Proposed Changes

mepbmlist
#1

I appreciate Bob's response but he is way off. I too have met a few
people who recruit the odd troop types. Therw is no 10-20% combat
bonus factored in at the troop type level that will offset double con
double attack. It only takes one more leather (Usually in abundance)
to double the con from LC to HC. The HC eats the same as a LC, the
armor and weapon yields the same benefit if not better when spent on a
HC than a LC 16 con time 1.6 for steel armor yield 25.6 cons. The
same LC with the same unit of steel used is 12.8 the total increase is
9.6 as opposed to 4.8 or double benefit for the same unit of armor. MA
are useful for threats or cheap armies in capitals to prevent CO form
refusing challenge.

I think the expediency of a battle of annihilation is a shortfall. I'm
sorry, no battles end in complete destruction of an enemy.

#2

I have come across these style of discussions before. Something I would
like to see is a questionnaire (that we can produce) about the game - good
an bad points. What changes need to be made, what would be nice to change,
what should not be change under any circumstance - that sort of thing.

I think the expediency of a battle of annihilation is a shortfall. I'm
sorry, no battles end in complete destruction of an enemy.

How would you change this? Making battles last longer effectively slow the
game down - because that army would still be there (in lots of cases) next
turn and so the attack order would have to be put in again?

Curious about this.

Clint

#3

Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

> I think the expediency of a battle of annihilation is a shortfall. I'm
> sorry, no battles end in complete destruction of an enemy.

How would you change this? Making battles last longer effectively slow the
game down - because that army would still be there (in lots of cases) next
turn and so the attack order would have to be put in again?

You could always force a retreat for the losers. I know that's not in
the game now, but just push them off the battle hex, so they can move
back to a pop center and lick their wounds. It would require a lot less
recruiting in the long run, and make people more likely to invest in
troops. I'm not going to spend the orders and material to outfit my HI
with st/st if I know they're going to be obliterated next turn. If they
have a better chance of survival, I might.

You could also institute looting for armor and weapons.

    jason

···

--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
Software developer, cryptography buff, gamer
Believer in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord

#4

I think the biggest change that would make the game more interesting, to me,
anyways, is recruitment levels.

A) Preferred method

1) NO HEAVY TROOPS can recruit at camps, villages or towns.
2) NO LIGHT TROOPS can recruit at camps.
This makes more sense from the "Gee - super cool troops just aren't
everywhere" stand point and will definately cause the other troop types to
be used.

B) Lesser preferred method

1) Increase production for MA and LI to match HI troop strength.
IE. You can recruit/hire DOUBLE the number of LI in a hex.

This makes all troops "equal" after a fashion, but I don't like it as much
as A.

Later,
Jeff

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Middle Earth PBM Games [mailto:me@MiddleEarthGames.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 5:08 PM
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Proposed Changes

I have come across these style of discussions before. Something I would
like to see is a questionnaire (that we can produce) about the game - good
an bad points. What changes need to be made, what would be nice
to change,
what should not be change under any circumstance - that sort of thing.

> I think the expediency of a battle of annihilation is a shortfall. I'm
> sorry, no battles end in complete destruction of an enemy.

How would you change this? Making battles last longer
effectively slow the
game down - because that army would still be there (in lots of cases) next
turn and so the attack order would have to be put in again?

Curious about this.

Clint

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#5

I think the biggest change that would make the game more interesting, to me,
anyways, is recruitment levels.

A) Preferred method

1) NO HEAVY TROOPS can recruit at camps, villages or towns.
2) NO LIGHT TROOPS can recruit at camps.
This makes more sense from the "Gee - super cool troops just aren't
everywhere" stand point and will definately cause the other troop types to
be used.

Yes, but it really hoses people (like the Northmen) who do a lot of
recruiting at towns -- the pop center size difference is already
accounted for in the number of troops you can recruit.

B) Lesser preferred method

1) Increase production for MA and LI to match HI troop strength.
IE. You can recruit/hire DOUBLE the number of LI in a hex.

This makes all troops "equal" after a fashion, but I don't like it as much
as A.

It also totally changes the overrun dynamic; if you can recruit 800 MA
at an MT then you can generate overrun-proof armies every turn...

I agree that right now there's no reason whatever to recruit LC or
LI (though I've sometimes recruited archers as a second-best when
pressed for cash), but I would suggest making the terrain modifiers
be more important so there was a reason to recruit the light types.
Or just abolishing them altogether and having Cavalry, Infantry,
Archers, and Mercenaries (MA) as the four troop types.

Tony Z

···

On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 06:00:45PM -0600, Jeffery A. Dobberpuhl wrote:

--
"The King with half the East at heel is marched from lands of morning;
His fighters drink the rivers up, their shafts benight the air,
And he that stays will die for naught, and home there's no returning."
The Spartans on the sea-wet rock sat down and combed their hair.--A.E. Housman

#6

That's too simple. We need an archive of proposals and consequent
discussions, followed, after about a year, by a poll to gauge which
changes would be popular.

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

···

Middle Earth PBM Games <me@MiddleEarthGames.com> wrote

I have come across these style of discussions before. Something I would
like to see is a questionnaire (that we can produce) about the game - good
an bad points. What changes need to be made, what would be nice to change,
what should not be change under any circumstance - that sort of thing.

#7

I think that would be a good botch solution, but I'd rather remove the
core problem - the fact that the game has these different "classes" of
human being, whose style of warfare separates them irrevocably. I'd
rather see straight cavalry and infantry, if you stick armour on them,
then they're heavy. Couple this with some recruiting restrictions, and
a rationalisation of the Make Armour orders, and you'd have the
opportunity to recruit light troops, and upgrade them when you had the
metals. In history, with just a very few exceptions, nobody chose to be
lightly armoured, if he could get the gear. I'd also like to see armour
collected up after a victorious battle, along with food and war
machines. That's very RL too.

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

···

Jeffery A. Dobberpuhl <webguys@lakenet.com> wrote

1) NO HEAVY TROOPS can recruit at camps, villages or towns.
2) NO LIGHT TROOPS can recruit at camps.
This makes more sense from the "Gee - super cool troops just aren't
everywhere" stand point and will definately cause the other troop types to
be used.

#8

Nice idea.

Clint

···

I'd
rather see straight cavalry and infantry, if you stick armour on them,
then they're heavy. Couple this with some recruiting restrictions, and
a rationalisation of the Make Armour orders, and you'd have the
opportunity to recruit light troops, and upgrade them when you had the
metals. In history, with just a very few exceptions, nobody chose to be
lightly armoured, if he could get the gear. I'd also like to see armour
collected up after a victorious battle, along with food and war
machines. That's very RL too.

#9

Yes but what to poll on?! :slight_smile: Seriously to get everyone to respond on each
issue would be a nightmare. I am archiving some of the items which I will
then use to create the questionnaire, but I also need input from "I want
this changed" type things.

Clint

>I have come across these style of discussions before. Something I would
>like to see is a questionnaire (that we can produce) about the game -

good

>an bad points. What changes need to be made, what would be nice to

change,

···

>what should not be change under any circumstance - that sort of thing.
That's too simple. We need an archive of proposals and consequent
discussions, followed, after about a year, by a poll to gauge which
changes would be popular.

#10

No, don't do it. It needs to be a long term project. It needs lots of
debate, and many, well sorted, well explained clear proposals before you
resolve things with a questionnaire.

We could probably archive 1000 different ideas for a 2nd edition. There
would then need to be an awful lot of editing to eliminate similar
ideas, and determine which ideas clash and therefore should be set
against each other.

A lot of the ideas given so far, including many of my own, are not firm
proposals ready to be voted on, but:

- general principles for game improvement

- general perceptions of shortcomings in the current game

- half formed ideas, where there are knock on consequences which the
writer can foresee but does not necessarily have the ideas to resolve

- balls (not in the qualitative sense!) thrown into the air for
discussion

But none of these are bad. It just indicates that we are at a very
early stage of any process. I feel that a questionnaire at this stage
would merely stifle the discussion.

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

···

Middle Earth PBM Games <me@MiddleEarthGames.com> wrote

Yes but what to poll on?! :slight_smile: Seriously to get everyone to respond on each
issue would be a nightmare. I am archiving some of the items which I will
then use to create the questionnaire, but I also need input from "I want
this changed" type things.

#11

I'd
rather see straight cavalry and infantry, if you stick armour on them,
then they're heavy. Couple this with some recruiting restrictions, and
a rationalisation of the Make Armour orders, and you'd have the
opportunity to recruit light troops, and upgrade them when you had the
metals. In history, with just a very few exceptions, nobody chose to be
lightly armoured, if he could get the gear. I'd also like to see armour
collected up after a victorious battle, along with food and war
machines. That's very RL too.

Nice idea.
Clint

Why thank you - but I'm sure I'm not the first to have had it though.

It has just struck me that this one is a good example of a change which
simplifies. So in a wholesale revision, you can afford to have a few
more complex changes, if you also rationalise and thus remove some of
the present less useful complexities.

There are other opportunities for rationalisation. Off the top of my
head, I can remember both of the following being proposed by others at
times in the past:

Merge 947 and 948 (to a simple transport % to hex order)

Merge 520 and 525 (to a simple Inf in my favour order)

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

···

Middle Earth PBM Games <me@MiddleEarthGames.com> wrote

#12

Allowing LC to be recruited with mounts only would give the troop type
a purpose it currently lacks. HC would need two resources, LC
would need only one. Also give the LC a distinct edge in battle
tactics to compensate for the reduced strength. I'd ditch LI or find
a use for it...the option to recruit twice as much would again add
some point to having the troop type there. You gain in threats and
overruns, but need a lot more food to move from point A to point B
quickly. Same comment for archers. You would then have five useful
troop types instead of two.

I'd prohibit any extra weapons/armor for the light troop types, btw.

cheers,

Marc

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Jeffery A. Dobberpuhl" <webguys@l...> wrote:

I think the biggest change that would make the game more

interesting, to me,

anyways, is recruitment levels.

A) Preferred method

1) NO HEAVY TROOPS can recruit at camps, villages or towns.
2) NO LIGHT TROOPS can recruit at camps.
This makes more sense from the "Gee - super cool troops just aren't
everywhere" stand point and will definately cause the other troop

types to

be used.

B) Lesser preferred method

1) Increase production for MA and LI to match HI troop strength.
IE. You can recruit/hire DOUBLE the number of LI in a hex.

This makes all troops "equal" after a fashion, but I don't like it

as much

as A.

Later,
Jeff

> From: Middle Earth PBM Games [mailto:me@M…]
> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 5:08 PM
> To: mepbmlist@y…
> Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Proposed Changes
>
>
> I have come across these style of discussions before. Something I

would

> like to see is a questionnaire (that we can produce) about the

game - good

> an bad points. What changes need to be made, what would be nice
> to change,
> what should not be change under any circumstance - that sort of

thing.

>
> > I think the expediency of a battle of annihilation is a

shortfall. I'm

> > sorry, no battles end in complete destruction of an enemy.
>
> How would you change this? Making battles last longer
> effectively slow the
> game down - because that army would still be there (in lots of

cases) next

> turn and so the attack order would have to be put in again?
>
> Curious about this.
>
> Clint
>
>
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
> To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
> http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

···

> -----Original Message-----
>
>
>

#13

With som experimentztion, i've found that archers do have a use, although a
limited one. Archers fire a preliminary barrage, just like war machines do.
With enough archers in one force, your opponant is quite well softened up
before the actual combat begins, reducing the amount of damage your own
force takes in return on the first round, and increasing the numbers of
enemy dead. Archers also take no resources, coming with 60/0 for
weapon/armor ranks.

Finally, a force of archers can crunch smaller pop centers in combat with
absolutely no damage to their own numbers. This seems to have a VERY
positive effect on their morale...

Still, I usually just raise heavy infantry.

- Glenn

···

-----Original Message-----
From: pinsonneault.1@osu.edu [mailto:pinsonneault.1@osu.edu]
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 1:17 PM
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Proposed Changes

Allowing LC to be recruited with mounts only would give the troop type
a purpose it currently lacks. HC would need two resources, LC
would need only one. Also give the LC a distinct edge in battle
tactics to compensate for the reduced strength. I'd ditch LI or find
a use for it...the option to recruit twice as much would again add
some point to having the troop type there. You gain in threats and
overruns, but need a lot more food to move from point A to point B
quickly. Same comment for archers. You would then have five useful
troop types instead of two.

I'd prohibit any extra weapons/armor for the light troop types, btw.

cheers,

Marc

— In mepbmlist@y…, "Jeffery A. Dobberpuhl" <webguys@l…> wrote:
> I think the biggest change that would make the game more
interesting, to me,
> anyways, is recruitment levels.
>
> A) Preferred method
>
> 1) NO HEAVY TROOPS can recruit at camps, villages or towns.
> 2) NO LIGHT TROOPS can recruit at camps.
> This makes more sense from the "Gee - super cool troops just aren't
> everywhere" stand point and will definately cause the other troop
types to
> be used.
>
> B) Lesser preferred method
>
> 1) Increase production for MA and LI to match HI troop strength.
> IE. You can recruit/hire DOUBLE the number of LI in a hex.
>
> This makes all troops "equal" after a fashion, but I don't like it
as much
> as A.
>
> Later,
> Jeff
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Middle Earth PBM Games [mailto:me@M…]
> > Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 5:08 PM
> > To: mepbmlist@y…
> > Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Proposed Changes
> >
> >
> > I have come across these style of discussions before. Something I
would
> > like to see is a questionnaire (that we can produce) about the
game - good
> > an bad points. What changes need to be made, what would be nice
> > to change,
> > what should not be change under any circumstance - that sort of
thing.
> >
> > > I think the expediency of a battle of annihilation is a
shortfall. I'm
> > > sorry, no battles end in complete destruction of an enemy.
> >
> > How would you change this? Making battles last longer
> > effectively slow the
> > game down - because that army would still be there (in lots of
cases) next
> > turn and so the attack order would have to be put in again?
> >
> > Curious about this.
> >
> > Clint
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
> > To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
> > http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#14

I have come across these style of discussions before. Something I would
like to see is a questionnaire (that we can produce) about the game - good
an bad points. What changes need to be made, what would be nice to

change,

what should not be change under any circumstance - that sort of thing.

RD: Yes, go on: produce a questionnaire. It would need to be divided into
headings like economics, troop types, characters, spells etc.

> I think the expediency of a battle of annihilation is a shortfall. I'm
> sorry, no battles end in complete destruction of an enemy.

How would you change this? Making battles last longer effectively slow

the

game down - because that army would still be there (in lots of cases) next
turn and so the attack order would have to be put in again?

Curious about this.

Clint

RD: You're right battles rarely ended in annihilation, but equally, they
rarely if ever lasted more than a fortnight either!

You (and many others) are not reading the battle reports properly. They
don't say Bugeye's army was annihilated. They say Bugeye's army was, quote:
'destroyed/routed.' Note the routed. In other words Bugeye lost the
battle, his troops suffered some casualties and the rest ran away.

I take it that the routed troops fled back to their home pops, from whence
they can be re-recruited next turn. How else can you justify being able to
recruit fresh armies from the same pop base every fortnight?

For me, this aspect of the game works perfectly well and should be left
alone. If you want a more realistic approach, each nation would only be
able to recruit once a year - boring.

Regards,

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Middle Earth PBM Games" <me@MiddleEarthGames.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Proposed Changes

#15

Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

> > I think the expediency of a battle of annihilation is a shortfall. I'm
> > sorry, no battles end in complete destruction of an enemy.
>
> How would you change this? Making battles last longer effectively slow

the

> game down - because that army would still be there (in lots of cases)

next

> turn and so the attack order would have to be put in again?

You could always force a retreat for the losers. I know that's not in
the game now, but just push them off the battle hex, so they can move
back to a pop center and lick their wounds. It would require a lot less
recruiting in the long run, and make people more likely to invest in
troops. I'm not going to spend the orders and material to outfit my HI
with st/st if I know they're going to be obliterated next turn. If they
have a better chance of survival, I might.

RD: having defeated armies retreat has been mentioned before but I expect
would require a program change for no gain in playability. Moreover if you
read any of Tolkien's battles, the vast majority ended in the
destruction/rout of the losing army, exactly as the battle reports say in
the game. Find me a battle in Tolkien's writings where the loser was able
to retreat in good order - they are few and far between.

You could also institute looting for armor and weapons.

jason

RD: Now that IS an interesting possibility. If a victorious army can loot
food and war machines, why not a percentage of weapons and armour - assuming
they are better than what the winners have already?

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Bennett" <jasonab@acm.org>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 11:58 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Proposed Changes

#16

I think the biggest change that would make the game more interesting, to

me,

anyways, is recruitment levels.

A) Preferred method

1) NO HEAVY TROOPS can recruit at camps, villages or towns.
2) NO LIGHT TROOPS can recruit at camps.
This makes more sense from the "Gee - super cool troops just aren't
everywhere" stand point and will definately cause the other troop types to
be used.

B) Lesser preferred method

1) Increase production for MA and LI to match HI troop strength.
IE. You can recruit/hire DOUBLE the number of LI in a hex.

This makes all troops "equal" after a fashion, but I don't like it as much
as A.

Later,
Jeff

RD: Again, this would probably need a program change for, frankly, no
benefit that I can see. Who recruits from camps anyway?

I would love to see restrictions on troop types, but done on the basis of
race as described in Tolkien's books, eg no Dwarf cavalry, and the vast
majority of DS troops would be what GSI miscalls men-at-arms: weedy orcs but
huge numbers of them, beefed up by the occaisional squad of Uruk-hai and
even smaller numbers of trolls.

No point going into more detail unless/until Harlequin are able to make
changes to the program.

Regards,

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffery A. Dobberpuhl" <webguys@lakenet.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 12:00 AM
Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] Proposed Changes

#17

Me too - there is not enough to have in the questionnaire.

Clint

···

just indicates that we are at a very
early stage of any process. I feel that a questionnaire at this stage
would merely stifle the discussion.

#18

Not strictly true - if we can get enough cohesive and coherent ideas
together then maybe we can work something here?

Clint

···

No point going into more detail unless/until Harlequin are able to make
changes to the program.