Here's another idea to simplify and speed up the game. Make orders 180 &
185 (up and down relations) cover up to 10 nations instead of just one.
These orders are real time-wasters as they stand.
Richard.
If you reduce them to 1 order then why bother? In
fact, diplomacy takes effort.
Middle Earth diplomacy was never easy for the Free
and neutrals (the dwarves and elves never could
develop much trust for one another and MEPBM doesn't
even come close to approximating this).
On the other hand, the Dark Servants were always on
"friendly" terms to start with (Sauron had a much
easier time managing his nations). Perhaps it would
make things more challenging if the Dark Ones all
start off as "friendly", Dwarves and Elves start as
"disliked", and everyone else is as the game depicts.
Joseph
--- Richard John Devereux <devereux@lineone.net>
wrote:
···
Here's another idea to simplify and speed up the
game. Make orders 180 &
185 (up and down relations) cover up to 10 nations
instead of just one.
These orders are real time-wasters as they stand.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Richard does have a point. When playing Rhudaur, for example, and wanting
to make an early declaration you lose untold numbers of turns using your
best commander to downgrade potential enemies -
Noldo/Arthedain/Cardolan/Dwarves/Woodmen. Absolutely scandalous - 'cos even
your best commander may fail to get the order pushed through!
The game isn't a genuine approximation of the Tolkien world in so many other
ways that this is one rule change that would much improve the game.
Matthew
···
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Williams" <rhudaur@yahoo.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] ME 2nd ed rules
If you reduce them to 1 order then why bother? In
fact, diplomacy takes effort.Middle Earth diplomacy was never easy for the Free
and neutrals (the dwarves and elves never could
develop much trust for one another and MEPBM doesn't
even come close to approximating this).On the other hand, the Dark Servants were always on
"friendly" terms to start with (Sauron had a much
easier time managing his nations). Perhaps it would
make things more challenging if the Dark Ones all
start off as "friendly", Dwarves and Elves start as
"disliked", and everyone else is as the game depicts.Joseph
--- Richard John Devereux <devereux@lineone.net>
wrote:
> Here's another idea to simplify and speed up the
> game. Make orders 180 &
> 185 (up and down relations) cover up to 10 nations
> instead of just one.
> These orders are real time-wasters as they stand.__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/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/
I agree that the relations system is rather crude, but not that we should
do away with it altogether (which is effectively what Richard requests).
In the Rhudaur example - doesn't there have to be some COST behind
neutral status? You are a nation that has not prepared itself for war at
the time war breaks out. You may have a big army, but your people
have not been told who to hate yet. There are historical precedents -
the Italians come to mind...
In a second edition I'd be happy to accept more complexity here in
exchange for more interesting game play. I think the heart of Richard's
grievance is the simple succeed or fail result of the order, and the
uninteresting result even when you do succeed. So of the top of my
head:
# Nation relations are on a scale ranging from -10 to +10. You can
give each step a label if you like: Reviled, Loathed, Despised, Hated...
# Battle reports include a phrase which describes the aspect of the
enemy troops, so that enemy relations become known, and players are
reminded of their affect in battle.
# UpStNat and DnStNat orders change the relations by one, but this is
now an Em order, which is more appropriate AND relations
automatically shift subject to certain game conditions: -1 against a nation
who has just beaten us in battle; -1 -2 -3 against a nation who has just
taken one of our camps, villages, towns etc.; +1 to a nation who has
just sent us 10,000 gold.
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
···
Matthew Riley <matthew@mrassociates.co.uk> wrote
Richard does have a point. When playing Rhudaur, for example, and wanting
to make an early declaration you lose untold numbers of turns using your
best commander to downgrade potential enemies -
Noldo/Arthedain/Cardolan/Dwarves/Woodmen. Absolutely scandalous - 'cos
even
your best commander may fail to get the order pushed through!
>Richard does have a point. When playing Rhudaur, for example, and
wanting
>to make an early declaration you lose untold numbers of turns using your
>best commander to downgrade potential enemies -
>Noldo/Arthedain/Cardolan/Dwarves/Woodmen. Absolutely scandalous - 'cos
>even
>your best commander may fail to get the order pushed through!
I agree that the relations system is rather crude, but not that we should
do away with it altogether (which is effectively what Richard requests).
In the Rhudaur example - doesn't there have to be some COST behind
neutral status? You are a nation that has not prepared itself for war at
the time war breaks out. You may have a big army, but your people
have not been told who to hate yet. There are historical precedents -
the Italians come to mind...
RD: Come, come, Laurence, that's hardly relevant. In the early 20thC Italy
was struggling to become a world power, and it most certainly HAD prepared
for war (however inadequately!) as the campaign in Ethiopia showed. This
really has no relevance to Tolkien's world!
In a second edition I'd be happy to accept more complexity here in
exchange for more interesting game play. I think the heart of Richard's
grievance is the simple succeed or fail result of the order, and the
uninteresting result even when you do succeed. So of the top of my
head:# Nation relations are on a scale ranging from -10 to +10. You can
give each step a label if you like: Reviled, Loathed, Despised, Hated...
RD: Nah nah nah, do NOT that. Firstly and worstly, this adds complexity
where it is not needed.
In the real Dark Ages, a king attacked his neighbour, often without the
formality of declaring war in order to gain surprise, and as often allied
with him as local politics dictated. The King's warband and levies fought
whoever they were told to fight. It made no difference whether the
opposition were Saxon, Brit, Pict, pseudo-Roman or whatever; all any king
wanted to do was hold on to the land he possessed and expand it if possible.
Even 'good' kings of that age would ally with 'evils' to secure their throne
and their land.
Therefore in game terms, you should have only 3 degrees of relations:
allied, neutral and hostile. Easy.
In Tolkien's world however, the position is simplified by the struggle
between Good and Evil. Neutral men might choose or be seduced by either
side, but none of Tolkien's elves ever fought for Sauron, and no orc ever
fought on the side of the elves.
Therefore, the game only needs these 3 degrees of relations: allied, neutral
and hostile. You could argue that Dwarves and elves should start out
neutral to each other, but both should be hostile to the DS.
# Battle reports include a phrase which describes the aspect of the
enemy troops, so that enemy relations become known, and players are
reminded of their affect in battle.# UpStNat and DnStNat orders change the relations by one, but this is
now an Em order, which is more appropriate AND relations
automatically shift subject to certain game conditions: -1 against a
nation
who has just beaten us in battle; -1 -2 -3 against a nation who has just
taken one of our camps, villages, towns etc.; +1 to a nation who has
just sent us 10,000 gold.Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
RD: No, no no. This adds extra complexity for no benefit in either
playability or realism. There should be only 3 steps in relations:
friendly, neutral, or hostile. Keep it simple.
In Tolkien's Middle-earth, Elves, Dwarves and 'good' Men might be considered
Neutral towards each other (and therefore in need of a 180 order to
co-operate) but they were certainly all hostile to the orcs.
Richard.
···
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 7:30 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] ME 2nd ed rules (Relations)
Matthew Riley <matthew@mrassociates.co.uk> wrote
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/
I don't agree with this. Going to war footing takes time, propoganda to get
you to hate the vile Enemy, and generally get the blood boiling. Real world
examples abound of both 180 and 185.
As a game mechanic I think it is great for the aligned nations. It's a
scarce resource to get a command order at your capital sometimes - ie
skillful and tactical to arrange and time. It also improves Commanders who
effectively would end up just being Army movers/recruiters.
As for changing allegiance I agree - it would be good if the Neutrals
changed to tolerant to the team (and the team to you). Not sure about the
impact for this with an automated downgrade though. Moving through an enemy
fortified PC that you did not know was an enemy could be a bad surprise and
detriment game play. (Not sure as I haven't analysed this yet).
In short - I think the idea below would make the game easier but not
better - I like Laurences more complex solution (or a variant of). It's
another one of those problems that unfortunately I doubt we will get any
changes from GSI for I am afraid.
More thoughts welcome?
Clint
···
Here's another idea to simplify and speed up the game. Make orders 180 &
185 (up and down relations) cover up to 10 nations instead of just one.
These orders are real time-wasters as they stand.Richard.
I don't agree with this. Going to war footing takes time, propoganda to
get
you to hate the vile Enemy, and generally get the blood boiling. Real
world
examples abound of both 180 and 185.
RD: Not in the Dark Age world which is the closest real thing to Tolkien's
world. The king says we go to war, and off we go! He has his permanent
warband, he calls up his levies, and all his loyal nobles bring their
warbands and levies. In Tolkien's world, the elves, dwarves and 'good' men
all Hate orcs anyway, so require no whipping-up. If they were fighting
fellow 'good' people, howver, they should fight with less enthusiasm.
As a game mechanic I think it is great for the aligned nations. It's a
scarce resource to get a command order at your capital sometimes - ie
skillful and tactical to arrange and time. It also improves Commanders who
effectively would end up just being Army movers/recruiters.
RD: It doesn't improve commanders at all - that's one of the complaints!
You can have your best commander stuck in the capital doing nothing but
relations orders turn after turn. Boring and unrealistic.
As for changing allegiance I agree - it would be good if the Neutrals
changed to tolerant to the team (and the team to you). Not sure about the
impact for this with an automated downgrade though. Moving through an
enemy
fortified PC that you did not know was an enemy could be a bad surprise
and
detriment game play. (Not sure as I haven't analysed this yet).
RD: Yeah, I approve this!
In short - I think the idea below would make the game easier but not
better - I like Laurences more complex solution (or a variant of). It's
another one of those problems that unfortunately I doubt we will get any
changes from GSI for I am afraid.More thoughts welcome?
Clint
RD: More complex solutions are only good if they improve the game. With
respect to my mate Laurence, adding levels to relations between nations only
makes things more complex without improving either playability or realism.
My original idea, that a nation could up or downgrade to 10 nations with a
single order, simplifies things and speeds things up. I haven't yet seen an
argument which convinces me this is a bad idea.
Richard,
.
> Here's another idea to simplify and speed up the game. Make orders 180
&
···
----- Original Message -----
From: "Middle Earth PBM Games" <me@MiddleEarthGames.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] ME 2nd ed rules
> 185 (up and down relations) cover up to 10 nations instead of just one.
> These orders are real time-wasters as they stand.
>
> 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/
Firstly I think the use of commanders for more than just running armies is a
good thing. The King chatted to his commanders who rallied the troops to
his banner incting them to hate the enemy. (Maybe the order should only be
effective for one turn? Ie you downgrade for one turn only? This might be
more realistic - and you would have to do it in the field?)
RD: More complex solutions are only good if they improve the game.
*** ... and I might add that they don't make the game too complex to
understand. The beauty of ME is an apparently simple order system so most
people of a wargame/fantasy bent can pick it up and play even at a basic
level but backing this up by is a large tactical and strategic
wargame/economic game that appeals to the hardened power gamer/number
cruncher. Ie suitable for all players and then it has the beauty of a nice
front end - Ie Tolkien! Yum.
With
respect to my mate Laurence, adding levels to relations between nations
only
makes things more complex without improving either playability or realism.
And I thought that the French and the English loved each other all that
time. 
Ie, in a more serious tone, a hatred of the French was built up
in the English population (and vice versa) partially as it suited the
purposes of the monarch and the ruling culture of the country at that time.
You see this today in the demonisation and "glorification" of the Kurds as
one example - on the one hand the oppressed inhabitants of Saddam, and on
the other hand the atrocities committed against the Turks..., Indonesia's vs
Kosovo/a's/Rwanda's portayal and response in the West. There are many
examples of 185/180 in the news today and history in general. (Crusades is
another beaut). You might not agree with all my points, or see that they
all are relevant or accurate but there is plenty of reasons and
justifications in real world and also in Fantasy literature which I haven't
even touched on.
My original idea, that a nation could up or downgrade to 10 nations with a
single order, simplifies things and speeds things up. I haven't yet seen
an
argument which convinces me this is a bad idea.
Just as well remove the order altogether if you are going to do this. Same
for economics and all the other "tedious" rules that occur in the game. We
run a game called Battle for the Planets where there is one resource called
RAW and that's about it. Nice and simple.
520/525 might be combined to a 524 order (Do Emi Influence order - but there
are generally no back-up if X then Y order in this, or other, games). We
could reduce the 770/40x order to 401 Recruit troops order, and Agent orders
to 601 orders - do somethine effective - if there are enemy charcters then
do 603 order, if not then do 604 order.
Part of what makes a good game is putting forward obstacles that have to be
overcome. The game has a fine balance and this order helps give the game
more "spice" - I have been on the receiving end of the failed all important
Downgrade in game 16 as the NM attacking the EA so am aware of the full
horror of a failed order like this - and it seems realistic.
One of the discussions that came up this weekend at the pubmeet was
realism/simulation vs game mechanics. No game is ever going to be 100% a
simulation of the real world but getting something that is close to
realism/simulation is the general aim of most games (withing the guidelines
of scenario/world design - eg if there is Magic then a Wish spell does not
exist as this could be used to Wish that Magic did not exist etc).
I think this is accurate in the order 185 - you are geering up for war - the
King might be ready to fight to the death but the troops are yet to be so
incited. So both in game and "real/simulation of the real world" it seems
to work - not 100% accurate but close enough for me. You are already
supposed to be allied - there are tensions between the FPs and also the DSs
but most players feel that the team aspect of the game should be emphasised
(ie removal of VCs that are of your team if they are in the game at all) -
so only strong allies allow their allies (ie Friendly rather than tolerated)
to use their bases to bomb the enemy (WWII US bombers in UK etc). Ie all
Nations of the same allegiance are allied - and you know who the Enemy are -
but there are more intense hatreds that can be built up and used by the
monarch as time goes on.
Then it's back to the discussion on is the 185/180 order a necessity? No.
Does it make the game better? Yes. (IMHO). Could it be improved? Yes. Will
that happen? No. Would I want to change it even if I had the opportunity to
do so? Not sure.
Whew - that should do for now. I do like a good ar.... discussion..
Clint