Hi Clint,
I think the position Blind Sorcerer shall get the SNA: Spell "Weakness"
instead of the useless Conjure Hordes. This will make the (weak) nation
more fun.
In LA there are no curses artifacts (4the age module). In normal games the
Blind Sorcerer most times go for curses!
And the Dark nations will have gold-problems early on. Especially the ones
with very high character/fortifications cost, e.g.: Dragon Lord !
Reg,
Marcus
We don't want to make too many changes - but Weakness could be one.
Clint
I think the position Blind Sorcerer shall get the SNA: Spell "Weakness"
instead of the useless Conjure Hordes. This will make the (weak) nation
more fun.
In LA there are no curses artifacts (4the age module). In normal games the
Blind Sorcerer most times go for curses!And the Dark nations will have gold-problems early on. Especially the ones
with very high character/fortifications cost, e.g.: Dragon Lord !Reg,
MarcusMiddle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
We don't want to make too many changes - but Weakness could be one.
Clint
RD: Clint, I wish you would rule that you won't make ANY changes without
good reason. OK, there is a case for Nor to start with an E40. If you want
to go with that, then either deduct 10 from another Nor char's rank, or
compensate by giving QAv an A40, or DrL a +10 to one of their mages, but not
both.
You are in grave danger here of opening the floodgates to a deluge of player
requests.
Please remember, I've modelled LA stats VERY closely on 1650, because we
KNOW those stats give a balanced game. If you mess about with it too much
it won't be balanced and it won't be LA either. I have spent a HUGE amount
of research, thought, time and effort designing this variant. One or two
tweaks I can live with, but not wholesale changes at the whim of players
some of whom, with respect, have not considered the effects of such changes
outside the one nation they are interested in.
You say you don't want to make too many changes - please stick to it.
Richard.
> I think the position Blind Sorcerer shall get the SNA: Spell "Weakness"
> instead of the useless Conjure Hordes. This will make the (weak) nation
> more fun.
> In LA there are no curses artifacts (4the age module). In normal games
the
> Blind Sorcerer most times go for curses!
>
> And the Dark nations will have gold-problems early on. Especially the
ones
> with very high character/fortifications cost, e.g.: Dragon Lord !
>
> Reg,
> Marcus
>
>
> 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/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Middle Earth PBM Games" <me@MiddleEarthGames.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Last Alliance
>
>
>Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No worries. DrL +10 Mage, NM E40 - is that okay with everyone?
Clint
RD: Clint, I wish you would rule that you won't make ANY changes without
good reason. OK, there is a case for Nor to start with an E40. If you
want
to go with that, then either deduct 10 from another Nor char's rank, or
compensate by giving QAv an A40, or DrL a +10 to one of their mages, but
not
both.
No worries. DrL +10 Mage, NM E40 - is that okay with everyone?
Clint
RD: Fine with me. Please advise which characters, thanks.
Richard.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Middle Earth PBM Games" <me@MiddleEarthGames.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 12:32 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Last Alliance
> RD: Clint, I wish you would rule that you won't make ANY changes without
> good reason. OK, there is a case for Nor to start with an E40. If you
want
> to go with that, then either deduct 10 from another Nor char's rank, or
> compensate by giving QAv an A40, or DrL a +10 to one of their mages, but
not
> both.
>Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Richard John Devereux wrote:
RD: Clint, I wish you would rule that you won't make ANY changes without
good reason. OK, there is a case for Nor to start with an E40. If you want
to go with that, then either deduct 10 from another Nor char's rank, or
compensate by giving QAv an A40, or DrL a +10 to one of their mages, but not
both.
Perhaps you missed the thread last month, but there are only 4 nations
who lack the special characters they are supposed to be so good at
producing - Northmen, QA, Duns, and IIRC Arthedain. That's right,
*both* of the emissary 'specialists' lack decent emissaries to start;
several nations lack decent emissaries, period. These weaknesses should
be corrected in any scenario, including FA.
Please remember, I've modelled LA stats VERY closely on 1650, because we
KNOW those stats give a balanced game.
No, they don't; we've had this discussion as well. The DS have a clear,
if not necessarily huge, advantage overall; certain nations have a gross
advantage or handicap which cannot be explained away by random chance or
player ability. If you have modeled on 1650, you have duplicated its
flaws as well.
-ED \1/
> RD: Clint, I wish you would rule that you won't make ANY changes without
> good reason. OK, there is a case for Nor to start with an E40. If you
want
> to go with that, then either deduct 10 from another Nor char's rank, or
> compensate by giving QAv an A40, or DrL a +10 to one of their mages, but
not
> both.
>
Perhaps you missed the thread last month, but there are only 4 nations
who lack the special characters they are supposed to be so good at
producing - Northmen, QA, Duns, and IIRC Arthedain. That's right,
*both* of the emissary 'specialists' lack decent emissaries to start;
several nations lack decent emissaries, period. These weaknesses should
be corrected in any scenario, including FA.
RD: I'm not usually one to defend GSI, but perhaps these 'weaknesses' were
intentional, to compel players to build up slowly instead of racing ahead in
theiur specialist field.
> Please remember, I've modelled LA stats VERY closely on 1650, because we
> KNOW those stats give a balanced game.
>
No, they don't; we've had this discussion as well. The DS have a clear,
if not necessarily huge, advantage overall; certain nations have a gross
advantage or handicap which cannot be explained away by random chance or
player ability. If you have modeled on 1650, you have duplicated its
flaws as well.-ED \1/
RD: Sorry, I disagree. There is a school of thought, apparently the most
vocal if not a majority, who PERCEIVE that the DS have an advantage in 1650.
Against that, arguments have been put forward that:
1) DS win more often because most experienced players prefer to play DS
2) DS win more often because most the neutrals are heavily predisposed to DS
so most of them go DS most of the time
3) It doesn't matter a damn whether DS have a perceived advantage or not,
all other things being equal the better team will win regardless.
The debate has never been decided conclusively and probably never will be.
It's all a matter of perception.
I retract what I said about 1650 being a balanced game. Let me substitute,
as I said in my introduction to LA, 'familiar imbalance.' 1650 it is
without doubt the most popular ME scenario, so it seemed sensible when
designing LA to juggle the 1650 stats within each allegiance rather than
make up a new set from scratch. Hell, if I'd done that, players could argue
about them till Kingdom come and the game would never get off the ground!
Regards,
Richard.
Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Hi there
From what I can gather Richard has put a lot of work and thought into
this scenario and it would be unfair to his work to tweak and change
it before it has even been tried out!
I don't think you can compare the Last Alliance scenario to 1650
games, there are simply too many nation changes both characterwise and
locationwise - so changing things in this scenario, because they don't
completely work in 1650, makes no real sense.
Everyone in this game knows (or should know) that it's experimental,
and that the only way to find out how it works is to play it; then we
can discuss what's good and what is bad about it.
42!
42 is the answer to life, the universe and everything!
--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Edward A. Dimmick" <dukefenton@e...> wrote:
Richard John Devereux wrote:
>
>
> RD: Clint, I wish you would rule that you won't make ANY changes
without
> good reason. OK, there is a case for Nor to start with an E40.
If you want
> to go with that, then either deduct 10 from another Nor char's
rank, or
> compensate by giving QAv an A40, or DrL a +10 to one of their
mages, but not
> both.
>
Perhaps you missed the thread last month, but there are only 4 nations
who lack the special characters they are supposed to be so good at
producing - Northmen, QA, Duns, and IIRC Arthedain. That's right,
*both* of the emissary 'specialists' lack decent emissaries to start;
several nations lack decent emissaries, period. These weaknesses should
be corrected in any scenario, including FA.> Please remember, I've modelled LA stats VERY closely on 1650,
because we
> KNOW those stats give a balanced game.
>
No, they don't; we've had this discussion as well. The DS have a clear,
if not necessarily huge, advantage overall; certain nations have a gross
advantage or handicap which cannot be explained away by random chance or
player ability. If you have modeled on 1650, you have duplicated its
flaws as well.-ED \1/
Richard John Devereux wrote:
RD: I'm not usually one to defend GSI, but perhaps these 'weaknesses' were
intentional, to compel players to build up slowly instead of racing ahead in
theiur specialist field.
Or maybe they are mistakes whose consequences were not apparent at the
time. Which, I ask you, is more typical of human nature, hm?
RD: Sorry, I disagree. There is a school of thought, apparently the most
vocal if not a majority, who PERCEIVE that the DS have an advantage in 1650.
The historical record supports that argument.
-ED \1/
Richard John Devereux wrote:
>
>
> RD: I'm not usually one to defend GSI, but perhaps these 'weaknesses'
were
> intentional, to compel players to build up slowly instead of racing
ahead in
> theiur specialist field.
>
Or maybe they are mistakes whose consequences were not apparent at the
time. Which, I ask you, is more typical of human nature, hm?> RD: Sorry, I disagree. There is a school of thought, apparently the
most
> vocal if not a majority, who PERCEIVE that the DS have an advantage in
1650.
>
The historical record supports that argument.-ED \1/
RD: Disagree. You haven't answered any one of the alternative explanations.
But I'm not going to bother arguing about this any more either, as it's
obviously futile.
Richard.
arth and Harlequin Games
----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward A. Dimmick" <dukefenton@earthlink.net>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 6:10 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Last Alliance
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/