new alignment for grudge games

mepbmlist
#1

I've been thinking about the way we align the former neutrals in grudge
games. Normally FP get Duns and Cor whilst DS get Rhu, Har & Eas. This
means that the FP are still overwhelmingly strong in the nw, whilst the Nor
are very hard-pressed in the east. To counter this, there is often some
tinkering done with fortifications, eg giving Rhu a castle on 1910 and the
same for Nor at 4013. In my experience, this makes not the slightest
difference - both Rhu and Nor get battered very quickly.

I'd like to experiment with a change to the alignment of former neutrals.
Give the DS Rhu, Dun and Cor, and the FP Har and Eas. First look at what
this does to the political map in the nw. Nol, Art and Car are now
isolated, and instead of bulldozing the DS into the Misty mts using
overwhelming numbers, they can expect a really tough campaign if they are to
overcome WiK, Rhu and Dun. It also gives Rhu the option of sending armies
east to help DrL, and Duns the option of attacking NGo (and vice versa). In
particular, it makes Rhu a viable position.

In the south, giving Cor to DS means that the DS have, for a change, a
viable navy. This gives both sides capabality to launch powerful amphibious
attacks instead of this being the monopoly of the FP. Giving Har to FP
means that Har has to fight on two fronts, instead of Har and QAv being able
to hurl everything at Cor. Also the QAv MT at 2135 is no longer an
automatic lost cause.

In the east, giving Eas to FP means that Nor will not be automatically
battered by overwhelming numbers. LoR, ClL and BlS have, for a change, to
look over their shoulders at the Eas enemy in the se. No longer can these
DS nations march their armies off north and west knowing their rear is
secure.

This new alignment gives both teams a host of new choices and challenges.
It gives players of weaker nations like Rhu and Nor a better chance of
survival and even winning. It makes for more open warfare almost
everywhere. However, players who like mindless frontal assaults with
massive casualties can still have them by taking nations either side of the
Ithil Pass.

I have not overlooked the fact that giving Dun to DS gives them another
nation with an agent SNA. This is balanced by the economic and military
powerhouse of Harad going to FP. Whilst this strengthens each team in areas
where they are already strong, each of these nations, under the new
alignment, is much more vulnerable to military and naval strikes from a
number of enemies so should not be unduly influential.

That's it - let me know what you think.

Richard.

#2

Hey!..

What do you short folk think you are playing at helping out those Northmen
people. Although I guess knowing your folk's love of gold and other precious
metals it wouldn't surprise me if your arrival has something to do with the
distinct lack of gold in the Northmen treasuries. My Agents couldn't even
find any money on your people let alone in the great big vaults marked
BANK!.

Oh and would Aluiric please come back. I am sure he would like to suffer
from death (sort of like Lanthir) rather than just suffer the loss of both
his legs from deadly wounds. If he wants we will keep in the same sack as
Barlin. He might want someone to talk too..

And last of all would Frumgara like to take part in a personal challenge
against my commander Drurgandra ? I am sure he will go easy on you.

Uvatha
Game 78

#3

Since I'm seriously thinking of playing a 1650 grudge game, this
makes more sense to me than the old way.

Just my two cents worth since I haven't actually played a grude game
yet.

Scott

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Richard John Devereux" <devereux@l...> wrote:

I've been thinking about the way we align the former neutrals in

grudge

games. Normally FP get Duns and Cor whilst DS get Rhu, Har & Eas.

This

means that the FP are still overwhelmingly strong in the nw, whilst

the Nor

are very hard-pressed in the east. To counter this, there is often

some

tinkering done with fortifications, eg giving Rhu a castle on 1910

and the

same for Nor at 4013. In my experience, this makes not the

slightest

difference - both Rhu and Nor get battered very quickly.

I'd like to experiment with a change to the alignment of former

neutrals.

Give the DS Rhu, Dun and Cor, and the FP Har and Eas. First look

at what

this does to the political map in the nw. Nol, Art and Car are now
isolated, and instead of bulldozing the DS into the Misty mts using
overwhelming numbers, they can expect a really tough campaign if

they are to

overcome WiK, Rhu and Dun. It also gives Rhu the option of sending

armies

east to help DrL, and Duns the option of attacking NGo (and vice

versa). In

particular, it makes Rhu a viable position.

In the south, giving Cor to DS means that the DS have, for a

change, a

viable navy. This gives both sides capabality to launch powerful

amphibious

attacks instead of this being the monopoly of the FP. Giving Har

to FP

means that Har has to fight on two fronts, instead of Har and QAv

being able

to hurl everything at Cor. Also the QAv MT at 2135 is no longer an
automatic lost cause.

In the east, giving Eas to FP means that Nor will not be

automatically

battered by overwhelming numbers. LoR, ClL and BlS have, for a

change, to

look over their shoulders at the Eas enemy in the se. No longer

can these

DS nations march their armies off north and west knowing their rear

is

secure.

This new alignment gives both teams a host of new choices and

challenges.

It gives players of weaker nations like Rhu and Nor a better chance

of

survival and even winning. It makes for more open warfare almost
everywhere. However, players who like mindless frontal assaults

with

massive casualties can still have them by taking nations either

side of the

Ithil Pass.

I have not overlooked the fact that giving Dun to DS gives them

another

nation with an agent SNA. This is balanced by the economic and

military

powerhouse of Harad going to FP. Whilst this strengthens each team

in areas

where they are already strong, each of these nations, under the new
alignment, is much more vulnerable to military and naval strikes

from a

···

number of enemies so should not be unduly influential.

That's it - let me know what you think.

Richard.

#4

I don't know that I'd like to play the Easterlings with that lineup. Sure, it would
help out the Northmen, and sure it would be a "challenge", but you're basically on
your own in Khand (where your capital is). Your only real help is the Northmen, who
isn't in a position to give you any real help.
The rest of the lineup makes sense. I don't really have an answer to the doomed
Easterling problem (except perhaps to make it a half-price position or something), but
I like the rest.

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard John Devereux [mailto:devereux@lineone.net]
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 4:36 AM
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [mepbmlist] new alignment for grudge games

I'd like to experiment with a change to the alignment of former neutrals.
Give the DS Rhu, Dun and Cor, and the FP Har and Eas. First look at what
this does to the political map in the nw. Nol, Art and Car are now
isolated, and instead of bulldozing the DS into the Misty mts using
overwhelming numbers, they can expect a really tough campaign if they are to
overcome WiK, Rhu and Dun. It also gives Rhu the option of sending armies
east to help DrL, and Duns the option of attacking NGo (and vice versa). In
particular, it makes Rhu a viable position.

#5

Greetings

I think, that giving the DS three positions and the Freeps only two is a very unfair
setup.....

I don�t think that there is any 13/12 split that would be fair so I do not like the Idea

Stefan

···

>Subject: [mepbmlist] new alignment for grudge games
>
>I'd like to experiment with a change to the alignment of former neutrals.
>Give the DS Rhu, Dun and Cor, and the FP Har and Eas. First look at what
>this does to the political map in the nw. Nol, Art and Car are now
>isolated, and instead of bulldozing the DS into the Misty mts using
>overwhelming numbers, they can expect a really tough campaign if they are to
>overcome WiK, Rhu and Dun. It also gives Rhu the option of sending armies
>east to help DrL, and Duns the option of attacking NGo (and vice versa). In
>particular, it makes Rhu a viable position.

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/

#6

Well I'm not quite sure what Richard is on here. In my experience there is no universally agreed "old way" and the alignment in pre-aligned games has always been freely debated before those games start. I've been in a few now, and have seen a few different dispositions. All that ever makes a difference really though is the calibre of the players on your team.

If I was going to start such a game right now, I'd like to see one which compensates for the DS advantage (66% of games won by DS - yeah yeah, I know there are other figures, but this still matches my opinion of the relative imbalance, and if I was a bookie those are the sort of odds I'd give in a game of unknown teams)

WiK has no chance is Rhu starts against him. Rhu has no chance if anyone attacks him. So I'd like to play in a game where Rhu starts DS, with one extra MT/Tower in the Misty Mountains, and all the other Neuts start as FP. That would be my idea of a more reasonable challenge for a team of experienced DS to face.

Laurence G. Tilley

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

···

At 04:34 PM 30-09-01, sm_069@yahoo.com wrote:

Since I'm seriously thinking of playing a 1650 grudge game, this
makes more sense to me than the old way.

#7

>Since I'm seriously thinking of playing a 1650 grudge game, this
>makes more sense to me than the old way.

Well I'm not quite sure what Richard is on here. In my experience there

is

no universally agreed "old way" and the alignment in pre-aligned games has
always been freely debated before those games start. I've been in a few
now, and have seen a few different dispositions. All that ever makes a
difference really though is the calibre of the players on your team.

RD: Good old Laurence will argue with me whatever I propose. He's played in
a lot of games alongside me, and each of our several pre-aligned game has
followed (with minor changes) the same pattern. I have never yet seen
anybody play the setup I propose (but I stand to be corrected if anybody has
done so). Of course the better team should win every time, but they don't.
Just look at Man U.

The idea behind my proposed new setup is to give players (who may or may not
be jaded with the old setups) a new challenge. If you want to give it a
try, fine. If you want to play same old, equally fine.

If I was going to start such a game right now, I'd like to see one which
compensates for the DS advantage (66% of games won by DS - yeah yeah, I
know there are other figures, but this still matches my opinion of the
relative imbalance, and if I was a bookie those are the sort of odds I'd
give in a game of unknown teams)

WiK has no chance is Rhu starts against him. Rhu has no chance if anyone
attacks him. So I'd like to play in a game where Rhu starts DS, with one
extra MT/Tower in the Misty Mountains, and all the other Neuts start as
FP. That would be my idea of a more reasonable challenge for a team of
experienced DS to face.

Laurence G. Tilley

RD: Now I know you're arguing against my proposal just for the sake of it,
without even thinking it through. An extra MT/T makes no significant
difference to Rhu's chances of survival. Add the Dun to Rhu as DS and you
have a whole new ball game.

Whadya mean, "all the other neuts start as FP?" Rhu goes DS and FOUR neuts
go FP? I'm sure this is not what you meant to say. If it is, I'll know you
are losing it.

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>; <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: new alignment for grudge games

At 04:34 PM 30-09-01, sm_069@yahoo.com wrote:

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

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/

#8

Folks,

A couple of questions for the list and also Harlequins if you have
some time.

The 1st one is about War Machines and their use in pop center combat.
Example:-
2 enemy armies are at MT-Fort. One army has 10WarMachines and the
other one has 5 WarMachines. Both issue the Capture Pop center order.

My question is quite simple:- Are the WarMachines from both armies
combined to destroy the FORT ? In this example the WarMachine values
from BOTH armies are 3000 (15 * 200 = 3000) which is equal to the
fortification value. Thus shouldn't the fort get destroyed ?
If the war machines from both armies are taken seperately then the
fort wouldn't get destroyed ?

The 2nd question is about 947. Do you lose 10% portage fee for the
product that is already in the stores of the destination pop center ?
Example:- I have say 1000 leather at the destination pop center. In
my other camps I have 500. Do I lose 50 leather in portage fee (10%
of 500) OR do I lose 150 leather (10% of 1500 leather).
For me it's only logically to suffer the 10% portage fee for the
amounts that actually get transported.

Thanks in advance

Cheers
Brendan

#9

WiK has no chance is Rhu starts against him. Rhu has no chance if anyone
attacks him. So I'd like to play in a game where Rhu starts DS, with one
extra MT/Tower in the Misty Mountains, and all the other Neuts start as
FP. That would be my idea of a more reasonable challenge for a team of
experienced DS to face.

Laurence G. Tilley

Wow! I believe my game 77 GMs and friends team (including 5 players in their
first game) could defeat the best ME players in the world if we had 4
neutrals.

I don't understand how the DS could deal with North Gondor, South Gondor,
Harad and the Corsairs all being in the Ithil Pass on turn 5 with about
20,000 troops.

I also don't understand how Rhudaur and the Witch King can possibly survive
against Arthedain, Cardolan, Noldo and Dunland. I'm talking about 25000
troops attacking in Angmar at turn 5.

I'm happy to assume that the DS have 3 killer agents and a sickness squad in
the above scenarios, plus a couple of dragons.

Sam (player)

#10

I always thought a good split would be...

Harad and Duns go free
Corsairs, Easterlings Rhudaur go DS
QA is removed.

Kev

I don't know that I'd like to play the Easterlings with that lineup. Sure,

it would

help out the Northmen, and sure it would be a "challenge", but you're

basically on

your own in Khand (where your capital is). Your only real help is the

Northmen, who

isn't in a position to give you any real help.
The rest of the lineup makes sense. I don't really have an answer to the

doomed

Easterling problem (except perhaps to make it a half-price position or

something), but

···

At 10:48 30/09/01 -0500, you wrote:

I like the rest.

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard John Devereux [mailto:devereux@lineone.net]
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 4:36 AM
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [mepbmlist] new alignment for grudge games

I'd like to experiment with a change to the alignment of former neutrals.
Give the DS Rhu, Dun and Cor, and the FP Har and Eas. First look at what
this does to the political map in the nw. Nol, Art and Car are now
isolated, and instead of bulldozing the DS into the Misty mts using
overwhelming numbers, they can expect a really tough campaign if they are to
overcome WiK, Rhu and Dun. It also gives Rhu the option of sending armies
east to help DrL, and Duns the option of attacking NGo (and vice versa). In
particular, it makes Rhu a viable position.

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/

#11

I always thought a good split would be...

Harad and Duns go free
Corsairs, Easterlings Rhudaur go DS
QA is removed.

Kev

RD: Why? If you're going to put forward a counter-opinion, let's see the
argument to back it up, as I have done.

Richard.

>I don't know that I'd like to play the Easterlings with that lineup.

Sure,

it would
>help out the Northmen, and sure it would be a "challenge", but you're
basically on
>your own in Khand (where your capital is). Your only real help is the
Northmen, who
>isn't in a position to give you any real help.
>The rest of the lineup makes sense. I don't really have an answer to the
doomed
>Easterling problem (except perhaps to make it a half-price position or
something), but
>I like the rest.
>
>>From: Richard John Devereux [mailto:devereux@lineone.net]
>>Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 4:36 AM
>>To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
>>Subject: [mepbmlist] new alignment for grudge games
>>
>>I'd like to experiment with a change to the alignment of former

neutrals.

>>Give the DS Rhu, Dun and Cor, and the FP Har and Eas. First look at

what

>>this does to the political map in the nw. Nol, Art and Car are now
>>isolated, and instead of bulldozing the DS into the Misty mts using
>>overwhelming numbers, they can expect a really tough campaign if they

are to

>>overcome WiK, Rhu and Dun. It also gives Rhu the option of sending

armies

>>east to help DrL, and Duns the option of attacking NGo (and vice versa).

In

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin" <kevin@bobbins71.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 7:50 PM
Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] new alignment for grudge games

At 10:48 30/09/01 -0500, you wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>particular, it makes Rhu a viable position.
>
>
>
>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/
>
>
>
>

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/

#12

I'm answering neither question in the public forum of this list, but I do have ideas of how a DS team would attempt to face both the challenges you describe. I'm not saying it would be easy, it would be real extreme skin of the teeth stuff. But that's what I'm looking for. I've been in too many team games as DS where, the Gondors have never looked realistically as if they are going to break through the pass, and where the WiK has managed to occupy the whole of Eriador in a games of "dodge the dragon" for 15+ turns.

Laurence G. Tilley

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

···

At 07:14 PM 30-09-01, Sam Roads wrote:

Wow! I believe my game 77 GMs and friends team (including 5 players in their
first game) could defeat the best ME players in the world if we had 4
neutrals.

I don't understand how the DS could deal with North Gondor, South Gondor,
Harad and the Corsairs all being in the Ithil Pass on turn 5 with about
20,000 troops.

I also don't understand how Rhudaur and the Witch King can possibly survive
against Arthedain, Cardolan, Noldo and Dunland. I'm talking about 25000
troops attacking in Angmar at turn 5.

I'm happy to assume that the DS have 3 killer agents and a sickness squad in
the above scenarios, plus a couple of dragons.

#13

I think our sage Kev is right ... the QA is *such* a poor position. It only
really exists to keep (or try to keep!) the Corsairs and Harad from both
declaring Free.

In a prealigned game there is no need for that balancing act and its armed
forces/recruiting bases are too pathetic to count for much in a slug fest
between the two southern superpowers.

Just my tuppence worth :slight_smile:

Matthew

PS. And further to comments I've heard on the list, yeah trailer for LOTR
is incredibly good! The only thing that could make it more mouthwatering is
a lascivious close up of Miss Tyler....

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard John Devereux" <devereux@lineone.net>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] new alignment for grudge games

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin" <kevin@bobbins71.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 7:50 PM
Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] new alignment for grudge games

> I always thought a good split would be...
>
> Harad and Duns go free
> Corsairs, Easterlings Rhudaur go DS
> QA is removed.
>
> Kev
>
RD: Why? If you're going to put forward a counter-opinion, let's see the
argument to back it up, as I have done.

Richard.

>
> At 10:48 30/09/01 -0500, you wrote:
> >I don't know that I'd like to play the Easterlings with that lineup.
Sure,
> it would
> >help out the Northmen, and sure it would be a "challenge", but you're
> basically on
> >your own in Khand (where your capital is). Your only real help is the
> Northmen, who
> >isn't in a position to give you any real help.
> >The rest of the lineup makes sense. I don't really have an answer to

the

> doomed
> >Easterling problem (except perhaps to make it a half-price position or
> something), but
> >I like the rest.
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Richard John Devereux [mailto:devereux@lineone.net]
> >>Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 4:36 AM
> >>To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
> >>Subject: [mepbmlist] new alignment for grudge games
> >>
> >>I'd like to experiment with a change to the alignment of former
neutrals.
> >>Give the DS Rhu, Dun and Cor, and the FP Har and Eas. First look at
what
> >>this does to the political map in the nw. Nol, Art and Car are now
> >>isolated, and instead of bulldozing the DS into the Misty mts using
> >>overwhelming numbers, they can expect a really tough campaign if they
are to
> >>overcome WiK, Rhu and Dun. It also gives Rhu the option of sending
armies
> >>east to help DrL, and Duns the option of attacking NGo (and vice

versa).

In
> >>particular, it makes Rhu a viable position.
> >
> >
> >
> >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/

> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 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/

>
>
>

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/

#14

Note there are 10vs10 with 5 Neutrals and 12vs12. At present we (1650) get
rid of the Easterlings and align the 2 Neutrals. These are the rules we are
using for the World Champs (so are our "standard").

We can change most things like this - 2950 has still not got a standar
version.

Clint (GM)

As a player in game 77 our Arthedain and Cardolan (with Duns help and some
Noldo/Dwarf/Sindar minor help) walked straight through (give or take) the
Rhudaur (a Threaten on the Fortified Rhu Back-up worked - Dilgil (NM
southern MT) has yet to be attacked and with the Fort on it we think that we
could have kept it in most situations/attack scenarios). Looking at it - we
think that there is nothing that can be done to stop this blitzkreig -
properly ochestrated.

So I was wondering if a Dun/Rhu/Harad (DS) split would be more helpful with
(FP) Easterlings/Corsair battle in the south and West a more interesting
prospect. (Note this is the 1st such game, but Sam's 2nd that we have
played in - more experienced players might have other thoughts).

Clint (player)

···

Since I'm seriously thinking of playing a 1650 grudge game, this
makes more sense to me than the old way.

Just my two cents worth since I haven't actually played a grude game
yet.

Scott

#15

You seem rather grumpy this evening RD. I don't usually get you worked up quite so easily;-) 4 FP neuts Rhu as DS is exactly what I meant to say. It would provide a tough but IMO not impossible challenge for an experienced DS team.

A secure MT in the mountains would make Rhu viable if given allied assistance, after a point at which the exposed pops had been demolished. Compare this directly to the way that DrL can be kept in even after he's lost Goblin Gate and Dol Guldur, by having his capital forced back to 3822.

Perhaps in such a setup, Har and Cor should be reduced a little, perhaps losing 1 MT each, but that's about all I'd want to see by way of further changes.

Laurence G. Tilley

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

···

At 10:53 PM 29-09-01, Richard John Devereux wrote:

An extra MT/T makes no significant
difference to Rhu's chances of survival. Add the Dun to Rhu as DS and you
have a whole new ball game.

Whadya mean, "all the other neuts start as FP?" Rhu goes DS and FOUR neuts
go FP? I'm sure this is not what you meant to say. If it is, I'll know you
are losing it.

#16

Nope, it's worth rather less than that at the moment. Just like Kevin, you've come out with a statement and offered absolutely no supporting argument for it. Why bother to make a comment when you're not going to make any effort to say _why_ you think that?

I hope Kevin will respond to Richard's challenge to elaborate on his proposed set up, and you certainly ought to justify a statement like "QA is *such* a poor position". I've seen one or two players build QAv into a major world power. I would suggest that if you play to its strengths (emissary and economy) and get your team to appreciate it's other value (double scouting) rather than play hack and slash, then it can be a very effective and enjoyable position.

Please don't come out with provocative comments and boil my blood late at night, unless you can back up the comment with something substantive.

Laurence G. Tilley

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

···

At 11:01 PM 30-09-01, Matthew Riley wrote:

I think our sage Kev is right ... the QA is *such* a poor position. It only
really exists to keep (or try to keep!) the Corsairs and Harad from both
declaring Free.

Just my tuppence worth :slight_smile:

#17

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Sam Roads" <sam@s...> wrote:

> WiK has no chance is Rhu starts against him. Rhu has no chance if

anyone

> attacks him. So I'd like to play in a game where Rhu starts DS,

with one

> extra MT/Tower in the Misty Mountains, and all the other Neuts

start as

> FP. That would be my idea of a more reasonable challenge for a

team of

> experienced DS to face.
>
>
> Laurence G. Tilley

Wow! I believe my game 77 GMs and friends team (including 5 players

in their

first game) could defeat the best ME players in the world if we had

4

neutrals.

I don't understand how the DS could deal with North Gondor, South

Gondor,

Harad and the Corsairs all being in the Ithil Pass on turn 5 with

about

20,000 troops.

I also don't understand how Rhudaur and the Witch King can possibly

survive

against Arthedain, Cardolan, Noldo and Dunland. I'm talking about

25000

troops attacking in Angmar at turn 5.

In UK 59 the US team took Rhuduar and Harad while the free got the
Duns and Corsairs (easterlings not played.) We're pushing turn 20,
and the WK and Rhuduar are still in Angmar, still own
1804/2006/2305 etc...it can be done. Of course, having incredibly
good WK/Rhuduar players didn't hurt :slight_smile: (I'm the cloud lord, and
suffice it to say that our agents have had a wee bit to do with this
as well...)

Marc

I'm happy to assume that the DS have 3 killer agents and a sickness

squad in

···

the above scenarios, plus a couple of dragons.

Sam (player)

#18

Laurence G. Tilley wrote...
Please don't come out with provocative comments and boil my blood late at
night, unless you can back up the comment with something substantive.

Hmm... I didn't see any smileys or winks, so I have to assume you're serious here. If
that's the case, then I'd have to say comments and opinions are part of what this list
is for. Since I have yet to see any Mailing List Rules to the contrary, I don't see
why people shouldn't be able to express their opinions with or without backing it up
"with something substantive". As long as they're not being rude about it, why not? If
you don't like it, rebutt it or just delete it. Telling someone they shouldn't post
comments to the list just because they didn't meet some arbitrary standard you've set
for it doesn't really fly.

If you intended for your comments to be light hearted and just forgot the smileys and
winks, then you might want to include them in the future. (It's nearly impossible to
tell when someone is being sarcastic and when they're serious, especially if you don't
know them.) If you were just funnin', then you can pretty much ignore this entire
message, (except for the part about remembering your smileys and winks in the future).
If you were serious, then I'd like to remind you that the likelyhood of a comment to
set your blood boiling isn't a criteria for posting to this list. Neither is it
required to back up opinions with facts acceptable to everyone reading it.

Mike Mulka

#19

Laurence wrote: >>Please don't come out with provocative comments and boil
my blood late at
night, unless you can back up the comment with something substantive.<<

Provocative? Boil your blood? Like its actually important?!!

QA will fall if a southern neutral attacks it early, which happens in
pre-aligned games. Given a dozen turns unmolested pretty much any position
in the game can be turned into a world class one... when you don't have that
time the QA is bantumweight boxing with worldclass heavyweights.

Matthew

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>; <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 1:01 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] new alignment for grudge games

At 11:01 PM 30-09-01, Matthew Riley wrote:
>I think our sage Kev is right ... the QA is *such* a poor position. It

only

>really exists to keep (or try to keep!) the Corsairs and Harad from both
>declaring Free.
>
>Just my tuppence worth :slight_smile:

Nope, it's worth rather less than that at the moment. Just like Kevin,
you've come out with a statement and offered absolutely no supporting
argument for it. Why bother to make a comment when you're not going to
make any effort to say _why_ you think that?

I hope Kevin will respond to Richard's challenge to elaborate on his
proposed set up, and you certainly ought to justify a statement like "QA

is

*such* a poor position". I've seen one or two players build QAv into a
major world power. I would suggest that if you play to its strengths
(emissary and economy) and get your team to appreciate it's other value
(double scouting) rather than play hack and slash, then it can be a very
effective and enjoyable position.

Please don't come out with provocative comments and boil my blood late at
night, unless you can back up the comment with something substantive.

Laurence G. Tilley

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

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/

#20

Yes quite serious. Agree that there are no rules to this list, but still will reserve the right to challenge anyone who posts, without following society's ancient rules for what constitutes interesting conversation and fair debate. If I download something and spend time reading it, and it's completely uninteresting, and if the reason is simply that the writer has made no effort, then I become very annoyed. These posts are often referred to as "me too"s, that being the ultimate example of a gormless post.

What we had here was a chap posting, in effect to say "I think an orange is better than an apple". He was challenged to give his reasons (I'd bitten my lip, Richard came in more delicately than I would have), then before he could respond, another one pops up and says, in effect "Yes, I agree with you, the apple is a really rubbish fruit."

It's a basic principle that you teach to children (I'd expect any 11 year old to tell you he's had it drummed into him by a pen waving teacher): You can say what you like, as long as you give your reasons.

Why am I angry, and not tolerant of the "me too"s, as you seem to be? Perhaps because I want the group to be interesting, and deep down, I actually don't enjoy the sight of people making themselves look childish - so I'll challenge what they've done, in the hope that they'll think a little before they post next time.

And finally, you misquote me badly when you suggest that I said they shouldn't post. I said, they should give their reasons for their statements. I'd be genuinely interested to hear them, that's why I was reading the thread in the first place.

Laurence G. Tilley

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

···

At 04:45 AM 01-10-01, Aaruman wrote:

Hmm... I didn't see any smileys or winks, so I have to assume you're serious here. If
that's the case, then I'd have to say comments and opinions are part of what this list
is for. Since I have yet to see any Mailing List Rules to the contrary, I don't see
why people shouldn't be able to express their opinions with or without backing it up
"with something substantive". As long as they're not being rude about it, why not? If
you don't like it, rebutt it or just delete it. Telling someone they shouldn't post
comments to the list just because they didn't meet some arbitrary standard you've set
for it doesn't really fly.