I've always twitched my head at this idea. Sound when you line up all the
soldiers and assign values, but in reality, much like 408408408408408408,
the scarcity of actual metal clad troops would result in essentially archers
vs archers for a goodly proportion of the game (and, ahem, MA in more
expensive weaponry vs naked archers? give me the archers any day, no?).
And how would you be able to combine mixed armies? Some armies you may
give them metal weapons, but mostly you grab whatever kind of armour you
can find to keep the toothpick alive as long as possible...
The only people who can reliably assemble metals with consistency are the
neutrals for their first Declaration Wave. My 1 point desperate naked peasant
on turn 10 vs his 10 point strutting shopkeeper? I prefer the 30 armour vs 0 as
a factor-of-a-factor any day...
Troop type is supposedly dependent on their role. Reserves, infantry, marines,
etc. Maybe the doubling of light to heavy is a little off, as are certain modifiers,
but I personally like the troop types. My main beef with the majorities of the
2nd edition ideas out there are that we want this or that to work, this or that
to be different, but for some reason, the troop types are always given up on and
reduced. Conceptually they're good. Make them work instead of tossing them.
Regards,
Brad Brunet
···
On Mon, 27 August 2001, Patrick & Stacey McDougall wrote:
And wouldn't it be great to have something- ANYTHING- besides heavy cav
and heavy inf in everyone's armies?! Kind of a shame that the troop
type isn't dependent upon the type of weapons and armor with which
they're equipped. For instance, wood only would equal archers; leather
armor and bronze weapons = men-at-arms; bronze armor and bronze weapons
= light infantry; steel armor and steel weapons = heavy infantry;
leather, mounts, and bronze armor/weapons = light cav; and leather,
mounts, and steel armor/weapons = heavy cav. Heck, two new classes
could be created for mithril weapons & armor-- Paladins (or something)
for foot soldiers, and Knights if they have mounts, leather, and maybe
even some steel for the barding! Just dreaming-- I KNOW that the code
can't be changed and that 90% of you would name me heretic! Sorry, I
just get kinda sick of the "recruit only heavy inf/cav" policy that
everyone must (for the team's sake, of course) use-- makes me wonder why
recruit orders even exist for other troop types! ;>Pat
Aaruman wrote:
>
> My vote... Keep it hidden. In fact, I'd like to see a little more randomness put in
> to some aspects. For example, you can challenge someone with 3 to 1 odds and still
> lose (I know... I lost Elrond that way). However, the army combats seem to be
> extremely predictable (if you know the info for both sides). It would give the game
> more mystery if the army combats had a (small) random aspect as well.
>
> Mike
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Middle Earth PBM Games [mailto:me@MiddleEarthGames.com]
> >Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 8:27 PM
> >To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [mepbmlist] Middle Earth
> >
> >
> >Got a small query - do players like the hidden aspect of the game stats or
> >not? Eg the exact bonus for the combat tactics, effects of fortifications
> >etc?
> >
> >Clint
>
>
> 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.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com