Last Alliance

mepbmlist
#1

I agree. The arguments have been about minor matters. Does anyone really
care whether the DS get to start with one palantir or not? For the matter of
game balance I think it works, whether it is historically accurate or not.
If you want to put in another context, it can simulate Sauron's ability to
<see> beyond normal human efforts. This scenario is after the downfall of
Numenor when Sauron's "fair form" was destroyed and though the "Eye' was not
yet Sauron's form, there can be no doubt that Sauron had means of acquiring
intellingence that defy plain eyesight, especially as he holds the One Ring.
Most of the commentary has indicated that the FP have the upper hand so why
not give the DS ONE palantir. Personally, since Richard has basically
duplicated the 1650 army strengths but has increased the FP pop center base,
I feel this should be a fairly even scenario. We'll see after its played a
couple of times.
Instead of arguing and making personal attacks, everyone should be praising
Richard (and Harly) for his tremendous effort in getting this scenario
together at all. It was a lot of work and he obviously paid a lot of
attention to the information available to try to make a scenario that is
both historically accurate and (hopefully) playable and balanced.-Tom
MacCabe

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Laurence G. Tilley <laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk>
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Saturday, April 14, 2001 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Last Alliance

Aaruman <aaruman@orions.net> wrote

Please don't assume that silence means consent. I (and quite possibly

others)

haven't
joined the discussion, not necessarily because we agree with you, but

because

there
seemed little point in doing so. You don't seem to want to alter "your

scenario"

in
any way.

I think you're being unfair on him. The LA scenario is no different to
two other non-standard variations that I'm playing, one with pop changes
my Mike Sankey, one with changes by Richard. The only difference is
that for LA, Clint posted all the data here before starting the game.

And that's where we have a problem. I think Clint was unclear in asking
for comments. What's needed at this stage is ONLY serious objections,
not a free-for-all invitation to suggest multiple minor tweaks. If we
do that, the LA games will never get started.

The situation is quite different, to say, the 2nd ed. discussions, which
were based on a hypothetical revamping of the game.

If you'd like a more democratically constructed variation, then why not
start one? Have a period of collecting everyone's ideas, then debate to
your heart's content - BUT sooner or later, you, or somebody, has to
round up, and say "Right this is the finished proposal, unless there are
serious objections, we're going to play." That's the stage that LA is
at.

Regards,

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

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/

#2

I agree. The arguments have been about minor matters. Does anyone really
care whether the DS get to start with one palantir or not? For the matter

of

game balance I think it works, whether it is historically accurate or not.
If you want to put in another context, it can simulate Sauron's ability to
<see> beyond normal human efforts. This scenario is after the downfall of
Numenor when Sauron's "fair form" was destroyed and though the "Eye' was

not

yet Sauron's form, there can be no doubt that Sauron had means of

acquiring

intellingence that defy plain eyesight, especially as he holds the One

Ring.

Most of the commentary has indicated that the FP have the upper hand so

why

not give the DS ONE palantir. Personally, since Richard has basically
duplicated the 1650 army strengths but has increased the FP pop center

base,

I feel this should be a fairly even scenario. We'll see after its played a
couple of times.
Instead of arguing and making personal attacks, everyone should be

praising

Richard (and Harly) for his tremendous effort in getting this scenario
together at all. It was a lot of work and he obviously paid a lot of
attention to the information available to try to make a scenario that is
both historically accurate and (hopefully) playable and balanced.-Tom
MacCabe

RD: Thank you Tom, and Laurence.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sharon MacCabe" <tbm@erols.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Last Alliance

-----Original Message-----
From: Laurence G. Tilley <laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk>
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Saturday, April 14, 2001 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Last Alliance

>Aaruman <aaruman@orions.net> wrote
>>Please don't assume that silence means consent. I (and quite possibly
others)
>>haven't
>>joined the discussion, not necessarily because we agree with you, but
because
>>there
>>seemed little point in doing so. You don't seem to want to alter "your
scenario"
>>in
>>any way.
>I think you're being unfair on him. The LA scenario is no different to
>two other non-standard variations that I'm playing, one with pop changes
>my Mike Sankey, one with changes by Richard. The only difference is
>that for LA, Clint posted all the data here before starting the game.
>
>And that's where we have a problem. I think Clint was unclear in asking
>for comments. What's needed at this stage is ONLY serious objections,
>not a free-for-all invitation to suggest multiple minor tweaks. If we
>do that, the LA games will never get started.
>
>The situation is quite different, to say, the 2nd ed. discussions, which
>were based on a hypothetical revamping of the game.
>
>If you'd like a more democratically constructed variation, then why not
>start one? Have a period of collecting everyone's ideas, then debate to
>your heart's content - BUT sooner or later, you, or somebody, has to
>round up, and say "Right this is the finished proposal, unless there are
>serious objections, we're going to play." That's the stage that LA is
>at.
>
>Regards,
>
>Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
>
>
>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/
>
>

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/

#3

I HOPE that you are not saying that anyone who disagrees must be making personal
attacks. Just to clarify the situation, let me spell out the sequence of events, as I
saw them.

1. Clint ASKED FOR COMMENTS regarding the LA scenario.
2. People began making comments and suggestions, a few of which Clint responded
favorably to.
3. Richard began shooting down most suggestions, and even suggested to Clint that he
not institute some of the suggestions that he had previously responded favorably to.
realize that people who have worked long and hard on something may see someone
suggesting changes as an attack on their efforts, and get defensive. However, Clint
did ask.
4. When someone took issue with this, Richard's response was that "no one else is
complaining, so no one else must have an issue with this" (and I'm paraphrasing, as I
don't have the message anymore).
5. Since the assumption that "silence equals consent" is patently untrue, I felt the
need to point this out, as well as my reasons for not responding earlier and my
current lack of interest in the LA scenario.

Now, I'm sure that Richard has done a lot of work on this new scenario, and I am all
for increased variety and options using the MePBM system, so I do applaud his efforts,
and the efforts of anyone else willing to help. While I do appreciate these efforts,
that does NOT mean that I should not point out mistaken assumptions. However, doing so
wasn't meant as a personal attack and if it sounded like one, then I apologize.

Mike Mulka

···

From my perspective, this seemed like he wasn't willing to accept any suggestions. I

------Original Message-----
-From: Sharon MacCabe [mailto:tbm@erols.com]
-Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 5:27 AM
-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
-Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Last Alliance
-
-Instead of arguing and making personal attacks, everyone should be praising
-Richard (and Harly) for his tremendous effort in getting this scenario
-together at all. It was a lot of work and he obviously paid a lot of
-attention to the information available to try to make a scenario that is
-both historically accurate and (hopefully) playable and balanced.-Tom
-MacCabe

#4

I HOPE that you are not saying that anyone who disagrees must be making

personal

attacks. Just to clarify the situation, let me spell out the sequence of

events, as I

saw them.

1. Clint ASKED FOR COMMENTS regarding the LA scenario.
2. People began making comments and suggestions, a few of which Clint

responded

favorably to.
3. Richard began shooting down most suggestions, and even suggested to

Clint that he

not institute some of the suggestions that he had previously responded

favorably to.

From my perspective, this seemed like he wasn't willing to accept any

suggestions. I

realize that people who have worked long and hard on something may see

someone

suggesting changes as an attack on their efforts, and get defensive.

However, Clint

did ask.

RD: Yes, I agree with all this so far. I happily shot down any ideas I
wasn't happy with. I didn't just throw LA together in 5 minutes, I re-read
every relevant Tolkien book and looked up every damn stat in the ME game
before putting LA forward.

So you will have to forgive me if I adopted a defensive attitidude to people
who said 'why not do xyz?' without considering the overall effect on the
game.

I did agree to the only constructive suggestion I have seen so far, giving
Nor an E40 and a +10 to either QAv or DrL.

I've only been queried on ONE item of Tolkienic 'history', the fate of the
palantir of Minas Ithil in late SA. The simple fact is, Tolkien doesn't say
whether it was rescued by the FP or captured by the DS. Therefore, when
designing the LA game, I had to make a choice. I could argue various clues
but none are conclusive. What really got my goat was that my solitary
critic on this issue wouldn't even admit the possibility that his
interpretation might possibly be wrong. I admit, I might be wrong, but
we'll never know, and as game designer, I had to make a decision. Am I
supposed to change the game because one person doesn't agree?

4. When someone took issue with this, Richard's response was that "no one

else is

complaining, so no one else must have an issue with this" (and I'm

paraphrasing, as I

don't have the message anymore).
5. Since the assumption that "silence equals consent" is patently untrue,

I felt the

need to point this out, as well as my reasons for not responding earlier

and my

current lack of interest in the LA scenario.

Now, I'm sure that Richard has done a lot of work on this new scenario,

and I am all

for increased variety and options using the MePBM system, so I do applaud

his efforts,

and the efforts of anyone else willing to help. While I do appreciate

these efforts,

that does NOT mean that I should not point out mistaken assumptions.

However, doing so

wasn't meant as a personal attack and if it sounded like one, then I

apologize.

Mike Mulka

RD: No apology needed from you, Mike. If people think I've got something
wrong, by all means tell me. Just don't get upset when I defend what I
believe!

Richard.

-From: Sharon MacCabe [mailto:tbm@erols.com]
-Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 5:27 AM
-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
-Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Last Alliance
-
-Instead of arguing and making personal attacks, everyone should be

praising

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaruman" <aaruman@orions.net>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 4:27 PM
Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] Re: Last Alliance

------Original Message-----
-Richard (and Harly) for his tremendous effort in getting this scenario
-together at all. It was a lot of work and he obviously paid a lot of
-attention to the information available to try to make a scenario that is
-both historically accurate and (hopefully) playable and balanced.-Tom
-MacCabe

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/