New Orders?

mepbmlist
#1

What are GSI like for new ideas? Ask them. If it isn't broken we're
not going anywhere near it. OK so thats only my opinion but what do I
know.

I've thought upon a few things and been tidying up again and found
some of the ideas I had a while ago which were subsequently shelved
and actually have seen daylight now.

New orders.

Agent - Make map of Pop.centre
     prerequisite - 3 visits to that pop.centre(by char)
                    Nation has Gold to pay Scribe

Making a map of a pop.centre that a character has been to several
times before is feasible for the game if not the coding. Imagine a
new Agent being sent on a mission. He's never been there before. I
hardly think his mentor would send him unprepared. I think he'd
sketch him a little map so he doesn't get lost, miss safe-houses etc.

Agent - Make Toolkit
     prerequisite - steel at pop.centre for manufacture(MT or City)
                    Nation has Gold to pay for Tool smith

Thieves and assassins without a toolkit. The equipment they'd need to
perform the actions they do must weigh at least 15lbs. I mean, who
else can break into a Treasury vault with no equipment and walk off
with an army's wages which needs a cart and 2 hrses to carry it into
the field. The toolkit would confer a bonus towards any 690(StlGold)
orders performed/attempted by owning char.

Emis - Compile speech/propaganda
    prerequisite Nation has at least 3 rumours about target Nation
                 Nation has gold to pay for Scribe
    reqd. info Target Nation(1-25)

This order would help to convince a populace to follow the advice of
any Emissary performing 520 or 525 orders for the target nation. note
the scroll would have to be created beforehand. It would be possible
then for an Emissary to have speeches for all 25 nations.

Comm - Attend Training Barracks
    prerequisite Nation has Gold for Training
                 Commander is in own pop.centre(MT or City)
    reqd. info Troop-type to train Comm in

As regards the Light troops debate and Nations tailoring their troops
for Nation specialisation. The order would work as the 435 ArmyMan
order but the Comm doesn't have to be in an army. He would choose a
troop type to train in(specialisation) and then troops training under
him of that type would get and additional increase of 1 per training
session.

#2

What are GSI like for new ideas? Ask them. If it isn't broken we're
  not going anywhere near it. OK so thats only my opinion but what do I
  know.
  RD: This is the impression I get too. I don't think we will see a 2nd edition unless/until somebody else buys GSI out (Harle?).

  I've thought upon a few things and been tidying up again and found
  some of the ideas I had a while ago which were subsequently shelved
  and actually have seen daylight now.

  New orders.

  Agent - Make map of Pop.centre
       prerequisite - 3 visits to that pop.centre(by char)
                      Nation has Gold to pay Scribe

  Making a map of a pop.centre that a character has been to several
  times before is feasible for the game if not the coding. Imagine a
  new Agent being sent on a mission. He's never been there before. I
  hardly think his mentor would send him unprepared. I think he'd
  sketch him a little map so he doesn't get lost, miss safe-houses etc.

  Agent - Make Toolkit
       prerequisite - steel at pop.centre for manufacture(MT or City)
                      Nation has Gold to pay for Tool smith

  Thieves and assassins without a toolkit. The equipment they'd need to
  perform the actions they do must weigh at least 15lbs. I mean, who
  else can break into a Treasury vault with no equipment and walk off
  with an army's wages which needs a cart and 2 hrses to carry it into
  the field. The toolkit would confer a bonus towards any 690(StlGold)
  orders performed/attempted by owning char.

  Emis - Compile speech/propaganda
      prerequisite Nation has at least 3 rumours about target Nation
                   Nation has gold to pay for Scribe
      reqd. info Target Nation(1-25)

  This order would help to convince a populace to follow the advice of
  any Emissary performing 520 or 525 orders for the target nation. note
  the scroll would have to be created beforehand. It would be possible
  then for an Emissary to have speeches for all 25 nations.

  Comm - Attend Training Barracks
      prerequisite Nation has Gold for Training
                   Commander is in own pop.centre(MT or City)
      reqd. info Troop-type to train Comm in

  RD: I hate to be a party pooper but I don't like any of these. They add complexity without improving the game. They would also be difficult if not impossible to incorporate in the existing order structure. There's no way of recording how many visits a character has made to a pop, and the toolkits, scrolls & maps that you want would all have to be added in as artifacts.

  As regards the Light troops debate and Nations tailoring their troops
  for Nation specialisation. The order would work as the 435 ArmyMan
  order but the Comm doesn't have to be in an army. He would choose a
  troop type to train in(specialisation) and then troops training under
  him of that type would get and additional increase of 1 per training
  session.

  RD: There is certainly a need to make light troops and archers more effective. I would limit each nation to certain types of troops, eg no cavalry for Dwarves, who were physically incapable of riding warhorses, and most DS to 90% light troops (common or garden orcs/goblins) and only 10% Uruk-hai or trolls. Unfortunately this isn't likely to happen under the existing regime either.
  One thing that it might be possible to change (only Harle can say) is the combat modifiers. Get rid of the nation terrain modifier and maybe the climate modifier, but make the troop terrain modifiers MUCH wider and more important: give them a range of 1-100 say, instead of just poor, average or good.

  If light infantry had a fighting value (fv) of 75-100 in mountains, forest and swamp, and heavy cavalry a fv of only 10-25 in the same terrain, players would quickly realise that hc are not the super-troops which they currently are! Players might also try to pick their battlefields with more care instead of terrain being an irrelevance.

  That's just an extreme example. I could develop this theme further but not a lot of point unless there's a chance it could be put into practice.

  Richard.

  PS spells should be a lot more imaginative too!

  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: lionatus
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 7:41 PM
  Subject: [mepbmlist] New Orders?

#3

  RD: There is certainly a need to make light troops and archers more effective. I would limit each nation to certain types of troops, eg no cavalry for Dwarves, who were physically incapable of riding warhorses, and most DS to 90% light troops (common or garden orcs/goblins) and only 10% Uruk-hai or trolls. Unfortunately this isn't likely to happen under the existing regime either.

*** We can do House ruled games where this sort of thing is possible but not otherwise. We recently ran a 1000 game that had very specific house rules and games like Last Alliance give some indication of what can be done.

  One thing that it might be possible to change (only Harle can say) is the combat modifiers.

*** Program change - can't do it.

  PS spells should be a lot more imaginative too!

*** Yep - can't do it though - but would love to. I almost fell asleep reading the Spells in the rules the first time around... :slight_smile:

Clint

#4

  RD: There is certainly a need to make light troops and archers more

  > effective. I would limit each nation to certain types of troops, eg no
  > cavalry for Dwarves, who were physically incapable of riding warhorses,
  > and most DS to 90% light troops (common or garden orcs/goblins) and only
  > 10% Uruk-hai or trolls. Unfortunately this isn't likely to happen under
  > the existing regime either.

  *** We can do House ruled games where this sort of thing is possible but
  not otherwise. We recently ran a 1000 game that had very specific house
  rules and games like Last Alliance give some indication of what can be done.

  > One thing that it might be possible to change (only Harle can say) is
  > the combat modifiers.

  *** Program change - can't do it.

  RD: Bummer. There's not a lot of point restricting nations to specific troop types if half those types aren't effective. Thanks for responding anyway.

  > PS spells should be a lot more imaginative too!

  *** Yep - can't do it though - but would love to. I almost fell asleep
  reading the Spells in the rules the first time around... :slight_smile:

  Clint

  RD: How much would it cost to buy the rights to Middle-earth from GSI? If I win the lottery....
  Richard.

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
       
  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Middle Earth PBM Games
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 1:32 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] New Orders?

#5

  RD: How much would it cost to buy the rights to Middle-earth from GSI? If I win the lottery....
  Richard.

*** Not sure. I suspect that the limited impact the film had on the player base (ie effectively none) is actually a good negotiating point. I would suggest that players wait until we have got the game looking the way we want it to look (bring it up to date - or only 5 years old) and then it might be worth considering.

I doubt that as a company we could give effective support to alterations to the program - not from lack of desire but due to other priorities and time consuming aspects of running the company. Playtesting modifications etc would take a lot of work to get correct. (Obviously you could get others to run the games instead but I would not advise that! :slight_smile: )

Without a definite plan of updates and changes to make, with appropriate player support, I think it would lose money for the people who bought GSI out.

Clint

#6

Speaking of the age of the game . . . just how old is MEPBM?

Curious,
Russ

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Middle Earth PBM Games" <me@MiddleEarthGames.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] New Orders?

> RD: How much would it cost to buy the rights to Middle-earth from
> GSI? If I win the lottery....
> Richard.

*** Not sure. I suspect that the limited impact the film had on the

player

base (ie effectively none) is actually a good negotiating point. I would
suggest that players wait until we have got the game looking the way we
want it to look (bring it up to date - or only 5 years old) and then it
might be worth considering.

I doubt that as a company we could give effective support to alterations

to

the program - not from lack of desire but due to other priorities and time
consuming aspects of running the company. Playtesting modifications etc
would take a lot of work to get correct. (Obviously you could get others
to run the games instead but I would not advise that! :slight_smile: )

Without a definite plan of updates and changes to make, with appropriate
player support, I think it would lose money for the people who bought GSI

out.

Clint

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/

#7

Not entirley sure but I've been playing since the bad old days of
GAD. The n Allsorts and finally Harlequin. Thats been nearly 9 years.
It's bound to have beeen going at least 2 yrs. in the states before
that(dont hold me to that though)

Alan J.

p.s. Tell Andy Wright I've tried phoning him a few times but he's
never in. If he mentions sweaty socks again There'll be another
Caledonian conflict 'cept this time in Gloucester.

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "R.K.Floyd" <rkfloyd@c...> wrote:

···

Speaking of the age of the game . . . just how old is MEPBM?

Curious,
Russ

#8

*** Not sure. I suspect that the limited impact the film had on the player
  base (ie effectively none) is actually a good negotiating point. I would
  suggest that players wait until we have got the game looking the way we
  want it to look (bring it up to date - or only 5 years old) and then it
  might be worth considering.

  RD: The film had no impact on player base for the simple reason that 99% or more of people who went to see the film don't know the game exists!

  It is obviously out of the question to picket every cinema in the UK let alone the USA. But, would it not be possible to picket the premiere of the "Two Towers" (Harle staff plus volunteers) handing out leaflets, flogging rulebooks to the people queuing? People standing in queues would read them to pass the time if nothing else.

  When I went to see "The Hobbit" at Northampton, there were half-a-dozen stalls in the foyer selling T-shirts (yes I bought one), miniatures, books, tapes etc. Why not one selling the game? If you gained just 100 new gamers by this means that would be a significant addition to the player base.
  Ideally, for maximum impact, the new edition of the rulebook would have stills from the film on the cover instead of the (admittedly brilliant) artwork by Angus McBride. But I guess I'm slipping into dreamland here.

  I doubt that as a company we could give effective support to alterations to
  the program - not from lack of desire but due to other priorities and time
  consuming aspects of running the company. Playtesting modifications etc
  would take a lot of work to get correct. (Obviously you could get others
  to run the games instead but I would not advise that! :slight_smile: )

  RD: Hell no, we wouldn't want anyone else running the game. But with extra funding and extra staff...

  Without a definite plan of updates and changes to make, with appropriate
  player support, I think it would lose money for the people who bought GSI out.

  Clint

  RD: Laurence Tilley has a posted a list of proposed changes - perhaps he would remind us again of the address?
  I'm well aware that the player base is too small for a buyout of GSI to make a profit, no matter how much the game is improved and prettied up.

  What we need is a philanthropist with loadsa money who isn't looking to make a profit. Mohammed el Fayed does it for Fulham FC!

  Some hope when some of the people playing this game object to parting with a few extra pence or cents so you can keep Harle viable!

  I hope this keeps the pot boiling!

  Richard.

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
       
  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Middle Earth PBM Games
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 8:33 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] New Orders?

  > RD: How much would it cost to buy the rights to Middle-earth from
  > GSI? If I win the lottery....
  > Richard.

#9

  RD: The film had no impact on player base for the simple reason that 99% or more of people who went to see the film don't know the game exists!
*** However the majority (over 99% by a long way) would not be interested in playing the game. After a lot of thought we decided to get players from locations where games (boardgames, computer games etc) are already played.

   Ideally, for maximum impact, the new edition of the rulebook would have stills from the film on the cover instead of the (admittedly brilliant) artwork by Angus McBride. But I guess I'm slipping into dreamland here.
*** That would cost a bomb.

  RD: Hell no, we wouldn't want anyone else running the game. But with extra funding and extra staff...

*** Maybe

  RD: Laurence Tilley has a posted a list of proposed changes - perhaps he would remind us again of the address?

*** I have seen it - it's good but it's limited. I would want to chat to lots of players and get more done. It's an excellent starting place. I haven't the time to go into this at present - if a player wants to do so, creating a plan of what they would like to see (in addition) then that would be cool. Get it all collated and bring it to us at the end. :slight_smile: (But we would need to have the rights to the game to get it sorted).

Clint

#10

There's nothing like a plug :slight_smile:

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/2nded.htm

Laurence G. Tilley

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

···

At 11:33 PM 28-04-02, you wrote:

> RD: Laurence Tilley has a posted a list of proposed changes - perhaps
> he would remind us again of the address?

#11

My idea nd that of RD would have to use some sort of change in
coding. My idea would involve a new tag for each character with Comm.
ability(fluctuating Boolean values within processing) and Richards
was a global modifier which I agree would be easier to code. As far
as nation tendancies his is the more practical and logical of the
two. However, we both would have figured that wasn't going to happen.

How about a scenario based on the 4th Age engine with the setups the
same as the 1650 scenario.

Do the NK and SK have to be present in the game?

If so can they be modified i.e. taking settlements away and adding
others?

If so it may be possible to make NK into Arthedain, SK into one of
the Gondors. Is it possible?

Can you introduce new SNA's?

If so these could be tailored into specific roles?

How much flexibility does the 4th Age engine give?

RD: There is certainly a need to make light troops and archers more
effective. I would limit each nation to certain types of troops, eg
no cavalry for Dwarves, who were physically incapable of riding
warhorses, and most DS to 90% light troops (common or garden
orcs/goblins) and only 10% Uruk-hai or trolls. Unfortunately this
isn't likely to happen under the existing regime either.

  One thing that it might be possible to change (only Harle can

say) is the combat modifiers. Get rid of the nation terrain modifier
and maybe the climate modifier, but make the troop terrain modifiers
MUCH wider and more important: give them a range of 1-100 say,
instead of just poor, average or good.

  If light infantry had a fighting value (fv) of 75-100 in

mountains, forest and swamp, and heavy cavalry a fv of only 10-25 in
the same terrain, players would quickly realise that hc are not the
super-troops which they currently are! Players might also try to
pick their battlefields with more care instead of terrain being an
irrelevance.

  That's just an extreme example. I could develop this theme

further but not a lot of point unless there's a chance it could be
put into practice.

···

  Richard.

  PS spells should be a lot more imaginative too!