Oh what the heck, might as well throw my 3 cents (inflation is back) into
the mix. I'll go off of the list below, as my brain can't even begin to sort
all the other emails this thread has generated.
Some of you will remember, this proposed revision thread leads back to a
previous one, where everyone and their half-orc brother wanted this or that
nation modified, because one side (the Free usually) had a perceived
advantage over another. When we had last left that thread, Clint had agreed
to gather the actual real data on how many times a certain side had won in
1650 and 2950, and which nations typically came in first thru third.
Remember this Clint? I would still wish to see this info before we start
thinking about a 2nd edition of ME. No sense in throwing the baby out with
the bath water.
Before I begin with my ideas, I will state that I had knee surgery done
Monday and am on Lortabs (prescribed) and rum (needed). So if any of this
sounds loony, I can blame the drugs, rum, or both. 
I am only going to look at 1650, as this is the only game I will play. Call
it personal perference.
Starting characters and abilities -
Stay at 21, good players can generally deal with the detail needed in
nation planning. You don't need a "special" character that is immune to
actions. If you are being hit by companies, there are ways around this. And
if you get hit by several nations against your own and die, that is part of
the game. No one wins every game.
There are a few nations that could greatly benefit from some changes.
The Northmen are one that needs help. Can we all agree that the Northmen are
typically a punching bag in 1650? Why does a nation that has a nation bonus
to create E40s have no emmys? Give them one so that they have a chance to
reposition their nation and survive. Other than that, they have to be
diplomatic and point out to their allies to the west that if they fall, guess
who is next.
The Woodmen could certainly use a character with a 30 agent skill.
Another perceived punching bag, just adding this little change could give
them a little more leverage when it comes to convincing their allies to help
the Woodmen.
Give the poor QA a 40 emissary. The punching bag of the south, the only
nation really at the total mercy of his neighbors, give him a fighting chance
should the neutrals turn on him early.
I do not agree with this notion floating around that all elves should
have stealth, or all trolls should have double healing, etc, etc. The elven
nations already are potential powerhouses IF played intelligently. And do we
really need to beef up some of the DS armies? It seems what people are
talking about is adding a totally new data file for buying racial types with
differing costs, modified troop types with differing costs, and changing the
per turn maintenance costs of some units. This would be a totally new game
and could dramatically change the game balance and playability of many
nations. Let's try to not mimic other games out there, Middle earth stands
up well as it is.
A couple of other changes I would make.
Give the Corsairs a few more warships. Everyone thinks that navies have
little useful purpose. And everyone knows that if the Free are on the ball,
even if the Corsairs, Harad, and QA combine their fleets, the Free will win.
Yes the Corsairs can move across open ocean. But they still lose ships to
pirates, monsters, etc. But if the Corsairs can force the Free to think
about invasions, assuming they join the DS, suddenly naval planning has to be
considered. And if the Corsairs join the Free, the equaion against the DS
hasn't changed as they Corsairs still have the same amount of transports to
move into Mordor with.
Give the Easterlings a fortified MT in the north. How many Free write
off the Easterlings as lost to the DS on turn zero? But what if the
Easterlings had a viable option of going Free? Wouldn't that help game
balance?
Troop types should be looked at and overhauled. We can all think of a
situation where this or that troop type might come into play. But as a
general rule, you will only make either HI or HC. The rules seem to have
been set up to where maintenance costs would dictate that lower troop costs
would be useful. But the battle modifiers don't justify the use of lighter
troop types. Changing the terrain modifiers would help to balance this. But
care should be used to prevent this from changing the overall game balance.
Rhudaur could become an absolute powerhouse, if all of the sudden it's troops
ruled in rough country.
Changing the battle system is also an option. Several games have a
Artillery, Missile, and hand-to-hand phase. And those armies without arty or
missile fire suffer greatly from their opponent's fire. Whether or not this
would be too great a change would have to be tested out in playtesting. But
it might make archers and seige weapons more useful.
New spells would be nice. A spell that allows evasive movement with the
normal double movement penalty, on land and sea, that would be interesting to
see. Conjure armor, conjure weapons, and conjure production have
possibilies. Dispel Magic (cast on a specific character) would put a hurt on
an army counting on that certain spell going off. Everyone can come up with
other ideas from all the fantasy games and books they have experienced.
Forget changing the way armies disband if you lose a challenge. That is
part of the game balance. You have a choice to refuse, no one holds a gun to
a commander's head and says step into the ring. If you REALLY want to keep
that army in ST/ST, when in doubt refuse. And if you get sand-bagged by a
hidden challenger, you have just learned the value of scouting ahead and
casting Divine Characters with army.
I like the idea of being able to loot enemy armor and weapons. If I have
an army of naked HI, and we just whacked an army in ST, do you really think
we would just ignore all those nice weapons laying around?
DON'T change the caravans to real travel time! The "gain" in added
"realism" certainly isn't worth the pain and suffering. I suspect that
someone who would advocate that change has never played the Eothraim or WK.
Here comes one that we all have mulled over, changing or randomizing the
encounter tables. Three choices, reset them once, reset them periodically,
or reset them every game. Think long and hard about this. You could really
upset game balance.
The main balance the DS have against the greater economic and recruit
base of the Free is dragons, with a secondary of grabbing agent and Curse
artifacts. If all the sudden, the DS have the potential of losing their
characters trying to place camps in mountains or in their starting pops, and
can't get dragons readily, you have just auto-killed the WK and Dragon Lord.
Dragons are often the only thing between a quick exit and hanging on for
these nations. And here is a news flash, there is a way to get rid of
dragons.
If you change the artifacts every game, they will be either ignored (too
much time for too little gain), or it will come down to a luck ball roll when
someone finds an great artifact. Think about it, the time to go up and down
the list, research artifact spells you would cast, is this really a "gain" to
the game?
What you may want to consider is tweaking a few artifacts to give them
higher bonuses against dragons, adding riddles to the data base, beefing up
the spirits, etc,. Face it, any game that has been around a while will have
it's "secrets" out on player data bases. At least in our game, even tyros
have access to them.
Changing a few of the NPC's to be recruitable MIGHT be useful. Right
now, Galadriel and Celeborn are really only useful as walking artifact
holders. But if you are going to do this, do it for both sides. Wouldn't
you like to have a Balrog?
Randomizing pop center placement comes under the heading of changing the
game balance. How would you like to get a set-up that just moved your pop
centers within a one turn move of your enemy? Once again, what actual gain
is this to the game?
Skill increases should have a greater chance of gain if there is greater
risk. If you pull off a 1:3 challenge, you should have a greater chance at a
10 point gain than a 1 point wiff. And vice versa.
Moving the map would make it more interesting for some nations that are
often not near the main battle area. It would also help make up for losing a
nation's map due to a drop out. How often have you seen a novice get the
Eothraim or Northmen, think they know everything, and go under by turn 5 or
10.
Many other changes have been proposed. But what many people seem to
forget is this is in large part a TEAM game. No nation is meant to stand
alone. Every nation has drawbacks, and must rely on it's allies to help them
overcome these deficiencies. Almost every action has a counter to defeat it,
curses being a big exception.
To start tinkering with every nation because you got killed playing this
position is not a just reason. This game was designed to promote teamwork,
and if your allies don't help, you WILL die. Don't start changing every
nation because of poor play by you or your allies. There are a few tweaks
that would help correct some of the issues the playtesting missed. But
Middle Earth 1650 is still a great game, one that I have played for years and
still wish to spend my money on.
Feel free to blast away.
Mark Ferris
Message: 9
···
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:30:33 -0000
From: "Middle Earth PBM Games" <me@MiddleEarthGames.com>
Subject: Re: Game Modifications
I don't know what can be done (we don't have access to the code). But I
have an understanding of what there is at present. The feeling I am getting
so far is that; Change would be good - Troops, Spells, Items, Encounters the
main bone of contention with a split on 947/8 orders.
Realism good but not at the cost of playablitiy.
1-Starting Character Abilities (closer to ICE MERP realism..?)
Who has the rights to these?
2-Nation Special Abilities (Racially differentiated..?)
Very much interested in "cheesing" up the nations
3-Troop Terrain Modifiers (Archers in the plains...LI in the rough...?)
*** Yes
4-New Capital Orders (Clint mentioned a 946...?)
(*** or new orders in general - Rob Pegg mentioned the 946 order I think)
5-New Spells (Someone had some interesting ideas..?)
*** Lots of variety here
6-Moving the Map
*** Can't see why this cannot be implemented in 1650
7-Caravan movement costs
*** Not a fan of this myself as it would slow the game and change it a lot -
normally you get a last minute panicy - "I lost my capital/army when I
wasn't expecting it now I am in a very bad way and need assistance NOW" type
message - it's hard to guess what situation you'll be in at the end of the
turn never mind two turns down the line.
8-Skill increase adjustments (more for harder orders..?)
** Not a fan - convince me
9-Agent/Guard adjustments
*** ?
10-Troop Racial Modifiers (Combat worth AND recruiting allowances)
*** Nations modifiers?
11-Randomized encounter/dragon responses
*** Sounds interesting.
12-Randomized Pop Center placement
** not so sure - maybe half and half?
13-Recruitable NPC's
*** And other chunky bits new to the game?
We have been asked for input on a "questionnaire" of sorts.
** Yes please
It's about now where a relatively detailed summary of what Harlequin CAN
and CANNOT do
would be useful, to help keep us on track.
** See above.
Clint