Here’s an updated copy, well, I added a couple items this week to a Feb05 version.
Comments? Criticism? Corrections? Additions? Anyone care to send a blurb about Stealth (seems to be missing, now, doesn’t it?)
Apologies to all who helped me with it last year. I may have missed some of your items (likely unintentional, read: forgetful and distracted Brad as opposed to a snub or disbelief…).
Regards,
Brad Brunet
This is a nice pdf.
Veo;
I read the previous version, from th ‘Hostages’ thread link.
You’re right, there’s little here that can’t be gleaned from the Rules Book and some play time if anybody wants to take the time rather than beg for fishes. (Golum).
I’m not an editor nor do I want to ‘correct’ your efforts in any way, you have obviously taken a great deal of time to put this together. Bravo! Please take my following comments as an attempt at constructive highlights; 1) The object of your writings is an attempt to simplify or expand on some very complex concepts that requires a ‘thinking ahead’ approach which leads to a slightly disjointed result. In other words you’re trying to explain interrelated concepts as discrete entities and therefore some of this only confuses the issue. I can understand your desire to break down each and every order/order group but this may not be necessary. 2) Perhaps you could look at a more definitive approach by using your experience with actual game results to show where certain orders have to be attempted at different skill levels or periods in the game. Although you do this to a degree, I still came away without knowing which skill type would be more successful at recruiting a Dragon. (But that could just be my inexperience with the game). 3) I have done some teaching at different levels in a professional environment and been trained in how to be successful in those endeavors. The greatest shortcoming for someone who attempts to disseminate information they are very familiar with, whether verbally or in written form, is the ‘assumption’ factor. This is when one overlooks imparting a certain fact or set of facts because they are so well known to the teacher it is assumed they are well known to anyone. For example, if you are a chess master teaching a novice it is easy to overlook Queen’s Gambit opening because it is such a well known ploy. 3) And lastly, unfortunately there is as much information in your Companion as in the Rules Book. If it is really aimed at the novice or beginner player (who may not even take the time to read the rules, the MEPBM web site Library entries, or the House Rules) your approach may have better results if reworked as an addendum to game play rather than as a companion to the rules.
John d
Hey there’s a big oversite - I didn’t see any froofy thematic fonts. Maybe some Sindarin in the title would go a long way 
Like a general “Game Mechanics and Topics” document. Sequential Orders, items that effect order success, stealth, etc.?
- Perhaps you could look at a more definitive approach by using your experience with actual game results to show where certain orders have to be attempted at different skill levels or periods in the game. Although you do this to a degree, I still came away without knowing which skill type would be more successful at recruiting a Dragon. (But that could just be my inexperience with the game).
I’ve been intentionally “vague” in regards to skill necessary to successfully complete orders. I’ve attempted to create an awareness of both the simplicity of the rules (reading Literally and using common sense) AND the complexity of the game mechanics. I’ve avoided in many cases areas where people are begging for Tables. Like Agent Rank and Loyalty and Pop Size to narrow down exactly what one needs to Steal successfully…well, those numbers don’t exist, it’d require 3 or 4 dimensions due to parameters like Relations, (possibly Health of character?) etc. Are these straigh linear modifiers? Gack, I’m confused and it’s my writing… Basically, the guidelines you’ve already read (because you aren’t reading this unless you’ve read the rules) like “Easy - 10-40 …” AND some further considerations pointed out by me in the companion enable the read to make better decisions as to what types of orders to issue and when.
And I’ve never heard even a whispered rumour that any skill type is better with dragons than any other, excepting to have them shot down very pointedly by all sorts of experienced players in the event the question is asked. I might be wrong… I just have to point that out in my Companion now…!
- I have done some teaching at different levels in a professional environment and been trained in how to be successful in those endeavors. The greatest shortcoming for someone who attempts to disseminate information they are very familiar with, whether verbally or in written form, is the ‘assumption’ factor. This is when one overlooks imparting a certain fact or set of facts because they are so well known to the teacher it is assumed they are well known to anyone. For example, if you are a chess master teaching a novice it is easy to overlook Queen’s Gambit opening because it is such a well known ploy
Not known to me… But can you point me to some specifics where I’m being too presumptuous?
- And lastly, unfortunately there is as much information in your Companion as in the Rules Book. If it is really aimed at the novice or beginner player (who may not even take the time to read the rules, the MEPBM web site Library entries, or the House Rules) your approach may have better results if reworked as an addendum to game play rather than as a companion to the rules.
Is this the same idea you’re trying to communicate above (#1)?
Many thanks,
Brad
Well, if you sent me a link to a particular font set you preferred, I’d consider it, but then I’d have to interlace artwork within the document, watermarks and borders, etc. I’m a typist, not a publisher…forget it, you can have it. 3 easy payments of $47.40 (the cost of 1 turn in my game vs Clint…) and I’ll transfer all copyrights over… 
b
Veo,
After reading your comments regarding mine, I think I see that you have accomplished the task you set yourself quite well. Also, I didn’t mean ‘presumptous’ - that comment about overlooking information was a general aside to always question the basis for ones assumptions as the explanation my be unclear to the reader/listener due to omitted (well known) information on the part of the writer/teacher/trainer.
I’m not looking for fishes (Golum) so scads more tables aren’t what I would like to see. The rules are great with the “successful at skill ranks of 10 to 30” works for me too (I like the randomness and uncertainty of the game mechanics as is). What I would like to see is more definitive tactical suggestions gleaned from game play such as "A massed Dwarven army attack on Goblin Gate at turn two has proven to have a higher rate of success than the same attack on turn - whatever - "; or “It has been seen that burning your opponents pop centers to the ground rather than capturing them delivers better long term results when you can’t defend them after capture. This is due to enemy Emmissary activity being able to turn them around with a net gain of zero for the capture”. This is the kind of information that would prove far more beneficial to the beginning player (IMO) than a companion to the rules.
This kind of information also levels the playing field somewhat between beginners and expert players so that a team made up of both could spend less time with tactical training for the beginner (repleat with omissions based on factors I’ve noted above) and more on overall strategy toward winning the game.
I could go on, and may at some later date but I’m at lunch right now and since I can’t retire until next November, I must return to work!
John d
Was once considering doing something similar, like a “Rules Companion” that mirrored the rule book much like I did with the Orders. Tooo much work. Once you start with strategic advice, either you have to make it an article (Bobbins, Bree, GSI site…lots out there) or you can never stop.
General concepts like “momentum” or a specific example like “burn XXXX pop as soon as possible”, which is simply an illustration of the general? Be it using starting forces, what to recruit/buy, character naming and the timing of, using a mage vs a commander as a dragon killer, naming mages, mage/spell utilization/planning, using the mantle for offense, doubling allies, resource allocation (team), etc… Like I said, there are a lot of articles out there…
One thing I always thought would be interesting would be to rewrite “updated” nation strategies for the 25 nations…but nowadays, you’d need different ones for each nation based on Open Game, Grudge Game, Gunboat Game, etc…
[One thing I always thought would be interesting would be to rewrite “updated” nation strategies for the 25 nations…but nowadays, you’d need different ones for each nation based on Open Game, Grudge Game, Gunboat Game, etc…[/QUOTE]
these kinds of articles are great. it gives players the chance to write opinons, which are discussed and disputed. but thats never a bad thing, if its civil. your point on play based on situation( open vs grudge vs scenario) is well founded.
okay, i’ll start a thread and see what the result is.
sm
Also have to consider that for grudge types, it makes almost as much sense to write a team opening move strategy, rather than individual nations. Because any nation your write, will likely have 3-4 other nations involved on opening moves (FK moves amries to Ithil, IK does this, DkLts does that, Doggie does this up north, etc)
JB
In my view there is already a strategy guide for ME. That would be Sun Tzu’s maxims. I refer to them frequently. There is no doubt the old Chinaman knew what he was talking about. Back in the old "Whispers’ there was an article about this and it was a good one, if a bit of a surface treatment. One more reason why I oppose well meaning sorts when they want to ‘improve’ the game.
I hope you differentiate between “changing” the game and “educating players” when you refer to those who want to ‘improve the game’ there Ed…
Besides, capless mullers only wanted to talk about things mostly for fun. If it gets the creative juices going and demonstrates to others various possibilities they never thought of, well, maybe it could influence some newerish players to “think outside the box” instead of expecting guarantees and whining to the company to make changes to ‘improve’ the game when things don’t point-click-succeed right away…
Sun Tzu. But his skills as a tactician among tacticians (working in a group environment) is questionable. (IMO)
To me MEPBM is more of a cooperative effort, a ‘combined arms’ environment that requires subtleties beyond ‘the old chinaman’s’ known world. Besides this is a fantasy environment, not China in Her middle-ages.
So certain tactics like the Dwarves taking on Goblin Gate alone on any turn against a team that includes even one experienced player, better recruit agent support from his allies or he stands a good chance of losing his commander and all his artifacts as well as his army to a DS agent (of which there are many very good ones in all stages of the game) and subsequently fail at the attack even if using all the maxims of Sun Tzu, von Clausewitz, Rommel, Patton, Pompeii, or any other of the great generals.
This is the kind of information, sometimes overlooked by experienced players (or as some have posted - intentionally - kept secret), from being imparted to beginners. Specific tactics that support an overall strategy.
I’m not advocating ‘changing’ the game to make it easier for the ‘point-and-click’ crowd. I’d like to see the team aspect of the game enhanced beyond my, albeit limited, experience with the game.
As Stewart and Clint say, each position in the game has strengths and weaknesses, so, in my estimation, the best team environment would be a ‘combined arms’ approach to the game where each strength is exploited to its fullest while bolstering other positions weaknesses. The ultimate tactical solution. A solution that based on the very foundation of warfare - balance. A concept all the great generals have ultimately advocated.
John d
JD: I love a challenge. Gather you have read Sun Tzu. Pick out three paragraphs, more or less at random, and I will endeavor to demonstrate how they apply to ME.
Here is an example of what I mean: In current game 89 a Dog Lord army deboches outside the NW gate. Almost 4,000 cav. It can run wild in Rhovannon because the FP have nothing in the area to counter it. In such a situation (I use the Phillips translation) The Master says to threaten something the enemy holds dear. So two fleets show up at Osgiliath, one ‘huge’ and one ‘large’. The transports are almost empty (not obvious from the ramparts) and a palantir scry show not a single DS soldier in the entire West Gate area. The Doggie cav countermarch back into Mordor to fend off the invasion giving the FP time to stabalize Rhovannon and waste Dog Lord gold in the meanwhile. The fleets threaten and move away.
Hi Ed
What about Heinrici, non theory, a practical aproach to your enemies tactics, avoid to be caught and fall back. Least of all you will survive and give them another trashing soon.
Loke:D:D:D
Ed, yes I have. Along with the others I’ve mentioned and then some (I’m an old Panzerblitz/Assault/etc. boardgamer).
I’m not really challenging you to a treatise on the application of ‘The Art of War’ to ME. Besides, your example clearly illustrates the narrow application of Sun Tzu’s maxims. And not an application of a “Grand Strategy” as Napoleon would say.
I’m more interested in the coordination of efforts within the structure of ME on a tactical level that supports each side’s ultimate strategic objective - the elimination of the other side. It seems to me that the game can be narrowed by one position’s individual goal seeking (each position having individual victory conditions also), knowledge and experience (loosely intended) of the game, focus based on previous victories and/or losses, and thus overlooking cooperative effort except in the support of their individual goals. In other words, it is difficult to exercise Sun Tzu’s, or anyone’s, principles over the objection of someone else’s ego. No balance.
And Loke, you are correct that withdrawal, even when forced upon one’s forces (Dunkirk comes to mind) can result in an army surviving to fight another day. Unfortunately there are many individuals that play ME who don’t have the kind of patience that kind of strategy requires. Unfortunate. That and the seeming lack of desire to interject some role playing (within the structure of Tolkien’s world) into the game also.
But, I play the game I’m given or not at all…
John d
JD: As for tactics, here (in my opinion) is the ME pecking order:
First is the economy, upon which everything else is based. Then logistics. Strategy may be the art of the possible, but logistics determines what is possible. Strategy third and tactics last. Persons who focus on tactical minutia had better hope their opponents do likewise–they are almost sure to lose.
Loke: You are referencing the Nazi general defending Berlin from the Soviets? He seems to have done the best he could under the circumstances.
Ed:
Granted, your pecking order seems sound. Please don’t misunderstand, my focus on tactics is bounded by the tactical advantages ‘combined arms’ gives to an overall strategy. Agent weak nations need agent support early in the game to carry out strong military campaigns without loosing commanders and armies to strong enemy agents. Nations with low production and weak emissaries need camp generating support. Nations with strong economies need to use all their resources to influence the markets. And on and on. I understand all that (at least superficially re ME).
But, if you have a strong personality pushing for an artifact game, where all the companies are focused on finding and securing artifacts, or someone that pushes everyone in the direction of raging over the Rhovanian with massed cavalry armies, then it is difficult for a novice or beginner, to grasp the importance of keeping some anonymity or seeing where they fit into the overall strategy of winning the game for their alliance. Especially since there are some ‘experienced’ players that refuse to accept an expansive attitude of mentoring those with less experience or reluctance to buy into the ‘leader’ types’ particular focus.
And so we come back around to the ‘Rules Companion’ that started this thread. So this is why I would rather see a more generalized ‘Tactical Companion’ to the game. Ideas and strategies to help newer players understand how to satisfy the individual victory conditions of their nation within the scope of the team effort to win the game while retaining a bit of anonymity within their game play. Maybe too much to ask. Is definitely too much for me to undertake as I haven’t been playing for numerous years in numerous games running numerous nations.
Excellent discussion though.
John d
P.S.; The German army of WW II could have been better served without the SS. The Weirmacht was a formidable fighting force with many extremely competent generals. The cruelty and disaster of the SS policing the ‘common’ troops actually lead to the eventual defeat of the Third Reich (of course being led by a psychopath didn’t help much either).
Hey Brad
I think it is great…
Something that would really help newer players would be a guide to what skill rank normally results in an order succeeding or failing. For example:
Upgrade / Downgrade relations: 30 commander normally fails, 40 commander normally succeeds
Upgrade pop centre: to upgrade a camp, have a total of 70 (emmy rank plus loyalty)
Post Fortification: 40 commander normally succeeds
etc
There may be some controversy in setting what skill rank = “normally succeeds” but by giving a range I think we could get to something that has broad agreement…
Cheers
Mike
The best I could do would enter a value beside each order where I’m personally confident of success…but I’m sometimes conservative.