragorn
and the Rangers serve their nation because "Hey, the pay is good !", :).

RD: Right, Dan. The Nazgul are Sauron's slaves. Moreover they are wraiths,
so why the hell do they need to be fed or paid? And if the Nazgul were
slaves, so were the orcs/goblins. They might need to eat, but can you see
Sauron PAYING them? C'mon, be serious!

As late as the nineteenth century, Napoleon neither paid nor fed his
troops - he told them to live off the land. That was why Europe eventually
rose against him - his troops plundered anything they could carry away and
killed anyone who tried to stop them. It was also why the battle of
Waterloo started so late - the Allies were in position but the French were
out foraging!

Exactly just what happens when one of the ones behind the game's design
is I.C.E.

MEPBM is almost a game of mathematics. Hey, I agree that war is all
about logistics and such but NOT ALL generals will quit because their
pay is late, some foolishly high notioned ones will actually fight for

loyalty,

cause, etc etc, blah blah.

Char Maint ... Plain Stupid

Bankruptcy ? ... More Stupid

Okay, you're broke. So your troops will desert, you can't raise more

troops,

etc etc etc, But Elimination ? Hmm, way too severe.

RD: In the dark/heroic age, whether troops fought or deserted had bugger all
to do with money. Tolkien writes about an age when all free males were
EXPECTED to bear arms (as in both Celtic and Germanic societies)! There was
also something regrettably unfashionable today, called LOYALTY!

The king's warband comprised full-time warriors expected to fight to the
death, but the peasant levies were allowed to run away and serve the victor
the following year. Otherwise, there would be nobody left to tend the
fields!

Some things I know are there because of what would result if not, also,

it's

not a game of me-pbm anymore if we change the game, but me-pbm
should not call itself a me-pbm because it insults Tolkien's original

work(s).

If you read LoTR, exactly how many chars in there works for a pay ?

Now maybe if you call 2950 the Hobbit scenario perhaps, after all the

short

treasure seekers sought some rewards, but I still say, for the Dwarves, it
was more for fame and honour, while for Bilbo, ? adventure ?, Bard,

survival,

etc. etc.

babbling b.e.

RD: I agree with your criticisms. I believe SOME of them could be addressed
if DEFT or whoever has the will to do so. But I also think ME is basicly a
very good game which is why so many of us keep playing it. Keep plugging
away and sending in wish-lists and who knows, maybe DEFT will take notice.

Richard.

Clint Wrote,

> I don't see Mexico or any third world nation disappearing off the face
> of Earth just because their national debts are more than they can afford
> to pay.

Check out the anit-debt lobbies - it is happening. That's what cash crops
are "all" about.
>

What ? Sell of the Nation to another, sell off the population as slaves ?

> Okay, you're broke. So your troops will desert, you can't raise more
troops,
> etc etc etc, But Elimination ? Hmm, way too severe.

Germany in the war went effectively broke (as did the UK) - effectively
eliminated from play?
>

Being Broke won't stop wars, it's happening all over the world.

> Some things I know are there because of what would result if not, also,
it's
> not a game of me-pbm anymore if we change the game, but me-pbm
> should not call itself a me-pbm because it insults Tolkien's original
work(s).
>
It's a game - some mechanism for such things were brought in. I reckon it's
a dead cool mechanism. Most other PBMs have no real end and just ease on
into senility until everyone gets bored and just drops never to be seen
again.

I'm questioning the right of GSI to call me-pbm "me-pbm, based on the world
of Tolkien with Elves, Dwarves, ... etc etc".

What brought about the final demise of Germany & Japan ? Berlin was stormed,
Japan had it's cities Nuked.

How would you put in a mechanism for removing nations from the game? (Or is
that concept not a good one?) Example: Tom Bombadil was effectively removed
from play. (Sans one encounter).

Per Above, Capture the Flag, so to speak

RD: And, moreover, ME is a dark age/heroic age setting. The idea of the
peasant populace paying taxes in gold is nonsense. Wealth was held in LAND,
and the produce thereof, predominantly food. Dark age/ heroic age kings
were presented with tribute (not taxes!) by the populace in kind (livestock,
food of various kinds, ale, mead, clothing etc). The amount of mining of
any kind was so small as to have a microscopic part in the economy and gold
(in Europe at least) so small as to be negligible.

The concept of a National Debt wasn't invented till the 18th/19th century, I
think by William Pitt the Elder. The expression 'Third World' wasn't
invented until the 20th. It had always been there, just nobody had coined
the phrase.
>
> And which Nazgul serves the cause of Evil because he has a choice ?
> So what the game is saying, "Hey, I want a raise Or I Quit !" Do Aragorn
> and the Rangers serve their nation because "Hey, the pay is good !", :).

RD: Right, Dan. The Nazgul are Sauron's slaves. Moreover they are wraiths,
so why the hell do they need to be fed or paid? And if the Nazgul were
slaves, so were the orcs/goblins. They might need to eat, but can you see
Sauron PAYING them? C'mon, be serious!

As late as the nineteenth century, Napoleon neither paid nor fed his
troops - he told them to live off the land. That was why Europe eventually
rose against him - his troops plundered anything they could carry away and
killed anyone who tried to stop them. It was also why the battle of
Waterloo started so late - the Allies were in position but the French were
out foraging!
>
RD: In the dark/heroic age, whether troops fought or deserted had bugger all
to do with money. Tolkien writes about an age when all free males were
EXPECTED to bear arms (as in both Celtic and Germanic societies)! There was
also something regrettably unfashionable today, called LOYALTY!

The king's warband comprised full-time warriors expected to fight to the
death, but the peasant levies were allowed to run away and serve the victor
the following year. Otherwise, there would be nobody left to tend the
fields!
>
RD: I agree with your criticisms. I believe SOME of them could be addressed
if DEFT or whoever has the will to do so. But I also think ME is basicly a
very good game which is why so many of us keep playing it. Keep plugging
away and sending in wish-lists and who knows, maybe DEFT will take notice.

Richard.

GSI may have bought the rights, but they have no right to abuse that right by
using Tolkien's works as a gimmick or publicity stint to attract people to
play their game. It's a good game, me-pbm, but using Tolkien's name to
attract his loyal fans into playing a game that's nothing to do with his world
of Middle-Earth except in using the map and character names.

Short run may attract customers, long run, you chase off dozens and dozens
of tolkiens' fans who are put-off by it.

Heard the rights is now open, how about someone create a real pbem that
really has something to do with Tolkien's world ?.

ME-PBM, should classify itself as a quite good strategy / wargame pbm and
should not abuse their ME rights.

rgds

ever more babbling b.e.

···

From: Richard John Devereux <devereux@lineone.net> wrote,

You're not really correct here. Even the pre-Roman Britons were minting
their own coinage. In England, there has only been a brief period round
about the 5th Century when coinage was not in regular circulation. And
it was used then on the continent. A lot of silver of course, rather
then gold.

It is right to say that tithes were calculated in produce, and labour.
But as time went on, more and more coin was paid in lieu of the goods.
A very poor geezer gave his labour, slightly better off gave goods,
peasant who could get his own goods to market gave coin, knights and
monasteries, were often receiving goods and labour, but paying coin on
to the next tier Earl's Dukes Bishops etc.

MEPBM actually reflects this mixed economy very well, your pops are
bringing in gold and produce. The produce you use or sell for more
gold.
Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

···

Richard John Devereux <devereux@lineone.net> wrote

RD: And, moreover, ME is a dark age/heroic age setting. The idea of the
peasant populace paying taxes in gold is nonsense. Wealth was held in LAND,
and the produce thereof, predominantly food. Dark age/ heroic age kings
were presented with tribute (not taxes!) by the populace in kind (livestock,
food of various kinds, ale, mead, clothing etc). The amount of mining of
any kind was so small as to have a microscopic part in the economy and gold
(in Europe at least) so small as to be negligible.

> > Some things I know are there because of what would result if not,

also,

> it's
> > not a game of me-pbm anymore if we change the game, but me-pbm
> > should not call itself a me-pbm because it insults Tolkien's original
> work(s).
> >
I'm questioning the right of GSI to call me-pbm "me-pbm, based on the

world

of Tolkien with Elves, Dwarves, ... etc etc".

How can it be insulting - it has a lot of similarlity to the books in a game
form. Would you say that the Boardgame of LoTR is not accurate because the
hobbits went a different route and their characterisation was not the same
(sorry should that be halflings?)?! And that movement was tallied in
"units" that sort of thing? They are just mechanisms to represent the game
some closer to the "reality" of the book than others. :slight_smile:

What brought about the final demise of Germany & Japan ? Berlin was

stormed,

Japan had it's cities Nuked.

Yeh it had already lost it's economic base (factories destroyed, Bombing of
Bremen etc) and most of its fighting force destroyed. (In game terms no
effective recrutiing centres, hence no armies). Japan was all ready to
concede defeat (from my history) and the 100,000s people dying from what was
effectively a no defence weapon. They had already been beaten. (Curse
squad in ME?)

Sorry that this was brought into real world politics - apologies for any
offence caused - none intended.

> How would you put in a mechanism for removing nations from the game?

(Or is

> that concept not a good one?) Example: Tom Bombadil was effectively

removed

> from play. (Sans one encounter).
>
Per Above, Capture the Flag, so to speak

What flag? Capital - very quick game that way? I like that there is
actually a reason to control or even destroy PCs of your opponents -
excellent strategy opportunities (which is what ME is really about as a
wargame) just from that mechanism alone. This is then represented by having
a money total.

Ah well we are all welcome to our diverse and often different opinions on
this... :slight_smile:

Clint

>RD: And, moreover, ME is a dark age/heroic age setting. The idea of the
>peasant populace paying taxes in gold is nonsense. Wealth was held in

LAND,

>and the produce thereof, predominantly food. Dark age/ heroic age kings
>were presented with tribute (not taxes!) by the populace in kind

(livestock,

>food of various kinds, ale, mead, clothing etc). The amount of mining of
>any kind was so small as to have a microscopic part in the economy and

gold

>(in Europe at least) so small as to be negligible.
You're not really correct here. Even the pre-Roman Britons were minting
their own coinage.

RD: Whoa! Can you quote some evidence for that? I thought (but I confess I
didn't check) that coinage only came in with the Romans.

In England, there has only been a brief period round

about the 5th Century when coinage was not in regular circulation. And
it was used then on the continent. A lot of silver of course, rather
then gold.

RD: Correct, but I see Tolkien's 'Heroic Age' world equating to a time way
before the Romans, ie, an age equivelant to when the Fir Bolg and the
Fomorii and the Tuatha de Danaan were struggling for mastery in Ireland,
when Agememnon laid siege to Troy over a woman, and the gods of both sides
joined in the fighting!

···

Richard John Devereux <devereux@lineone.net> wrote

It is right to say that tithes were calculated in produce, and labour.
But as time went on, more and more coin was paid in lieu of the goods.
A very poor geezer gave his labour, slightly better off gave goods,
peasant who could get his own goods to market gave coin, knights and
monasteries, were often receiving goods and labour, but paying coin on
to the next tier Earl's Dukes Bishops etc.

MEPBM actually reflects this mixed economy very well, your pops are
bringing in gold and produce. The produce you use or sell for more
gold.
Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm

Excellent article in Coin Yearbook 2000 Spink Publications "Celtic
Coinage of Britain". They were issued for a century and a half before
the Roman invasion, and of course you have the best possible evidence -
you can go see some in any coin museum.

Earliest coins of all of course were Greek, the first stamped ones
(rather than plain discs) attributed to the Lydians.

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

···

Richard John Devereux <devereux@lineone.net> wrote

>RD: And, moreover, ME is a dark age/heroic age setting. The idea of the
>peasant populace paying taxes in gold is nonsense. Wealth was held in

LAND,

>and the produce thereof, predominantly food. Dark age/ heroic age kings
>were presented with tribute (not taxes!) by the populace in kind

(livestock,

>food of various kinds, ale, mead, clothing etc). The amount of mining of
>any kind was so small as to have a microscopic part in the economy and

gold

>(in Europe at least) so small as to be negligible.
You're not really correct here. Even the pre-Roman Britons were minting
their own coinage.

RD: Whoa! Can you quote some evidence for that? I thought (but I confess I
didn't check) that coinage only came in with the Romans.