I think sab fort should last only one turn. Afterall, you're putting a whole in the outer wall (or dropping a draw bridge, dropping ropes or ladders over the wall, offing key guards, etc.), not tearing the whole thing down. (At least in my mind). Make it a hard combat spell, or the agent equiv.) It effects Attack/Destroy pop for that turn, but the damage is repaired by the next turn. Of course, an agent or mage could sabotage agian the next turn.
Makes spending thousands and thousands of TI and GO a much better value.
ยทยทยท
From: "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk>
Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
To: <mcgoldrickb@wanadoo.fr>,mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: ME Second Edition Idea
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 09:26:13 +0100At 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
>BrendanThanks 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.htmI 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
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com