ME Second Edition Idea

mepbmlist
#1

Thanks Brendan,

You overlook the fact that fortifications and bridges in MEPBM are all timber. This may be inconsistent with Tolkien, but it's there for simplicity. Consider Norman England - in the years of turmoil after 1066, timber fortifications are thrown up everywhere. It's only a generation later when more stable times allow for the construction of stone castles. You don't need TNT to sabotage a timber palisade - you need it to be unguarded, so that you can position a barrel of tar and pile of faggots (not in the American sense!) in the appropriate place, and then the luck that the garrison don't extinguish it in time. Hence I wouldn't want to see it go as an agent order.

BUT, I do like the idea of letting mages have a go to. I think they should not have the option of doing it covertly, so I have limited the ability to that of mages with armies, and have incorporated it into a new sequence of spells "Siege Craft" http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/2nded.htm

I didn't like the idea of letting them have a go at bridges - I don't know why, it just doesn't feel right.

Certainly Tolkein's world is not Norman England. Along with timber palisades constructed fortnightly, he has the stone fortifications of Gondor, Helm's Deep, and the Dwarven underground domains. You could argue for a distinction between the two types to be written into the game, with only mages having the ability to affect those made of stone. But... I suspect the "Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww You're making it too com-pli-cat-ed" lobby would come out to oppose you.

You could also argue a case for breached fortifications - where the palisade has been weakened, by so many "hit points"; or a case for secretly breached fortifications - where a "way in" has been discovered, or a financial arrangement has been made with the castellan without the knowledge of the owning nation. It is a fact of English Mediaeval history, that far more castles changed hands by betrayal or surprise, than were ever taken by armies. However, as tempting as these innovations may sound, you would again be tipping the complexity scales very heavily.

[Brad, I haven't forgotten your 2nd Ed. contribution, will get onto it soon]

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

···

At 19:11 16/05/2002, you wrote:

Laurence,

I was just on your site there looking at the 2nd edition ideas. Fair play to
you for keeping all of this stuff together...who knows if Clint ever manages
to buy the licence from GSI then it might happen......although I guess I
shouldn't hold my breath.

Anyway one thing that has always annyoed me is the agent order to sab
fortifications. There is no way that an agent/ninja could destroy a stone
forfications without a sizeable amount of TNT or industrial explosives or
something like that. However, what could and did happen in the Two Towers
was Saruman blasting a huge hole in the fortification at Helm's Deep. (I'm
looking forward to seeing that in the 2nd film).

So my suggestion is to remove the sab fort as an agent order. Instead put it
as a hard mage order. I think to minimize it's affect it should be a conjure
spell i.e. a 330 one rather than a combar spell. It achieves two things. It
increases the usefulness of mages and reduces the game as an agent game.

I think the same thing for sabbing a bridge. Only an army or a power mage
should be able to destroy a stone bridge. One man on his own couldn't do it
with explosives.

What do you think ? I read the section on agent orders on the page and there
didn't seem to be any change for those particular 2 orders.

Anyway, just thought I share it with you and see if you consider it
feasible/useful to be added to the 2nd edition ideas.

Cheers
Brendan

#2

Laurence G. Tilley wrote:

You overlook the fact that fortifications and bridges in MEPBM are all timber.

>
Hogwash. Tolkein never described any fortifications as being made entirely of timber. For someone who cites 'medieval history' as a source you seem to be unaware that even primarily stone construction involves the use of timber, if only for scaffolding and forms; many English castles have major supports of heavy timber, but curtain walls in particular are almost invariably 100% stone. Burning or breaking the timbers might or might not cause the part of the structure to collapse, depending on the design and quality of construction.

Then you have the issue of scale. Anything larger than a 'fort' could not be constructed entirely of timber, and outside of the American Old West even that would be extremely unlikely. Certainly I've never seen a castle built entirely of timber, nor would I depend on one for defence. :slight_smile:

Same goes for bridges. You need timber to build it, even if the finished product is entirely stone. It's just that stone is a local product, not one that has to be 'produced' and shipped in. This might be especially true in a place called 'land of stone' (Gondor).

This may be inconsistent with Tolkien, but it's there for simplicity. Consider Norman England - in the years of turmoil after 1066, timber fortifications are thrown up everywhere. It's only a generation later when more stable times allow for the construction of stone castles.

>
Every major fortification mentioned in LOTR was centuries old, and invariably described as being made of stone. Certainly you don't mean to imply that the seven circles of Minas Tirith, or the citadel of Isengard, were just overgrown wooden hill forts?

It is a fact of English Mediaeval history, that far more castles changed hands by betrayal or surprise, than were ever taken by armies.

>
Wouldn't that fall under Emissaries, then?

-ED \1/

···

--
"I walked the mountain, I crossed the sea
Just to find out what it means to me
I broke the saddle when I took the reins
I took the gamble now I'm gonna take the gain" - Tim Giovanniello

#3

Laurence G. Tilley wrote:

  >

  >
  > You overlook the fact that fortifications and bridges in MEPBM are all
  > timber.

  >
  Hogwash. Tolkein never described any fortifications as being made
  entirely of timber.

  RD: Hold it right there. Laurence wrote "fortifications and bridges in MEPBM are all timber."

  That's "fortifications and bridges in MEPBM," NOT fortifications and bridges in Tolkien.

  If you took the trouble to read the rest of what Laurence wrote, you would see that he is WELL aware of the fact that most of Tolkien's (you might try to spell his name correctly too) important fortifications were of stone: he even lists them for God's sake, but you deleted those bits from your reply!

  Why the hell don't you read the whole article before you jump in with both feet and one eye shut?

  I have my differences of opinion with Laurence, but at least he is doing something constructive in offering alternative rules for a potential 2nd edition.

  Your misunderstanding of what Laurence wrote invalidates the rest of your argument; to use your own expression it is "hogwash."

  Next time you respond to this column, do try to understand what the other guy actually wrote.

  Richard.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Edward A. Dimmick
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 5:52 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: ME Second Edition Idea

#4

Richard DEVEREUX wrote:

  RD: Hold it right there. Laurence wrote "fortifications and bridges in MEPBM

are all timber."

  That's "fortifications and bridges in MEPBM," NOT fortifications and bridges

in Tolkien.

So your assertion is that MEPBM is designed to resemble Tolkien's world as closely as possible, EXCEPT that the fortification are ALL timber? Yeah, right.

  If you took the trouble to read the rest of what Laurence wrote, you would see

that he is WELL aware of the fact that most of Tolkien's (you might try to spell

his name correctly too)

>
Spelling flames are the first refuge of the incompetent.

  Why the hell don't you read the whole article before you jump in with both

feet and one eye shut?

I did. I even thought about the implications, which you clearly did not.

  Your misunderstanding of what Laurence wrote invalidates the rest of your

argument; to use your own expression it is "hogwash."

I misunderstood nothing; it is you who are deliberately misconstruing what I said in order to form a strawman which you can then knock down.

  Next time you respond to this column, do try to understand what

the other guy actually wrote.

I misunderstood nothing; it is you who are deliberately misconstruing what I said in order to form a strawman which you can then knock down.

He claimed that ALL (that's all, every one, no exceptions) fortifications in MEPBM are made of timber, based on the fact that you need timber to construct them. I maintain that there is no reasonable basis for this assertion. Your pretense that the milieu of MEPBM is somehow fundamentally different from that of Tolkien's Middle Earth only in the ways that it is convenient for you at the moment seems little more than post-hoc rationalization.

-ED \1/--
"I walked the mountain, I crossed the sea
Just to find out what it means to me
I broke the saddle when I took the reins
I took the gamble now I'm gonna take the gain" - Tim Giovanniello

#5

Go back and read my sentence. I said that in MEPBM the fortifications are all made of timber. I did not say that in Middle Earth the fortifications are all made of timber, in fact I specifically said that that was not the case. You may want to imagine the fortifications are of stone while you are playing, but since a tower can be taken down and put up again in two weeks, and since stone does not exist as a commodity, then for purposes of game mechanics, the fortifications can be considered to be wholly of timber. (Yes, I know it's a rubbishy thing, but that's why some of us like planning a fantasy second edition)

I wouldn't be arrogant enough to suggest that I have the encyclopedic knowledge to confirm or contest your claim that Tolkien _never_ mentioned timber fortifications. But certainly Bree was fortified by a dike and hedge.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

···

At 17:52 30/05/2002, ED wrote:

> You overlook the fact that fortifications and bridges in MEPBM are all
> timber.
Hogwash. Tolkein never described any fortifications as being made
entirely of timber.

#6

>
Hogwash. Tolkein never described any fortifications as being made
entirely of timber.

Well yes you are correct about LOTR...but no it's not correct of
MEPBM. In the book LOTR, Helm's Deep, Minas Tirith, ruins of Amon Sul
etc they were of course all made of stone. This is exactly what I had
in mind when I made the comment that a single person couldn't destroy
such forfifications without loads of TNT. How could one person bring
down the great walls of Minas Tirth ? Impossible in LOTR.

However, Laurence made the very accurate point that in the PBM GAME,
to build fortifications, it of course only requires timber and gold.
So for the game purposes, the fortifications are always considered
timber. Of course it isn't accurate to LOTR nor perhaps even to
medieval warfare. But alas that's the way of this game.

For example what is the difference between HI and LI who have both
wooden weapons and no armour in MEPBM ? I honestly don't see how one
group of blokes can be considered 'HEAVY' (and get the combat bonus)
and another set of blokes being consider 'LIGHT'. How do they make 2
sets of blokes who have the same weapons and no armour different in
combat ? What do they do, force-feed the 'HEAVY' blokes KFC party
buckets so that they are 'HEAVY' enough to qualify ? :o)

For someone who cites 'medieval history' as a
source you seem to be unaware that even primarily stone

construction

involves the use of timber, if only for scaffolding and forms; many
English castles have major supports of heavy timber, but curtain

walls

in particular are almost invariably 100% stone. Burning or

breaking the

timbers might or might not cause the part of the structure to

collapse,

depending on the design and quality of construction.

Then you have the issue of scale. Anything larger than a 'fort'

could

not be constructed entirely of timber, and outside of the American

Old

West even that would be extremely unlikely. Certainly I've never

seen a

castle built entirely of timber, nor would I depend on one for

defence. :slight_smile:

Well as I said, MEPBM can't always reflect real warfare. But
unfortunately the forts in MEPBM are all considered wooden which is
something that I forgot when I wrote my initial views on the sab fort
order.

Oh yeah, the American Old West couldn't really be
considered 'medieval warfare' which I guess MEPBM is trying
reflect....so probably not the best comparasion to use but I do see
the point you were making.

Cheers
Brendan

#7

You may want to imagine the fortifications are of stone while you
are playing, but since a tower can be taken down and put up again

in two

weeks, and since stone does not exist as a commodity,

So Laurence,

What about adding Stone as a commodity then in the 2nd edition ? No
doubt this has been suggested before but I can't remember seeing
anything on your page about the stone being added as a
commodity....apologise in advance if I am wrong.

Was too complex the only counter-argument ? I don't see how. It's no
more complex that leather, timber etc and alot more logical.

Have you or would include stone as a commodity and thus by default
the fortifications could then be considered stone in the 2nd edition ?

In this instance would you still say that one man could bring down a
stone citadel ? I think he could only do it with TNT which didn't
exist.
In this scenario I would have to say that the sab fort is removed as
an agent order. I just don't see it happening.

Cheers
Brendan

#8

Congratulations. You win the first prize as the rudest, most unpleasant and hypocritical, not to mention factually incorrect, person I've ever come across in a dozen years of playing ME - and I've met a few. As there's obviously no point in having a rational debate with you I won't waste any more effort

  Richard.

  Richard DEVEREUX wrote:

  >

  > RD: Hold it right there. Laurence wrote "fortifications and bridges in MEPBM

  are all timber."
  >
  > That's "fortifications and bridges in MEPBM," NOT fortifications and bridges

  in Tolkien.
  >

  So your assertion is that MEPBM is designed to resemble Tolkien's world
  as closely as possible, EXCEPT that the fortification are ALL timber?
  Yeah, right.

  > If you took the trouble to read the rest of what Laurence wrote, you would see

  that he is WELL aware of the fact that most of Tolkien's (you might try to spell

  his name correctly too)

  >
  Spelling flames are the first refuge of the incompetent.

  > Why the hell don't you read the whole article before you jump in with both

  feet and one eye shut?
  >

  I did. I even thought about the implications, which you clearly did not.

  > Your misunderstanding of what Laurence wrote invalidates the rest of your

  argument; to use your own expression it is "hogwash."
  >

  I misunderstood nothing; it is you who are deliberately misconstruing
  what I said in order to form a strawman which you can then knock down.

  > Next time you respond to this column, do try to understand what

  the other guy actually wrote.
  >

  I misunderstood nothing; it is you who are deliberately misconstruing
  what I said in order to form a strawman which you can then knock down.

  He claimed that ALL (that's all, every one, no exceptions)
  fortifications in MEPBM are made of timber, based on the fact that you
  need timber to construct them. I maintain that there is no reasonable
  basis for this assertion. Your pretense that the milieu of MEPBM is
  somehow fundamentally different from that of Tolkien's Middle Earth only
  in the ways that it is convenient for you at the moment seems little
  more than post-hoc rationalization.

  -ED \1/--
  "I walked the mountain, I crossed the sea
  Just to find out what it means to me
  I broke the saddle when I took the reins
  I took the gamble now I'm gonna take the gain" - Tim Giovanniello

  Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Edward A. Dimmick
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 6:16 AM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: ME Second Edition Idea

#9

Go back and look at my original post. I said that a distinction between
timber and stone fortifications could be considered. Which means I like
the vague concept, but as yet nobody has proposed some specific rules.

Complexity is always a consideration, because for every chap who suggests a
new rule to me, there are three who throw their hands up and say "too
complicated" or worse "you're trying to make it realistic" (where
"realistic" is a swear word. See the intro to the 2nd edition
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/2nded.htm for my thoughts on these
concerns)

Stone as a commodity does not really impress me. Timber forts were put up
by Romans, Normans and John Wayne, in time of war, for speed and
economy. All were capable of building more solid fortifications, but not
in a fortnight.

But sell me a coherent system for some of the starting fortifications to be
stone, which improves the game substantially, without adding substantial
complexity, and you might convince me.

I thought Corsairs 101's suggestion was really elegant - that is, it's more
consistent, and is very simple. He suggested that the effect of SabFort,
should only last for a turn. The wall has been breached (mined, entered
secretly, etc.) - the turn sheet would show "Breached yes/no" in the same
way that it currently shows "(Be)Sieged" status for each pop. A fort would
count as a tower for that turn only, whereafter, the garrison could be
assumed to have barricaded the collapsed wall, rebuilt the fire damaged
stockade, or lynched the bent gatekeeper.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

···

At 10:06 31/05/2002, you wrote:

What about adding Stone as a commodity then in the 2nd edition ? No
doubt this has been suggested before but I can't remember seeing
anything on your page about the stone being added as a
commodity....apologise in advance if I am wrong

#10

In the book LOTR, Helm's Deep, Minas Tirith, ruins of Amon Sul
etc they were of course all made of stone. This is exactly what I had
in mind when I made the comment that a single person couldn't destroy
such forfifications without loads of TNT. How could one person bring
down the great walls of Minas Tirth ? Impossible in LOTR.

RD: Absolutely right. Medieval miners could (and did) burrow beneath stone walls and bring them down by firing the timber props holding up the tunnel. However this is the action of specialist troops, not agents. A sole agent, no matter how good, attempting this would take forever. Tolkien does not mention specialist mining troops (altho by implication both Dwarves and orcs should be capable of providing them), and the game justifiably does not recognize them, either.

Maybe mining/sapping could be a new special ability?

Therefore I agree, agents should NOT be able to sabotage stone fortifications or bridges.

DS mages did, according to Tolkien, use incendiary spells against both Helm's Deep and Minas Tirith.

OTOH, the gates of Minas Tirith were battered down by the spellbound battering ram "Grond." So either the DS in 2950 should start with such an artifact, or provision should be made for spells, by mages in an army, to specifically assist attacks on fortified pops. Such spells should replace the superfluous combat spells.

Brendan wrote: However, Laurence made the very accurate point that in the PBM GAME,
to build fortifications, it of course only requires timber and gold.
So for the game purposes, the fortifications are always considered
timber. Of course it isn't accurate to LOTR nor perhaps even to
medieval warfare. But alas that's the way of this game.

RD: Ideally stone should also be a building material. As you correctly point out, the vast majority of important ME fortifications were built of stone according to Tolkien.

So do we add stone to the market (requiring lots of careful calculations) or do we introduce stone instead of, say. bronze?

Radical idea: scrap the entire market system, and force every pop centre to rely on its own resources, or stores physically transported in the same way as troops.

As the rules stand, a player can teleport thousands of tons of stores thousands of miles, instantaneously, regardless of weight.or volume. This is patently ridiculous. If characters can move no more than 12 hexes (without magical assistance) then bulk stores certainly should not! How hard would it be to impose a limit of 6 hexes, or more realistically 3 hexes, on movement of stores?

For example what is the difference between HI and LI who have both
wooden weapons and no armour in MEPBM ? I honestly don't see how one
group of blokes can be considered 'HEAVY' (and get the combat bonus)
and another set of blokes being consider 'LIGHT'. How do they make 2
sets of blokes who have the same weapons and no armour different in
combat ? What do they do, force-feed the 'HEAVY' blokes KFC party
buckets so that they are 'HEAVY' enough to qualify ? :o)

RD: In the wargaming fraternity, the difference between HI and LI is a difference of fighting style, tactics, and different abilities in different terrain, NOT weapons and/or armour. A player fielding a Roman army pays the points cost for trained, armoured legionaries throwing "pila" and following up with swords. A typical barbarian opponent would field some combination of warband/skirmishers/light cav. The Romans would usually win in open plains, but in broken or soft terrain they were at a disdvantage against lighter, more nimble opponents.

2nd ed might benefit from (and would certainly be closer to Tolkien's writings) if it based troops types on race, instead of allowing any nation to recruit any troop type. EG, 90% of DS troops should be common or garden orcs/goblins (same creature, read Tolkien). Therefore for every 100 troops DS recruited, they get 1 troll or uruk-hai, who can justifiably be classed as hi. To compensate for inferior troops types, DS should be allowed to recruit much larger numbers than FP.

Richard.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#11

mcgoldrick_b wrote:

You may want to imagine the fortifications are of stone while you are playing, but since a tower can be taken down and put up again

in two

weeks, and since stone does not exist as a commodity,

So Laurence,

What about adding Stone as a commodity then in the 2nd edition ? No doubt this has been suggested before but I can't remember seeing anything on your page about the stone being added as a commodity....apologise in advance if I am wrong.

I don't think there's any need to add stone, simply because stone is not something one has to hunt around for in most places. One could just as easily insist on making armies carry water along with their food, but I think that would add complexity to no real benefit. Similarly, one could allow a 'timber savings' for any fortifications built in mountains or hills, but not in the plains (where everything likely *would* be timber, except in older capitals). That too might make things more complex than they need to be.

Have you or would include stone as a commodity and thus by default the fortifications could then be considered stone in the 2nd edition ?

The point I was trying to make, and perhaps didn't make very well, is that just because you need timber to construct something does not mean that it is made of timber. Think of a brick house - you need wood for the framing, trim, interior floors and whatnot, but you wouldn't say the house is made only of wood.

And yes, I DO consider reference to Tolkien to be authoritative; this entire game is *supposed* to be a reflection of Middle Earth as he depicted it, as closely as possible whilst still maintaining a viable game system. Certain 'unrealistic' adjustments may have to be made to keep things running smoothly, but I simply cannot imagine the citadel of Minas Anor being nothing more than a big pile of sticks.

In this instance would you still say that one man could bring down a stone citadel ? I think he could only do it with TNT which didn't exist.

>
The SabFort option may be part of the idea of game balance, i.e., that for every defence there must be a way to offset or negate it (and vice versa). It doesn't make any more sense than an orcish Emissary walking into an Elven city and persuading the inhabitants to follow Sauron, but there you have it.

There are numerous precedents in fantasy for single individuals penetrating and/or negating the defences of large fortifications; the usual method is to sneak in through a drainage tunnel, kill the guards and open the gates from the inside. Granted, this should only be a temporary effect, perhaps enough to let a waiting army ignore fortifications for a single attack - perhaps that is the change that needs to be made...

-ED \1/

···

--
"I walked the mountain, I crossed the sea
Just to find out what it means to me
I broke the saddle when I took the reins
I took the gamble now I'm gonna take the gain" - Tim Giovanniello

#12

Richard DEVEREUX wrote:

  From: Edward A. Dimmick To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 6:16 AM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: ME Second Edition Idea

  Congratulations. You win the first prize as the rudest, most unpleasant

and hypocritical, not to mention factually incorrect, person I've ever come

aross in a dozen years of playing ME - and I've met a few. As there's

obviously no point in having a rational debate with you I won't waste any more

effort

Richard, I have NEVER - and I mean NEVER - once seen you have the slightest respect for any views other than your own. And you have NEVER, that I have seen, had the decency to accept any criticism or dissent from your pronouncements on the nature of Middle Earth and MEPBM, no matter how grossly inconsistent with the original Tolkien. And you have the audcaity to call me rude and hypocritical, without ONCE addressing the point I made in anything but a snide, dismissive, and condescending manner.

Feh.

-ED \1/

···

----- Original Message -----

--
"I walked the mountain, I crossed the sea
Just to find out what it means to me
I broke the saddle when I took the reins
I took the gamble now I'm gonna take the gain" - Tim Giovanniello

#13

Yes and no - well if you will allow me to use English castles as a precident. For some of them stone was transported over huge distances at great expense. There are even castles in East Anglia e.g. at Orford in Suffolk, where the facing stones were brought over from France - quite an achievement when you consider the volume needed and the limited technology of C12th shipping.

However, on the other hand, Welsh native castles were built from flint, rubble, and shale, from necessity. So whilst it's true that you can always find some building material close at hand, if you want the strongest castle, you have to pay for (and transport) the stongest type of stone.

Should we have different types of stone in 2nd Ed.? (Only kidding)

Richard is also slightly awry with his mention of brick. As far as I know, there are no brick castles in England before the Tudor period (1485). Perhaps someone will know of examples from elsewhere in Europe. The main reason is that brick was so expensive - it took vast quantities of timber, charcoal or coal to heat kilns, to make bricks, and that made it a luxury product. When the Tudors started using it e.g. at Hampton Court, they were using a high prestige commodity, not a relatively cheap one (as brick was in say the C18th onwards). There are brick fortified manor houses in Scotalnd, but again, I think they are Renaisance rather than mediaeval.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

···

At 05:05 02/06/2002, ED wrote:

I don't think there's any need to add stone, simply because stone is not
something one has to hunt around for in most places.

#14

What's so hard to believe about it taking two weeks for an effective
agent to round up enough turncoats to help him sabotage
fortifications on an enemy position?
He is NOT working alone........he's just the one giving the ORDER.....
Jim Gonion

#15

can someone explane haw you sap the citerdel of moria blow the brige ???
or have an agent remuve the tower Isengard.

Either sapfort shut have a tempery effect ar the shut be addet a repair fort
order with a lowerd TI and gold cost

David

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "jgonion2000" <jgonion2000@yahoo.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 11:35 AM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: ME Second Edition Idea

What's so hard to believe about it taking two weeks for an effective
agent to round up enough turncoats to help him sabotage
fortifications on an enemy position?
He is NOT working alone........he's just the one giving the ORDER.....
Jim Gonion

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#16

Richard DEVEREUX wrote:

  > From: Edward A. Dimmick
  > To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 6:16 AM
  > Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: ME Second Edition Idea
  >
  > Congratulations. You win the first prize as the rudest, most unpleasant

  > and hypocritical, not to mention factually incorrect, person I've ever come

  > aross in a dozen years of playing ME - and I've met a few. As there's

  > obviously no point in having a rational debate with you I won't waste any more

  > effort
  >

  Richard, I have NEVER - and I mean NEVER - once seen you have the
  slightest respect for any views other than your own. And you have
  NEVER, that I have seen, had the decency to accept any criticism or
  dissent from your pronouncements on the nature of Middle Earth and
  MEPBM, no matter how grossly inconsistent with the original Tolkien.
  And you have the audcaity to call me rude and hypocritical, without ONCE
  addressing the point I made in anything but a snide, dismissive, and
  condescending manner.

  Feh.
  RD: Hogwash.

  Richard.

  -ED \1/

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Edward A. Dimmick
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 5:11 AM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: ME Second Edition Idea

  > ----- Original Message -----
  --
  "I walked the mountain, I crossed the sea
  Just to find out what it means to me
  I broke the saddle when I took the reins
  I took the gamble now I'm gonna take the gain" - Tim Giovanniello

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
  Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#17

jgonion2000 wrote:

What's so hard to believe about it taking two weeks for an effective
agent to round up enough turncoats to help him sabotage
fortifications on an enemy position?
He is NOT working alone........he's just the one giving the ORDER.....
Jim Gonion

But if you consider it that way, wouldn't it be a Emissary order?

Rodrigo

···

--
"I find it kind of funny
I find it kind of sad
The dreams in which I'm dying
Are the best I ever had"
Tears for Fears - "Mad World"

#18

Yes and no - well if you will allow me to use English castles as a
  precident. For some of them stone was transported over huge distances at
  great expense. There are even castles in East Anglia e.g. at Orford in
  Suffolk, where the facing stones were brought over from France - quite an
  achievement when you consider the volume needed and the limited technology
  of C12th shipping.

  However, on the other hand, Welsh native castles were built from flint,
  rubble, and shale, from necessity. So whilst it's true that you can always
  find some building material close at hand, if you want the strongest
  castle, you have to pay for (and transport) the stongest type of stone.

  Should we have different types of stone in 2nd Ed.? (Only kidding)

  Richard is also slightly awry with his mention of brick. As far as I know,
  there are no brick castles in England before the Tudor period
  (1485). Perhaps someone will know of examples from elsewhere in
  Europe. The main reason is that brick was so expensive - it took vast
  quantities of timber, charcoal or coal to heat kilns, to make bricks, and
  that made it a luxury product. When the Tudors started using it e.g. at
  Hampton Court, they were using a high prestige commodity, not a relatively
  cheap one (as brick was in say the C18th onwards). There are brick
  fortified manor houses in Scotalnd, but again, I think they are Renaisance
  rather than mediaeval.

  Laurence G. Tilley
  RD: I only meant that it was technologically possible to build in brick. The Sumerians built cities and ziggurats of sun-baked brick thousands of years bc. Then there is the Bible story of Pharoah ordering the Israelite slaves to make bricks without straw. I believe the ancient Egyptians used kilns to bake bricks, but I'm not 100% certain. Kiln-baked bricks were obviously superior to sun-baked.

  Anyway, Tolkien doesn't mention brick, so we don't want it in 2nd ed.

  According to Tolkien, all Dwarf and goblin/orc towns and cities were of stone, delved under mountains or hills. Dwarves at least seem to have had no idea of building in timber or on the surface. Sauron however knew how to build up as well as down. His best-known construction was of course the mighty fortress of Barad-dur. Another was the Morannon. Tolkien does not say, but I assume that he used vast numbers of orcs and slaves as his labour force for these and other dwellings and fortifications. Wherever the building material used by orcs/goblins is specified, it is stone. This is hardly surprising as Mordor was treeless.

  The cities and very likely smaller population centres of Gondor were of stone, indeed, Gondor means "Land of Stone."

  Thranduil's capital was underground and of stone; The Noldo Elves habitually built in stone, Caras Galadon in Lorien being an exception (altho even there, the walls linking the giant trees may have been stone). Imladris may well have been built partly of timber and partly of stone. It is spoken of in the Silmarillion as a fortress, and it is inconceivable that Noldo elves would built fortifications of wood when they had the technology and materials to build in stone.

  The Woodmen and Northmen habitually built in timber (Beorn's hall, Esgaroth) but that is probably due to the materials at hand, being in or around Mirkwood. It is noticeable that almost all the pop centres which were definitely built of stone are either on or within 1 hex of either mountains or rough hexes, implying that is where they got their building stone from. An exception is Dol Guldur, but as the name means "Hill of Sorcery" perhaps its terrain should be rough rather than forest.

  My conclusion is that the great majority of building in Middle-earth was done from whatever material was to hand; however most nations, if not all, were quite capable of shipping stone to a strategic but stoneless site if they wanted to. I would say that it is desirable to introduce stone to 2nd ed. Yes it would add complexity, but there would be a payoff in credibility.

  Also on the subject of building, Sauron built Barad-dur, and Saruman expanded Isengard, using sorcery. It would be good to see a spell allowing fortifications to be improved one level. On the same theme, Saruman's troops besieging Helm's Deep used "devilry of Orthanc" or "blasting fire" to breach the walls (of stone, by the way). We should have a spell to cover this too.

  Richard.

  http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
  Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Laurence G. Tilley
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 8:41 AM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: ME Second Edition Idea

  At 05:05 02/06/2002, ED wrote:
  >I don't think there's any need to add stone, simply because stone is not
  >something one has to hunt around for in most places.

#19

What's so hard to believe about it taking two weeks for an effective
  agent to round up enough turncoats to help him sabotage
  fortifications on an enemy position?
  He is NOT working alone........he's just the one giving the ORDER.....
  Jim Gonion

  RD: It's hard to believe that an orc agent would find any turncoats amongst elves or dwarves, or vice versa. And it doesn't answer the question exactly -how- this agent, whether aided and abetted by minions or not, succeeds in sabotaging fortifications of stone.
  Richard.

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
  Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: jgonion2000
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 10:35 AM
  Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: ME Second Edition Idea