Middle Earth

mepbmlist
#1

I'm for it.
John MacVane

···

From: "MiddleEarthGames" <me@MiddleEarthGames.com>
Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
To: "mepbmlist" <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [mepbmlist] Middle Earth
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 00:08:10 -0000

Hello again - got a ruling that I would like to check out with you all.

At present we regularly get games where most players on a side drop out on
one turn, but we aren't able to end the game until all players drop the
game. My preference in these situations is that we then end the game if
there are more than 2:1 odds (with a minimum number of say 6 players on the
"winning" side).

This would save the annoyance of the winning side being charged for a final
turn and get the game over and new games set-up more quickly (I hope). It
would also remove some of the "can't be bothered to hunt one player vs 12"
that occasionally occurs. I know I have brought this up before but I feel
this would be good for the game if I had enough player support to start up
all new games with this ruling.

Thoughts?

Clint
******************************************
          Middle Earth Games
Website: www.middleearthgames.com
Mailto: me@middleearthgames.com
UK: Office A, 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP
USA: PO Box 280 Medford, OR 97501-0019
Phone: 011 44 29 2091 3359 (12-6.30 BST)
Fax: 011 44 29 2062 5532 (24 hours)
****************************************

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

#2

I am for it -- when I am on the 2:1 or 12:1 side.

When I am on the 1:2 or 1:12 side, and my clever and meticulously
developed plan is about to result in a Ring win -- then I'm ag'in it.

That means, I must be against it.

Steve Allen

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "John MacVane" <juanpata@h...> wrote:

I'm for it.
John MacVane

>From: "MiddleEarthGames" <me@M...>
>Reply-To: mepbmlist@y...
>To: "mepbmlist" <mepbmlist@y...>
>Subject: [mepbmlist] Middle Earth
>Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 00:08:10 -0000
>
>Hello again - got a ruling that I would like to check out with you

all.

>
>At present we regularly get games where most players on a side

drop out on

>one turn, but we aren't able to end the game until all players

drop the

>game. My preference in these situations is that we then end the

game if

>there are more than 2:1 odds (with a minimum number of say 6

players on the

>"winning" side).
>
>This would save the annoyance of the winning side being charged

for a final

>turn and get the game over and new games set-up more quickly (I

hope). It

>would also remove some of the "can't be bothered to hunt one

player vs 12"

>that occasionally occurs. I know I have brought this up before

but I feel

>this would be good for the game if I had enough player support to

start up

>all new games with this ruling.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Clint
>******************************************
> Middle Earth Games
>Website: www.middleearthgames.com
>Mailto: me@m...
>UK: Office A, 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP
>USA: PO Box 280 Medford, OR 97501-0019
>Phone: 011 44 29 2091 3359 (12-6.30 BST)
>Fax: 011 44 29 2062 5532 (24 hours)
>****************************************
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

#3

Yes, I'm afraid this encapsulates it. So reluctantly, I too am against the suggestion. The desperate hope of Victory by the One Ring, BY THE SMALLEST HERO WHEN ALL ELSE IS UTTERLY LOST, is the essential spirit of the LotR story, so the game should reflect that.

This is the sort of thing though, which whilst I think you would be very wrong to graft it onto ALL games, might well be adopted by players for specific games. It's an option for another old (lack of interest?) idea: Pre-game agreements.

Another one players could choose to sign up for is "Game ends if MAJORITY of players of one allegiance vote to concede defeat".

Laurence G. Tilley

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

···

At 02:26 AM 28-11-01, hereward@plumasnet.com wrote:

When I am on the 1:2 or 1:12 side, and my clever and meticulously
developed plan is about to result in a Ring win -- then I'm ag'in it.

#4

I'd like to add the following method of winning:

If at the end of any turn a team does not control any of its
starting capitals, all nations of that alliance are eliminated.

If you look at the 1650/2950 capitals, any team that has lost
all starting capitals has no prospect of a "normal" win; even if
the ring is dropped off, that side has been so devastated by the
war that the people would not regard it as a "victory". I would
not count the neutrals one way or another. Destroy or hold all 10 of
the initial team capitals on the other side - you win.

This is far from easy and would reduce the perpetual concerns about
bug hunts. Granted, this would still permit games to continue after
they are effectively decided - but the winning team would not have
to hop around from major town to major town chasing that one last
player. To prevent elimination you have to cling to at least some
of your starting territory.

Just my 2 cents.

cheers,

Marc

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@l...> wrote:

>When I am on the 1:2 or 1:12 side, and my clever and meticulously
>developed plan is about to result in a Ring win -- then I'm ag'in

it.

Yes, I'm afraid this encapsulates it. So reluctantly, I too am

against the

suggestion. The desperate hope of Victory by the One Ring, BY THE

SMALLEST

HERO WHEN ALL ELSE IS UTTERLY LOST, is the essential spirit of the

LotR

story, so the game should reflect that.

This is the sort of thing though, which whilst I think you would be

very

wrong to graft it onto ALL games, might well be adopted by players

for

specific games. It's an option for another old (lack of interest?)
idea: Pre-game agreements.

Another one players could choose to sign up for is "Game ends if

MAJORITY

···

At 02:26 AM 28-11-01, hereward@p... wrote:
of players of one allegiance vote to concede defeat".

Laurence G. Tilley

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

#5

Can't agree with that. Once, as a declared neutral, I had created
enough major towns to harbour 3 of my allies.... Capitals move:
people shall fight for their ideas until the land has been
exhausted, or they've all been killed. Specific pop centers have
nothing to do with that. Just look at the Northmen...

Regards,

Brad

···

--- pinsonneault.1@osu.edu wrote:

I'd like to add the following method of winning:
If at the end of any turn a team does not control any of its
starting capitals, all nations of that alliance are eliminated.

_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free at http://ca.geocities.com

#6

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Player <pbmnoot@y...> wrote:

--- pinsonneault.1@o... wrote:
> I'd like to add the following method of winning:
> If at the end of any turn a team does not control any of its
> starting capitals, all nations of that alliance are eliminated.

Can't agree with that. Once, as a declared neutral, I had created
enough major towns to harbour 3 of my allies.... Capitals move:
people shall fight for their ideas until the land has been
exhausted, or they've all been killed. Specific pop centers have
nothing to do with that. Just look at the Northmen...

Regards,

Brad

Totally agree with Brad, especially with isolated DS such as the DrL
and the WK and QA. Especiall the QA and WK who have the power within
their nations to completely rebuild their economy. Ex. Game 119 as
WK I had two of my starters left to my name, but was able to conquer,
create, or influence 8 towns into my economy. Pops do not equate
game win,- characters do. When the opposition has supreme character
domination, and I do not mean quality of, but amount of orders
capable of being processed the opposition is in for a rude
awakening. I agree with the thought of 2-1 with a minimum, and take
into account the vitality of the individual naitons. I mean if the
Noldo hold all of S Gondor, yet it is one of 4 against 8. The four
may still be viable. Or if one of the 8 is holding on by its last
major town, special consideration is deserved. Each game should be
and needs to be evaluated. Then again, does winnning mean that much
more than playing? But lets not open up that can of worms again..

Brian currently 16/61, 18/130, 16/131, 13/83, and yes Hoarmuarath is
my favorite

_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free at

http://ca.geocities.com

#7

--- In mepbmlist@y..., blchezluis@a... wrote:

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Player <pbmnoot@y...> wrote:
> --- pinsonneault.1@o... wrote:
> > I'd like to add the following method of winning:
> > If at the end of any turn a team does not control any of its
> > starting capitals, all nations of that alliance are eliminated.
>
>
> Can't agree with that. Once, as a declared neutral, I had created
> enough major towns to harbour 3 of my allies.... Capitals move:
> people shall fight for their ideas until the land has been
> exhausted, or they've all been killed. Specific pop centers have
> nothing to do with that. Just look at the Northmen...
>
> Regards,
>
> Brad

??? So if the dark servants own the gray havens, khazad-dum, all of
the starting mirkwood capitals, both of the gondor capitals,
arthedain/cardolan capitals and the northmen capital the free could
possibly win?

I'm not saying an
*individual* nation goes out if they lose their starting capital -
a *team* goes out if they don't hold *any* of the starting ones
at the end of a turn.

Does that help?

Marc

>
Totally agree with Brad, especially with isolated DS such as the DrL
and the WK and QA. Especiall the QA and WK who have the power

within

their nations to completely rebuild their economy. Ex. Game 119 as
WK I had two of my starters left to my name, but was able to

conquer,

···

create, or influence 8 towns into my economy. Pops do not equate
game win,- characters do. When the opposition has supreme character
domination, and I do not mean quality of, but amount of orders
capable of being processed the opposition is in for a rude
awakening. I agree with the thought of 2-1 with a minimum, and take
into account the vitality of the individual naitons. I mean if the
Noldo hold all of S Gondor, yet it is one of 4 against 8. The four
may still be viable. Or if one of the 8 is holding on by its last
major town, special consideration is deserved. Each game should be
and needs to be evaluated. Then again, does winnning mean that much
more than playing? But lets not open up that can of worms again..

Brian currently 16/61, 18/130, 16/131, 13/83, and yes Hoarmuarath is
my favorite

> _______________________________________________________
> Build your own website in minutes and for free at
http://ca.geocities.com

#8

Best case vs worst case is a redundant argument. What if it's 7
nations vs 3 remaining. The 3 starting capitals for the minority
team could have been burnt long ago and reposted as camps, or
whatever...endless possibilities... But the remaining Freeps are
solid and united and determined. The remaining DS are bored and
persuing their own end-games...finding +500 arties to get the "most",
seeking characters of "The Unknown" to ensure they're dead, building
major towns ad nauseum, etc. The 3 Freeps dedicate themselves to
both a 1 ring victory, and a 1 by 1 defense of their "Ideals", or,
elimination of their opposition...Next thing you know, some HC from
an off-map pop evasively land on one major town, while agents assass
and remove fortifications from another in time for a threatening army
as emissaries influence away the third...etc etc..blah blah blah...
(note: by both the 2:1 rule and yours, this game would have been
"officially" over...)

Why make rules? THEN you have to enforce them! What a waste of time!
The game ticks along just fine..... I was in a game that just ended
today because the last of the opposition finally quit. Doesn't matter,
only 2 or so of us issued orders anyway, the rest dropped. Why?
Because we WON the game, we knew it, every other sane person knew it,
so they sent in their drops and moved on with their money. That's
what free market consumerism is all about. We don't get GWC's, we
don't get public announcements or gold medals or free turns or
anything.
We know who played, who won. We know who we like, who we don't, who
we'll play With and Against the next time. We had fun, and, Yip Yip,
we won this time.

Please...No More Rules! No More Convenient Bureaucracy catering to
the Lowest Common Denominator! Let the extremists on the side you
DON'T like live please, because they're gonna outlaw the extremists
YOU like next...haven't we learned anything? Geez, it's just a game...

Brad the Paranoid Revolutionary

···

--- pinsonneault.1@osu.edu wrote:

??? So if the dark servants own the gray havens, khazad-dum, all
of the starting mirkwood capitals, both of the gondor capitals,
arthedain/cardolan capitals and the northmen capital the free could
possibly win?

_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free at http://ca.geocities.com

#9

I thought Mark's idea was rather interesting, like the strategic pop
win in 4th age, maybe this could be an alternative victory condition?

However, I reckon Clint's idea solves everything - just advertise the
games where the rule is enforced. I reckon we are basically talking 2
different markets here - individual versus grudge games, they each
appeal for different reasons and attract a different player pool.

All the WC games are played with a 2-1 elimination rule btw. Why?
Because its bloody hard to kill anyone in ME when the team supports
each other. I think in the WC case, the rule adds to the play, one for
all, all for one, that type of thing.

??? So if the dark servants own the gray havens, khazad-dum, all
of the starting mirkwood capitals, both of the gondor capitals,
arthedain/cardolan capitals and the northmen capital the free could
possibly win?

Best case vs worst case is a redundant argument. What if it's 7
nations vs 3 remaining. The 3 starting capitals for the minority
team could have been burnt long ago and reposted as camps, or
whatever...endless possibilities... But the remaining Freeps are
solid and united and determined. The remaining DS are bored and
persuing their own end-games...finding +500 arties to get the "most",
seeking characters of "The Unknown" to ensure they're dead, building
major towns ad nauseum, etc. The 3 Freeps dedicate themselves to
both a 1 ring victory, and a 1 by 1 defense of their "Ideals", or,
elimination of their opposition...Next thing you know, some HC from
an off-map pop evasively land on one major town, while agents assass
and remove fortifications from another in time for a threatening army
as emissaries influence away the third...etc etc..blah blah blah...
(note: by both the 2:1 rule and yours, this game would have been
"officially" over...)

Why make rules? THEN you have to enforce them! What a waste of

time!

The game ticks along just fine..... I was in a game that just ended
today because the last of the opposition finally quit. Doesn't

matter,

only 2 or so of us issued orders anyway, the rest dropped. Why?
Because we WON the game, we knew it, every other sane person knew it,
so they sent in their drops and moved on with their money. That's
what free market consumerism is all about. We don't get GWC's, we
don't get public announcements or gold medals or free turns or
anything.
We know who played, who won. We know who we like, who we don't, who
we'll play With and Against the next time. We had fun, and, Yip Yip,
we won this time.

Please...No More Rules! No More Convenient Bureaucracy catering to
the Lowest Common Denominator! Let the extremists on the side you
DON'T like live please, because they're gonna outlaw the extremists
YOU like next...haven't we learned anything? Geez, it's just a

game...

Brad the Paranoid Revolutionary

_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free at

http://ca.geocities.com

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

---------------------~-->

Universal Inkjet Refill Kit $29.95
Refill any ink cartridge for less!
Includes black and color ink.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/f00vhB/MkNDAA/ySSFAA/ofVplB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------

~->

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/

···

--- pinsonneault.1@osu.edu wrote:

#10

Agreed: WC and other "grudge" games are different. Newbies mostly
join individual games, no? Oddest thing I've found in my individual
games....the ones with the most newbies and odd types usually last
longer and are more enjoyable, over the long term... Now, they include
endless sessions of head-banging frustration, but you end up with that
on both sides.. The individual games with piles of vets end quick
because:

1) one side of vets slaughters the other mixed side
or
2) vets are prone to "this and that is going to happen, the game is
over, let's drop"

I prefer the individual games to keep the flavour of randomness. They
more accurately simulate Middle Earth due to the influences of various
personalities, skill levels, diplomatic traits, etc...just like a
complex and diverse society. Grudge games are exercises in patience
and technical expertese. An excellent war game set in Middle Earth,
but decidedly NOT Middle Earth....

As for Marc's idea, I agreed that in all practicality, if his scenario
occurs, there isn't a hope for the relocated team. OF course. But
for all the games that ACTUALLY get to that stage WITHOUT the relocated
team long ago dropping already...there will be crazy scenarios where
the rule would apply, but wouldn't be desired... The odds for both are
equal in my mind, and both so miniscule that actually creating a rule
for them is a waste of perfectly good electrons. If it ain't broke...

Regards,

Brad Brunet

···

--- John Stagoll <john.stagoll@airservices.gov.au> wrote:

I thought Mark's idea was rather interesting, like the strategic
pop win in 4th age, maybe this could be an alternative victory
condition?

However, I reckon Clint's idea solves everything - just advertise
the games where the rule is enforced. I reckon we are basically
talking 2 different markets here - individual versus grudge games,
they each appeal for different reasons and attract a different player
pool. All the WC games are played with a 2-1 elimination rule btw.
Why? Because its bloody hard to kill anyone in ME when the team
supports each other. I think in the WC case, the rule adds to the
play, one for all, all for one, that type of thing.

_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free at http://ca.geocities.com