New NKA Forming - suggest some modifications

mepbmlist
#1

I'm a complete newbie to ME, I haven't even played my first turn yet.
However, I can tell you that after reading the Rules (and some of the
info available on the website), the whole Kidnapping/Asassination thing
(along with a few other things) made me question whether it was even
worthwhile giving the game a try.

I can see why kidnapping/asassination are part of the game. In addition
to a war game, it's also a character game about the quest to find and
dispose of the One Ring. As such it does make sense to have kidnapping
and asassination as part of the game. However, to this outsiders point
of view, they have far too dramatic an effect on the wargame portion of
the game. Killing 7 or 8 individuals (no matter how important they are)
shouldn't have the effect of wiping out a countries entire millitary and
economic capacity.

Are there really only half-a-dozen or so individuals in an entire nation
capable of commanding troops? Is there really no one else in the entire
nation capable of purchasing timber? Would the Elite Guard of North
Gondor really all just give up and go home because thier commanding
general happaned to get himself killed?

I really don't buy any of that and more importantly, I think it makes
for a bad game. Armies are made up of many levels of command and any
commander is likely to have many subordinates that could take over for
them (albiet at reduced capacity) should they fall.

As for the day to day economics of running a nation, Leaders wouldn't
involve themselves in that sort of stuff at all. Those things are usualy
handled by slenschels and underlings who would be perfectly capable of
carrying on without direct supervision.

My solution would be to allow orders to be issued to armies and
population centers without characters being present. This would allow
kidnappings and asassinations to have an impact... i.e. (Since having a
Good Commander as opposed to an Ordinary Commander can make a big
difference) without totaly dominating the wargame aspect of ME.

Heck, I might even go as far as not allowing Kidnapping\Asassination of
characters that were attached to armies at all. This would restrict such
activity to the Quest for the Ring portion of the game... which is
really where it belongs. And If a side was capable of attaching the Ring
Bearer to an army and capable of marching that army (against opposition)
all the way to Mt. Doom... then I think that's a viable measure of
victory.

Anyway, I have never played ME before so feel free to disregard anything
I say as utter garbage. I just thought I would offer an outsiders
perspective on the issue.

Chris

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Middle Earth PBM Games [mailto:me@MiddleEarthGames.com]
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 2:41 PM
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: New NKA Forming - suggest some
modifications

1. Ban anyone from starting with or building cities or major towns in
the
mountains.

2. Geographic balance

** I would agree with both points made here. Would you want me to
implement this as part of the game rules for this particular game? It's

fine if you don't - it's your game after all - but my suggestions would
be
to have allocated areas for FP and DS (we've done this before). PCwise I

think this is a flaw in the normal FA game (from a realism point of view

it's not appropriate I think). I can certainly understand the appeal as
a
player for having virtually invulnerable positions/capitals. (For
example
- in game 144 one of the team has placed his capital on the plains/river

and each turn he is under threat - with mountains this totally negates
it.)

NKA seems to suffer from the Weakness squads that abound to take out the

"invulnerable" positions I am not sure if that is healthy or not. I
think
instead house ruling some placement of PCs would help enormously rather
than have to have players have to play the Weakness variant...

Just my thoughts having played a bit of the game now . Part of the
appeal
I guess is the safety of positions and being able to build up a nation
rather than the smash and grab of games like 1650 so we're happy to
support
it as GMs.

Discussion more than welcome.

Clint (mostly player with a hint of a GM hat)

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/

#2

I can see why kidnapping/asassination are part of the game. In
addition to a war game, it's also a character game about the quest
to find and dispose of the One Ring. As such it does make sense to
have kidnapping and asassination as part of the game. However, to
this outsiders point of view, they have far too dramatic an effect
on the wargame portion of the game. Killing 7 or 8 individuals (no
matter how important they are shouldn't have the effect of wiping
out a countries entire millitary and economic capacity.

Hmm, so if we kill Sadaam Hussain, it would have no effect on the
Iraq situation?

If you go back even a few hundred years (War of the Roses), when the
noble leading an army was captured/killed, then the army pretty much
disappeared into the countryside.

I have no real problem with this concept in the game. But as I said,
many years ago, to the designer of MEPBM, I completely disagree with
all the assassinations in something called MIDDLE EARTH. They simply
didn't occur in any JRRT writing. His response was something like
assassination doesn't mean they are killed just removed from the
scene of action and no longer influence events... yada yada yada.

I think the game would be better if assassination was removed but
kidnap remained. If there was a % chance of escape every time a
prisoner was moved (to prevent people from just moving prisoners
around each turn), then you'd have to actually use the imprison order.
It would certainly add another layer of strategy into the game,
trying to rescue your characters.

Paul

#3

We run the NKA game and as per usual if there is support we can run games with no such orders.

Clint

···

At 21:12 12/08/02, you wrote:

> I can see why kidnapping/asassination are part of the game. In
>addition to a war game, it's also a character game about the quest
>to find and dispose of the One Ring. As such it does make sense to
>have kidnapping and asassination as part of the game. However, to
>this outsiders point of view, they have far too dramatic an effect
>on the wargame portion of the game. Killing 7 or 8 individuals (no
>matter how important they are shouldn't have the effect of wiping
>out a countries entire millitary and economic capacity.

Hmm, so if we kill Sadaam Hussain, it would have no effect on the
Iraq situation?

If you go back even a few hundred years (War of the Roses), when the
noble leading an army was captured/killed, then the army pretty much
disappeared into the countryside.

I have no real problem with this concept in the game. But as I said,
many years ago, to the designer of MEPBM, I completely disagree with
all the assassinations in something called MIDDLE EARTH. They simply
didn't occur in any JRRT writing. His response was something like
assassination doesn't mean they are killed just removed from the
scene of action and no longer influence events... yada yada yada.

I think the game would be better if assassination was removed but
kidnap remained. If there was a % chance of escape every time a
prisoner was moved (to prevent people from just moving prisoners
around each turn), then you'd have to actually use the imprison order.
It would certainly add another layer of strategy into the game,
trying to rescue your characters.

Paul

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 Games
Mailto: me@middleearthgames.com
Website: www.middleearthgames.com

UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP UK
US: PO Box 280, Medford, Oregon OR97501-0019 USA

Phone Times: 10am-6.30pm UK Time (BST);5am-1.30 (EST)
UK: 029 2091 3359 (029 2062 5665 can be used if main is engaged)
(Dial 011 44 2920 913359 if US)
UK Fax: 029 2062 5532 24 hours
US Phone and Fax: 541 772 7872 10-5pm PST Weekdays, Fax 24hrs
****************************************************************

#4

My friends and I have discussed this sort of thing for some time now,
but my understanding of the problem is that the MePBM SOFTWARE can't be
tampered with because GSI still owns it. The changes you suggest, (while
VERY desirable to many players), apparently aren't possible because they
would require altering the MePBM program itself. (Clint: Feel free to
jump in and correct any of my misconceptions.)

An alternative we have discussed is to AUTOMATICALLY have any army
without a commander generate a 20 level command character (or perhaps
half the old, dead commander level), instead of disolving. Perhaps it
also might drop it's morale level and lose a percentage of troops. It
would also be good if the new commander had the same 5 letter character
ID, so anyone you sent in to join the army would still do so. This would
still hurt the war effort of the army's nation because it would still be
sitting there instead of advancing, but at least it all wouldn't simply
vanish.

Unfortunately, all this would probably require a LOT of additional
manual data entry work by the folks at MeGames to accomplish, (due to
the fact that the program would disband the army, and then they would
have to manually re-enter it in), so this is likely just as impractical.

I don't know what the solution is, but the situation you mention
(regarding well trained, well fed, experienced armies just evaporating
because their commander dies) does tend to take a lot of the enjoyment
out of the game for many people. Granted, if you owned the agent who
accomplished this, you'd probably be giggling like a school girl, but it
still isn't very kosher, and I think it drives many people away from the
game. And for those who doubt how much this bothers people, just look at
all the efforts that have gone into designing a scenario that limits the
agents' assassination abilities. Also, think of the new player who joins
a game, spends several turns building up a formidable army, and then
sees it evaporate when his commander is slain. Definitely not an
incentive for them to join another game.

Mike Mulka

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Engel [mailto:cengel@iegsd.com]
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 2:38 PM
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] Re: New NKA Forming - suggest some
modifications

Are there really only half-a-dozen or so individuals in an entire nation
capable of commanding troops? Is there really no one else in the entire
nation capable of purchasing timber? Would the Elite Guard of North
Gondor really all just give up and go home because thier commanding
general happaned to get himself killed?
I really don't buy any of that and more importantly, I think it makes
for a bad game. Armies are made up of many levels of command and any
commander is likely to have many subordinates that could take over for
them (albiet at reduced capacity) should they fall.

#5

Hi,
IMHO, I think this is the best suggestion so far. Agents powers are untouched but Commanders and armies can confidently build and plan for that brilliant military strike.

It is true that some mepbm players love the character play and others the military play. This rule might balance that and satisfy military players. I think a wonderful aspect of the game is the army co-ordination between several nations, Free or Dark, which might take several turns to fruit. At least, if one of the commanders got assassinated, the army will turn up, a turn late , a bit less but maybe still enough to save the day.

Can I also add that if implemented, the penalties on the army(morale and numbers loss) is reduced if on its own PC. (the women-folk are there to chastise the men for being big babies and trying to leave the army and such) :slight_smile:

my $0.02
Jay

···

An alternative we have discussed is to AUTOMATICALLY have any army
without a commander generate a 20 level command character (or perhaps
half the old, dead commander level), instead of disolving. Perhaps it
also might drop it's morale level and lose a percentage of troops. It
would also be good if the new commander had the same 5 letter character
ID, so anyone you sent in to join the army would still do so. This would
still hurt the war effort of the army's nation because it would still be
sitting there instead of advancing, but at least it all wouldn't simply
vanish.

Unfortunately, all this would probably require a LOT of additional
manual data entry work by the folks at MeGames to accomplish, (due to
the fact that the program would disband the army, and then they would
have to manually re-enter it in), so this is likely just as impractical.

I don't know what the solution is, but the situation you mention
(regarding well trained, well fed, experienced armies just evaporating
because their commander dies) does tend to take a lot of the enjoyment
out of the game for many people. Granted, if you owned the agent who
accomplished this, you'd probably be giggling like a school girl, but it
still isn't very kosher, and I think it drives many people away from the
game. And for those who doubt how much this bothers people, just look at
all the efforts that have gone into designing a scenario that limits the
agents' assassination abilities. Also, think of the new player who joins
a game, spends several turns building up a formidable army, and then
sees it evaporate when his commander is slain. Definitely not an
incentive for them to join another game.

Mike Mulka

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Engel [mailto:cengel@iegsd.com]
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 2:38 PM
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] Re: New NKA Forming - suggest some
modifications

Are there really only half-a-dozen or so individuals in an entire nation
capable of commanding troops? Is there really no one else in the entire
nation capable of purchasing timber? Would the Elite Guard of North
Gondor really all just give up and go home because thier commanding
general happaned to get himself killed?
I really don't buy any of that and more importantly, I think it makes
for a bad game. Armies are made up of many levels of command and any
commander is likely to have many subordinates that could take over for
them (albiet at reduced capacity) should they fall.

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

My friends and I have discussed this sort of thing for some time now,
but my understanding of the problem is that the MePBM SOFTWARE can't be
tampered with because GSI still owns it. The changes you suggest, (while
VERY desirable to many players), apparently aren't possible because they
would require altering the MePBM program itself. (Clint: Feel free to
jump in and correct any of my misconceptions.)

*** Correct. We can change certain things just by making them the rules but software changes are not possible.

Unfortunately, all this would probably require a LOT of additional
manual data entry work by the folks at MeGames to accomplish, (due to
the fact that the program would disband the army, and then they would
have to manually re-enter it in), so this is likely just as impractical.

*** Yep - note I personally don't have a problem with agents in the game. I think the game is very balanced.

I don't know what the solution is, but the situation you mention
(regarding well trained, well fed, experienced armies just evaporating
because their commander dies) does tend to take a lot of the enjoyment
out of the game for many people.

*** Yep I can see that. Players don't like to lose things or be detrimented (it's a human condition!).

Granted, if you owned the agent who
accomplished this, you'd probably be giggling like a school girl, but it
still isn't very kosher, and I think it drives many people away from the
game. And for those who doubt how much this bothers people, just look at
all the efforts that have gone into designing a scenario that limits the
agents' assassination abilities. Also, think of the new player who joins
a game, spends several turns building up a formidable army, and then
sees it evaporate when his commander is slain. Definitely not an
incentive for them to join another game.

*** But there are ways of dealing with agents' impact - check out my article in Bree, and no doubt, as was hinted, there are other ways of dealing with agents' affect. It's a difference in perspective. What I could do with is finding a way of creating a good game that does not involve Agents (and weakness squads) impacting in the way that some players find detrimental to their enjoyment of the game. At present NKA isn't it (in my opinion, and the lack of players for it in general implies for players in the majority) due to the points raised in my earlier email. It's a good starting point though. (Not these are my opinions only, welcome to change to them and discuss).

Clint