One Wish for Middle-earth

General
#81

JL

Your talking about making a change that will unbalance the game… Becuase a nation or team applies effective strategy against your style of play…
We was talking about an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure…
Say Errennis is camping 3024 capturing your Com’s your funneling into your army their… you barely holding it by sending in fresh coms… Your Guard orders are failing becuase you don’t even have a 20 yet… In normal game you request a Sinda or WM agent with stealth… Even the DS with double scouting have a hard time picking up these guys… If the agent has 30 agent and 20 stealth that is a 50 agent on a guard order… If you pc loyalty @ 3024 is high it add’s to the guard order if your army moral is high it also adds to that gaurd order maybe making Errennis have only a 50/50 chance… He fails badly on his roll then you can capture or kill him thus releasing all his hostages…
Another thing if he is servely injured it also increases the chance for hostages to escape on thier own…
Now your gunboat game playing NG … Put emmy’s on 3024 and double the DS agents as they come in… emmy’s are the hardiest class to get a good 930 on without stealth… Since 500 always goes off before agent orders you can quickly scare all the agents away from your pc… Or at least Force DS emmy’s to start doubling all thier agents before they arrive…
If you start following these tips you will soon find players remember you and think twice before sending agents your way or at least know you will be attacking their agents in response!

#82

FORCE COMBAT:
It has been noted, several times, that Tolkien’s combat has precious little in common with ancient or medieval warfare. This has always been a bit of a puzzle to me. Afterall, The Professor had a profound knowledge of history and he could read, in the original, accounts of Viking and Anglo-Saxon shield walls collideing. A few skirmishes aside, battles were decided by magical creatures and supernatural forces. Apparently, combat was not a subject of interest to Tolkien.

As noted above, the ME combat system is based on a 19th century evaluation of Napoleonic warfare—with magical creatures and supernatural forces bolted on.

It seems to me there are three ways to go with ME combat:

  1. Use the ‘Tolkien’ system where the physical is minimized. The guy who shows up with the most magic, magical artifacts and creatures and supernatural forces wins.

  2. Actually try and replicate Alexander’s and Hannibal’s armies and operations. No magic, etc. Of course this is “Middle Earth” and it would be hard to justify turning your back on The Master.

  3. Use a non-Napoleonic system with magical creatures and supernatural forces bolted on. One might ask: “What’s the point?” If a dragon shows up even Alexander is toast.

From the above, my opinion is either leave things alone or replace the combat system with a "Tolkien’ system. In the Kin Strife, please, and not the Stassun/Feilds game.

FORCE MOVEMENT:
In the pre-industrial age, speed of movement was largely a factor of force size. One hundred men can move faster than ten thousand men. Partly due to the ‘accordian effect’ and partly due to coordination problems in the pre-radio age. An army of 100,000 Mongols with 400,000 horses does not move quickly at all.

Saxe in his “Reveries on the Art of War” recounts small groups of cavalry moving from one end of Flanders to the other in perfect safely. They could move faster than news of them and reaction time to them.

LOGISTICS:
Combat and movement is intimately linked to the oft neglected subject of logistics and must be compatable with the logistical system. For those interested, I wrote a mini-article on ME logistics on the List. It was published in ‘News From Bree’ #24, August '03.

#83

Well there are a couple of effects I consider worth looking into easily incorporated into the game…

One is the effect of the opposition using the destroy pc tactic… As it stand now it Gives the attacker a boost in morale… During the attack… But a Nation who has a pc burned once would have increased PC loyalty after the attack becuase now they are fight to the death and the Foe Morale wish should be increased… The people at the Home nation now know even the pacifist’s they must fight or be killed… Increasing PC loyalty… The armies when Facing the enemy know they will receive no quarter so they will give non and their morale is now higher!

So while capturing and enslaving a population should reduce pc loyalty… Burn or killing of the innocents will would increase pc loyalty across the entire nation… Thus Unifying them for vengence!

Another aspect is the Mountain movement… I cannot see how any heavy troops could climb up or down a mountain… this should be impassable to heavy troops in either direction… road hex should be reflective of narrow passes which allow any troop to pass through…

If this put in pace then give all nations the ability to use the existing build road order… For better or worse to allow passage of heavy troops into a mountain hex…

It should also be noted recruiting Heavy troops in non road mountains hex’s would still be allowed they would then become a powerful garrison force restricted to pc defense while only Light troops could assult them!

#84

One more effect not address in this game… When a nation loses a battle with it’s army army to army combat… The loser should get a 1-5 loyalty hit in all it’s PC’s and winner a 1-10 increase of all it’s pc loyalties. This is reflective of a nations ability to raise troops… If running high tax rate and winning the citzens are more tolerant if losing battles even with low tax rates increasing loyalty they will still grumble about sending the children to die for nothing.

#85

  1. I would like to see some distinction between the army races. It would be nice if dwarves had extra constitution, elves had more incentive to recruit archers, trolls were more powerful but less common, etc. It seems very generic to have 500 dwarves fight 500 southrons or 500 trolls and not see any difference.

  2. Cost of this game is prohibitive. I love the player interaction, but I can play other games online for MUCH cheaper that have as much interaction. I agree that a cost is good to keep players motivated to play well, but playing 2 nations is $32/month. I can buy games for that price.

#86

One of my funniest games was Playing dragonlord in game 66… I equiped my HI insteel for several turns throwing off players with thier combat calculators… Put mages in the armies as battle mages sitch back and forth from offensive and defensive combat magic… Adding in combat arties ! In mid game actaully pooling and a gift of mounts recruiting HC in a nation that nevers does… All this to completely through off any chance of the opposition to guess my combat values for their combat calculators…
This lead to Urgubal being a 59 Com leading a 80 moral army that steamrolled Mirkwood area! Equiping troops does lead to some fantastic results against players sending hordes even if they had superior Com’s and training levels at the start!

#87

Thanks guys for a interesting morning read with a cup of finest coffee! Most players have decent and some spot on ideas.
Terry and John’s vision of the agent war are perfect just from different sides of the war. I support John’s belief that escaping
needs to be bumped up, too many times as CL I had 40+ hostages resulting in the game being unwinnable for
the Freeps. All characters should have a chance of escaping, an 50 emis for example a 20-25% chance etc.

But what I would like to see is different from previous ideas… Many of these ideas relating to combat troops
are all devised to give either alternative
options or to attempt to give the player more control in the battle system.
The charge, flank, surround etc combat tactics should be updated to
reflect the tech advances of today. I suggest a 2 tiered advancement
combat updated system.

  1. A mini combat set of orders for each commander in battle. For
    example archers should be guarded by HI in battle, cavalry should
    strike fast at the enemy weakspots etc… Forming the forces under
    command into formations HI (phalanx, pikewall, cohort), archers (skirmish
    line, defensive behind HI) A small java program could be introduced
    for starters giving the players a more hands on combat experience.
    The real issue will be to give players a sense of command control
    in orders which are pre planned. If troops are divided into unit
    automatically (maybe 500 in each unit) it will provide some flexibility
    and reality.

  2. I am a huge fan of the Total War series, imagine a basic version
    of Total War combat system where a battle can be resolved using such
    real time combat where if both players agree will be played at
    a convenient time? Real time ME combat is what I want to see!

Now this a challenge to the gifted programmers in our community!

#88

Simple change to deal with the “kidnapping” problem. Characters can carry only 2 hostages.

Lúcio

#89

Hi Clint,

First, let me say that english is not my native tongue, so please forgive any grammar mistake. I play in Brazil through Anel Um.

Lets talk more about troop types. I agree with Dave, I would prefer a more dramatic change in the system than a singular change, but assuming no other changes were made, here is my sugestions.

I would not change HC and HI. They are the basic troops of the game. Change that and you have to change the fortifications and defenses as well.

LC/LI: I think the original idea was: lets make those troops have half manteinace so they would be cheeper, but unfortunaly the result was quite the oposite. Its more expansive to build a light army than a heavy army, assuming you are aiming for the same strengh/constitution (besides spending double the orders, you pay the manteinace cost for a longer period of time)

So, my goal here is to make a light army really cost less than a heavy army with similar strength. I think you can get there if the str/con of the light troops were 80% of heavy troops str/con. For instance, a 2000 IP army (with str 10) costing 8000 gold/turn would have the same srt/con of a 2500 IL army (with srt 8) costing 5000 gold/turn cost (but it would take a least one more turn to assemble the light army)

In this setting, heavy troops would still be way better than the light ones, you spend less orders/time, use less steal/bronze, and consume less food. But maybe a light army would be a good choice if it has to walk 4 to 5 turns to get to a battle, and are having economic troubles.

AR: Heres my idea. They die like flies because of their low constitution, but if they had a higher str, at least they could inflict some damage before they die. Improve their strength to 10, yes, I know this way they became stronger than HI because of their fixed steal. So, now they have a very strong attack… on the first round of combat, if the combat takes any longer, they are tosted (because of their fixed lack of armor and constituion 2). Anyway, they are tosted even if they win, your army is essential disposable.

In this setting, archers would be a fine choice if you know your army will die anyway in the first round of combat (facing a dragon or a huge army) or if you want your army to be destroyed so you can have your comander back. The lack of constitution and armor will make this troop still worst than HI, but now it has its uses. Mixing archers with other troops sudenlly became an excelent strategy (maybe too good if you mix HC and AR, have to test)

Ma: Ok, the only strategic value of the Ma is threating (and ocasionally causing or/and avoiding trample). So I dont think that they need have their str/con changed.

So my setting would be:

HC 16/16
LC 13/13
HI 10/10
LI 8/8
Ar 10/2
Ma 2/2

Regards,

Lúcio

#90

So my setting would be:

HC 16/16
LC 13/13
HI 10/10
LI 8/8
Ar 10/2
Ma 2/2

While I like most of the numbers here and would consider them positive except in discussion about LC…

Light troops could have offensive numbers equal to and maybe slightly higher than Heavy instances … Greater than HI only in case of LC for the effect of being mounted! But their Con will always be smaller! Heavy troops have greater base cons because they represent the Nation only selecting the Heartiest of their nations people… Light troops and archers are those recruits that do not fit into heavy troop requirements in thier physical build… Though they can be just as effect or more being quicker or more agile their physical body can take less damage…

So Lc Best con to me is still 8 and attack as high as 12… this is more than enough to get players to recruit this troop type more and equipe them becuase they cost on 1 leather to build and they move further than HI… It also does not completely overpower nation’s with heavy LC in thier starting armies…

#91

guys we must think of the consquences of our suggestions… The game is Balanced now thier is no side that has a clearcut advantage in this game now…

There has been much talk about agent warfare having an unbalancing effect on the game… That guard order don’t work… But to tweak these orders would also mean unblancing the game in favor of the free…

As for the inability to escape once captured this is problem for both sides… The ability to escape is tied to stealth… But the DS com’s are also captured frequently also and they have so few com’s just capturing 1 or 2 can hinder thier ability to attack and recruit… the Ds cannot completely just run around trying to set thier coms free either…

The only solution no overbalancing here… could be to remove CL +20 on kidnap orders only… Or add some stealth to some of the Key FP frontline nation Characters Like NG EO NM… At least then these coms would if Captured would have a greater chance to escape…

Just remeber we want a Balanced game after the changes… DS ability to use thier agents is what Keeps the game in balance at the start!

#92

Way back when, maybe 12 years ago, in the old “Whispers” GSI said they were increasing the starting eight charchters’ defense against agent actions. It would be modest, but there. I’m working from memory here, but that is what I recall. It is for that reason I don’t retire starting characters.

#93

Sacrelig Ed - I didn’t retire a couple Cloudies once and have been accused of playing the worst Cloud Lord ever… Now come clean, is Ar-Gular included in your blanket statement…? (I like him myself, but there you go…)

Brad

#94

LMAO … Sorry to hear that Brad… Imagine what they would have said at the game start in our Last on week game when I never learned spirit mastery or artifact lore and Teleport as dragonlord… gave away most of my artifacts! Thinking outside the box doing unique things giving a fresh look does through the opposition off. Plus it’s alot fun!

Continue to do it your way… I have yet to retire any characters or troops yet! I might do it soon just becuase I said that here though! :eek:

#95

Don’t be sorry - I played for 3 turns, lost Ji in a challenge (I’m a little agressive :D) and didn’t kill anyone before I had to hand the nation off to take 4 nations in 2 grudges that started up together. Go figure how I qualified as such a horrid Cloudy, might it say more about my accusers than myself? That’s okay, my next Cloud Lord I’ll do the same. Providing the game goes past turn 15 my detractors might thank me for my foresight…naww, that’ll never happen! :rolleyes:

#96

Hell Brad I was in that game with you… I bear the Brunt of the blame that put you in that position to challenge to begin with… Blundering artifact lore so badly we got stuck there 1 turn to long! Guarding my characters when you was trying to steal RoW from me…
Even In that same game got Blamed for WK quick exit… How the Dragonlord is repsonsible for that leaves me still scratching my head! But despite my ineptness as dragonlord in artifact lore the team recoverd after my demise and went on to win!
Hench my weakness in artifact lore is exactly why I played dragonlord in game 66 from lessons learned in gm 37 when I really hurt CL support while you was playing it… It’s cool just don’t play CL again with me as Dragonlord!:wink:

#97

Uhm…maybe it’s just the fact that I am a loser when it comes to understanding the meat and potatos of the game code, but it would seem that the combat is based on simple arithmatic. Total army strength. Total opposition constitution. Subtract strenght from constitution. Visa-Versa.

It occurs to me that if this is so, then no matter what changes you make to the relative strength of the troops, then it is still more likely that one troop type will come to dominate…HI.

I can think of two possible ways to alleviate this.

  1. Require a resource for recruiting HI (i.e. le, for the boiled leather armor). This suggestion dovetails nicely with the previous suggestion allowing LC to be recruited w/just ponies.

  2. Change it from a 2-tier system. What I mean is this: Since it IS just a measure of mathematics, then you HAVE to change the equation a bit to account for the differing engagement speeds of the troop types. For example, set it up where like troop types are grouped (HC-LC, HI-LI-MA, AR). Assuming everything is equal, then the round would progress like this: Archers fire. Cav hits Cav. Cav hits Inf. Inf hits Inf/Cav hits Ar. Inf Hits Ar.

Combat would progress as long as each troop type could continue to press the advantage. I suggested that the cav be able to press the attack on the archers because of the pony’s capacity to trample what is in front of it.

These are, of course, based on a rather vague understanding of the mathematics involved, so, if I am wrong…Please forgive me my impertenence…:smiley:

Wade

#98

I believe the keyword with the starting values of troops both in attack and constiution are base values… The requirement for leather and mounts to create Cav types are justified…

The main reason I equipe every heavy troop I can is to make recruiting them more cost effective! Meaning is cheaper to maintian a less more powerful troops with armor and weapons than larger number of hordes. add the fact it take less turns to make the troops… So adding a leather requirement so to speak is rediculous… Add the fact DS have limits why would they need leather to make HI when Bronze is better armor than leather!

The colorful use of 947 and 948 orders those seemingly insignificant to some become extremely signficant in military battles latter… this game is very simply and easy to learn but learning to become effiecent and planning several turn in advance including logistics adds the very complexity that seperates the Good from the average player…

#99

I think it would be ok for one troop type to “dominate” as long as you saw some other troops occasionally, race- or terrain-driven. Hence my comments above, eg Harad LI having 15 MPs, being able to move 3 rough hexes like cav in their home terrain, or enhanced elvish archers who would be superior to anyone’s HI in the forest (including their own). As several posters have noted, extreme care would have to be taken when tinkering with any subsystem of the game, so as to not unbalance something that works well right now.

#100

I recall an idea from a previous discussion whereby Commanders had a specialty - presumably they were promoted from a particular troop type. Might even be something you could select upon naming. Troops of the commander’s specialty (or backup’s specialty…) would get some kind of bonus.

Armies with multiple troops types would get increased bonuses (ie, Standard tactics, when actually Selected in the Attack/Defend order would modify strengths of all troops when multiple troop types are present).

Increase troop and terrain bonuses by nation to more impactfully represent differences, etc.

Randomize SNA’s for fun (Cardolan with +20 K/A…? Noldo with Hire for Free…? Yes, this can get dumb…but dumb is fun, look at Prime Time TV…!)

Bonus Capital orders (at say, com10 level…?) from 1-X where X is dependant on the size of the nation (sliding scale based on total population) to represent a powerful bureaucracy or stewardship of some sort (“Take care of This and That when I’m gone…”).

Character movement impacted by terrain.

Low morale armies lose troops to the countryside - High morale armies gain recruits on the march.

10 com is promoted to lead armies when commanders killnapped. Desertion a factor of command rank difference.

Armies disband and a camp loyal to that nation appears within the 7 hexes (in or 6 around). For every 1000 troops disbanded a new camp appears. 1st within the 7 hexes mentioned, the 2nd within 7 hexes of the first, etc.

Characters have Home pops where they get bonuses to their orders (where applicable, of course). They die the loyalty of that pop goes down, etc. They return it goes up, they leave it dips, etc. Characters can name other characters (as per the existing naming rules) in their personal Home pops if not a capital.

Ships can be armoured - doubling their numbers.

Mages get a roll every turn to see if they go completely insane. Spell casting is compounded to increase this chance. What happens when the go insane…? Well, there’s a thread possibility in itself… :smiley: I say, they turn into Emissaries… Throw in the increasing chance that using the Teleport spell will simply wink the mage into an alternate timeline (Poof - out of the game. “Celedhring was ordered to cast the Teleport Spell. Celedhring cast the spell and disappeared in a flash of light. He hasn’t been seen or heard from since.”) Oh Oh Oh! Edit! An in a concurrently running game, that character simply appears and is added to the same nation’s pdf (under a different name…!). I guess any arties are dropped on the ground in Game 1 so they’re not duplicated in Game 2…

Commanders get a roll every combat to see if they have a nervous breakdown. Disband (at time of Challenge) would happen, include the 10com take-over rule. Presume the character then 810’s to the capital (or his Home pop…?) and isn’t available for orders until the turn after he arrives, with skills cut in half. Throw in health cut in half for wandering home barefoot and staggering through the elements… Then your mage casts “Heal Anxiety Disorder” spell…and goes insane…oh, this is getting good…

Attacking armies get rolls, based on Subcommander skill, to see if they pull a Trojan Horse when issuing Destroy Pop Centre against a Fortified pop. Pop is destroyed, defending armies routed characters with armies killed.