Hi,
Having talked this through with a couple of people, I thought I'd bounce
this around the mailing list to see if anyone has any
suggestions/improvements - or if anyone would be interested in playing
in such a scenario. I've checked this with Clint, who says it is
feasible as far as the software is concerned.
Basically the proposal is for a three-way game akin to the Fourth Age
system, but in a 1650 setting. This would mean taking two nations from
each existing team, to make a 9 player neutral team. I would suggest the
ex-Free People neutrals could be the Dwarves and Northmen, whilst the
ex-Dark Servant neutrals could be Long Rider and Quiet Avenger.
The main problem with balance seems to be that the whole of the South
becomes neutral, a situation which might be balanced by making the
Corsairs or Harad Free People and adding another FP nation to the neutal
list. Alternatively one could assume that SG counts as a FP presence in
the area.
Other problems are ...
1: Whether this should be set up under 1650 or 4th Age software. I would
have thought 1650 would make less work for the GM. Comments Clint?
2: Technically under the 1650 system the Neutrals would have problems
with encounters (the software would still consider a Neutral Dwarven
nation to be FP for the purposes of encounters, whilst a Neutral Long
Rider could recruit dragons as the DS).
3: Again, technically working out who has won could be awkward, as this
could not be handled by the software. Which is one argument for using
the 4th Age game engine.
4: Things I haven't thought of yet ...
Anway, what do people think? Is there enough interest to get a game
along these lines set up?
Colin.
Looks like no-ones up for it Colin... I suggest it gets brought up some
time in the future again as we have a few variants recently.
FA would be more work but the system would deal with having three teams more
effectievly. Representing the characters in FA would be okay - although
there are few or no Lost list items in FA.
With 1650 you would not be able to have a Neutral team win unless I used one
of nations FP and DS as a position left to hold the fort so to speak. (Ie
no win for a wipe out of a DS side leaving the Neutral & FP in so the
program would default to a FP win.) But as I said with a 23 player game (&
one FP + DS having no impact on the game - probably a MT in the NorthEast of
the map wiht no-one allowed to touch it) then this scenario could work.
Haven't thought of any other technical problems associated with this though
so we'd be happy to support it.
Clint
···
Hi,
Having talked this through with a couple of people, I thought I'd bounce
this around the mailing list to see if anyone has any
suggestions/improvements - or if anyone would be interested in playing
in such a scenario. I've checked this with Clint, who says it is
feasible as far as the software is concerned.
Basically the proposal is for a three-way game akin to the Fourth Age
system, but in a 1650 setting. This would mean taking two nations from
each existing team, to make a 9 player neutral team. I would suggest the
ex-Free People neutrals could be the Dwarves and Northmen, whilst the
ex-Dark Servant neutrals could be Long Rider and Quiet Avenger.
The main problem with balance seems to be that the whole of the South
becomes neutral, a situation which might be balanced by making the
Corsairs or Harad Free People and adding another FP nation to the neutal
list. Alternatively one could assume that SG counts as a FP presence in
the area.
Other problems are ...
1: Whether this should be set up under 1650 or 4th Age software. I would
have thought 1650 would make less work for the GM. Comments Clint?
2: Technically under the 1650 system the Neutrals would have problems
with encounters (the software would still consider a Neutral Dwarven
nation to be FP for the purposes of encounters, whilst a Neutral Long
Rider could recruit dragons as the DS).
3: Again, technically working out who has won could be awkward, as this
could not be handled by the software. Which is one argument for using
the 4th Age game engine.
4: Things I haven't thought of yet ...
Anway, what do people think? Is there enough interest to get a game
along these lines set up?
Colin.
Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
I didn't want to be negative, but Colin deserves some response.
Basically, I think the idea of 3 way games is crazy. There is no such
thing as a 3 way war. Whether formally or not, two sides will soon co-
operate, and the third will get crushed in an unbalanced game. Game 46
proved this.
I'm sure there are tweaks which would provide interesting games - games
in which the neutrals are prealigned have become my favourite - it is
but a small step to alter a couple of the start nations too. E.g. Rhu,
Cors and Nol start as DS; Har, Dun and QAv start as FP. That would be
fun! BUT as far as I'm concerned (and a few others to my knowledge) the
moment you mention that dread phrase "three way", you are on to a loser.
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
Talk to me live when I'm online with Yahoo Messenger
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ My ID=LGTilley
···
Harlequin Games <pbm@harlequingames.com> wrote
Looks like no-ones up for it Colin... I suggest it gets brought up some
time in the future again as we have a few variants recently.
Actually I'd quite like to play in this.
Regards
Mike
···
----- Original Message -----
From: Harlequin Games <pbm@harlequingames.com>
To: <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Scenario idea
Looks like no-ones up for it Colin... I suggest it gets brought up some
time in the future again as we have a few variants recently.
FA would be more work but the system would deal with having three teams
more
effectievly. Representing the characters in FA would be okay - although
there are few or no Lost list items in FA.
With 1650 you would not be able to have a Neutral team win unless I used
one
of nations FP and DS as a position left to hold the fort so to speak. (Ie
no win for a wipe out of a DS side leaving the Neutral & FP in so the
program would default to a FP win.) But as I said with a 23 player game
(&
one FP + DS having no impact on the game - probably a MT in the NorthEast
of
the map wiht no-one allowed to touch it) then this scenario could work.
Haven't thought of any other technical problems associated with this
though
so we'd be happy to support it.
Clint
> Hi,
> Having talked this through with a couple of people, I thought I'd bounce
> this around the mailing list to see if anyone has any
> suggestions/improvements - or if anyone would be interested in playing
> in such a scenario. I've checked this with Clint, who says it is
> feasible as far as the software is concerned.
>
> Basically the proposal is for a three-way game akin to the Fourth Age
> system, but in a 1650 setting. This would mean taking two nations from
> each existing team, to make a 9 player neutral team. I would suggest the
> ex-Free People neutrals could be the Dwarves and Northmen, whilst the
> ex-Dark Servant neutrals could be Long Rider and Quiet Avenger.
>
> The main problem with balance seems to be that the whole of the South
> becomes neutral, a situation which might be balanced by making the
> Corsairs or Harad Free People and adding another FP nation to the neutal
> list. Alternatively one could assume that SG counts as a FP presence in
> the area.
>
> Other problems are ...
>
> 1: Whether this should be set up under 1650 or 4th Age software. I would
> have thought 1650 would make less work for the GM. Comments Clint?
>
> 2: Technically under the 1650 system the Neutrals would have problems
> with encounters (the software would still consider a Neutral Dwarven
> nation to be FP for the purposes of encounters, whilst a Neutral Long
> Rider could recruit dragons as the DS).
>
> 3: Again, technically working out who has won could be awkward, as this
> could not be handled by the software. Which is one argument for using
> the 4th Age game engine.
>
> 4: Things I haven't thought of yet ...
>
> Anway, what do people think? Is there enough interest to get a game
> along these lines set up?
>
> Colin.
>
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
> To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
> http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
>
>
Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
Um - as a player in 46 the set-up we arranged was to hit the most
experienced team and to have a non-aggression pact for a few turns. No-one
knew how it would work I might add - and there were a few hiccups along the
way of people attacking/infing that sort of thing which nearly broke the
truce.
We're not sure how good it was for us though as there was little swop of
information between the two teams. We burnt ourselves against the DS not
actually gaining a lot. From what I hear the DS team died due to a lack of
team-play. (Two capitals and two deaths by turn 6?)
One thing we were always ready for the FP to attack us - specifically
setting up the southern nations to defend in case of attack. As the game is
still going we'll see how effective things are overall though for both
teams.
Clint (player)
To a certain extent the game feels to me as if it is a 3 way game - the
neutrals often being the deciding factor. If the map is split effectively
enough I think a 3way battle can work though.
Clint (GM)
···
>Looks like no-ones up for it Colin... I suggest it gets brought up some
>time in the future again as we have a few variants recently.
I didn't want to be negative, but Colin deserves some response.
Basically, I think the idea of 3 way games is crazy. There is no such
thing as a 3 way war. Whether formally or not, two sides will soon co-
operate, and the third will get crushed in an unbalanced game. Game 46
proved this.
> I'm sure there are tweaks which would provide interesting games - games
in which the neutrals are prealigned have become my favourite - it is
but a small step to alter a couple of the start nations too. E.g. Rhu,
Cors and Nol start as DS; Har, Dun and QAv start as FP. That would be
fun! BUT as far as I'm concerned (and a few others to my knowledge) the
moment you mention that dread phrase "three way", you are on to a loser.
RD: Yes, sorry Colin, but I agree with Laurence that a 3-way game will
sooner or later become two against one, so not a good idea.
I am all in favour of people coming up with new ME variants, but as there is
only a limited pool of players, it's probably not a good idea to try to
launch another so soon.
Laurence's idea (or something similar) looks like fun (even if it flies in
the face of Tolkien's writings!) but personally, there is no way I can
commit to any more games until at least one of my current ones ends.
As one of the (few?) people who like to be as faithful as possible to
Tolkien's writings, I have the War of the Last Alliance in mind as a
scenario. This is the one which, in the 'Silmarilion,' ends with the siege
of Barad-dur, the slaying of Sauron's physical body by Gil-galad and Elendil
(who both died also) and Isildur cutting the One Ring from Sauron's finger.
As a scenario, the Last Alliance has lots to recommend it, not least that
one of the DS players gets to play Sauron, and the FP get a different
victory condition, either the death of Sauron or the destruction of
Barad-dur. It could easily be grafted onto a 4th Age base. The only reason
I haven't suggested it earlier is because, as I said above, I didn't think
it was a good idea to launch another new scenario so soon after WotR. But
the plan is there if it's acceptable to Harlequin, and if/when enough
players are interested!
Regards,
Richard.
···
Harlequin Games <pbm@harlequingames.com> wrote
>Looks like no-ones up for it Colin... I suggest it gets brought up some
>time in the future again as we have a few variants recently.
I didn't want to be negative, but Colin deserves some response.
Basically, I think the idea of 3 way games is crazy. There is no such
thing as a 3 way war. Whether formally or not, two sides will soon co-
operate, and the third will get crushed in an unbalanced game. Game 46
proved this.
I'm sure there are tweaks which would provide interesting games - games
in which the neutrals are prealigned have become my favourite - it is
but a small step to alter a couple of the start nations too. E.g. Rhu,
Cors and Nol start as DS; Har, Dun and QAv start as FP. That would be
fun! BUT as far as I'm concerned (and a few others to my knowledge) the
moment you mention that dread phrase "three way", you are on to a loser.
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
Talk to me live when I'm online with Yahoo Messenger
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ My ID=LGTilley
Yep soiunds quite fun this one.
Clint
···
****************************************************
Harlequin Games
mailto: pbm@harlequingames.com
www.harlequingames.com
Middle Earth - Legends- Serim Ral
CTF 2187 - Starquest - Crack of Doom
Battle of the Planets - Exile
****************************************************
340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP
Tel 029 2062 5665 12-6.30 Weekdays
Fax 029 2062 5532 24 hours
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard John Devereux" <devereux@lineone.net>
To: <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Scenario idea
> Harlequin Games <pbm@harlequingames.com> wrote
> >Looks like no-ones up for it Colin... I suggest it gets brought up
some
> >time in the future again as we have a few variants recently.
> I didn't want to be negative, but Colin deserves some response.
>
> Basically, I think the idea of 3 way games is crazy. There is no such
> thing as a 3 way war. Whether formally or not, two sides will soon co-
> operate, and the third will get crushed in an unbalanced game. Game 46
> proved this.
>
>
> I'm sure there are tweaks which would provide interesting games - games
> in which the neutrals are prealigned have become my favourite - it is
> but a small step to alter a couple of the start nations too. E.g. Rhu,
> Cors and Nol start as DS; Har, Dun and QAv start as FP. That would be
> fun! BUT as far as I'm concerned (and a few others to my knowledge) the
> moment you mention that dread phrase "three way", you are on to a loser.
>
> Regards,
> Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
> Talk to me live when I'm online with Yahoo Messenger
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ My ID=LGTilley
>
RD: Yes, sorry Colin, but I agree with Laurence that a 3-way game will
sooner or later become two against one, so not a good idea.
I am all in favour of people coming up with new ME variants, but as there
is
only a limited pool of players, it's probably not a good idea to try to
launch another so soon.
Laurence's idea (or something similar) looks like fun (even if it flies in
the face of Tolkien's writings!) but personally, there is no way I can
commit to any more games until at least one of my current ones ends.
As one of the (few?) people who like to be as faithful as possible to
Tolkien's writings, I have the War of the Last Alliance in mind as a
scenario. This is the one which, in the 'Silmarilion,' ends with the
siege
of Barad-dur, the slaying of Sauron's physical body by Gil-galad and
Elendil
(who both died also) and Isildur cutting the One Ring from Sauron's
finger.
As a scenario, the Last Alliance has lots to recommend it, not least that
one of the DS players gets to play Sauron, and the FP get a different
victory condition, either the death of Sauron or the destruction of
Barad-dur. It could easily be grafted onto a 4th Age base. The only
reason
I haven't suggested it earlier is because, as I said above, I didn't think
it was a good idea to launch another new scenario so soon after WotR. But
the plan is there if it's acceptable to Harlequin, and if/when enough
players are interested!
Regards,
Richard.
Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
Hi,
OK it looks as though there isn't much enthusiasm amongst people that
lurk around this mailing list for a new scenario.
My own situation is that once game 15 has finished (surely it can't be
long now??) I'll be looking for another PBM. I'm a bit bored with the
normal Middle Earth set-up, so would be more than interested in playing
an alternative scenario. The normal set up doesn't interest me at the
moment. I was very interested in the WoTR scenario, but it started about
a month or so too soon - I just didn't have the spare time and money
then
Clint, is there likely to be an alternative scenario set up in the near
future? If not I'll probably look around to join another PBM (not that
there's a lot out there at the moment that looks particularly
interesting).
Colin.
That's a distortion. One player was relatively inexperienced, and
didn't tell us his capital was about to fall. The second player went
due to an order error in transferring him a backup. Being attacked on
two fronts by huge armies was the main cause though.
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
Talk to me live when I'm online with Yahoo Messenger
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ My ID=LGTilley
···
Harlequin Games <pbm@harlequingames.com> wrote
From what I hear the DS team died due to a lack of
team-play. (Two capitals and two deaths by turn 6?)
Not at present. There is always 1000 games which are quite different from
game to game it seems. (Lots of ideas I want to explore there still).
There is a 12 player game of 1650 or 1000 as well.
Games we run:
Have you tried Crack of Doom (John runs it)? Very good if you like that
sort of thing.
I realise you have tried Legends and been hitten by the usual - "urghhh
bug". But it is a very rewarding game as well. (New game of that starting
soon). (There is a place in our faction should you want!) 
Others:
Not upto date on this at present really so can't help there.
Clint (mxture GM and player)
···
Hi,
OK it looks as though there isn't much enthusiasm amongst people that
lurk around this mailing list for a new scenario.
My own situation is that once game 15 has finished (surely it can't be
long now??) I'll be looking for another PBM. I'm a bit bored with the
normal Middle Earth set-up, so would be more than interested in playing
an alternative scenario. The normal set up doesn't interest me at the
moment. I was very interested in the WoTR scenario, but it started about
a month or so too soon - I just didn't have the spare time and money
then
Clint, is there likely to be an alternative scenario set up in the near
future? If not I'll probably look around to join another PBM (not that
there's a lot out there at the moment that looks particularly
interesting).
Colin.
Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
Don't forget the insane agent hit as well... Was just quoting one of
your team mates here btw... Were you being hit by the FP in the south at
the same time as agenting them? One thing was information about where you
guys had starting capitals from your locations gave us an edge I think.
Mostly interested in the tactics employed as it was right at the beginning
of our ME gaming experience and lots of mistake on set-ups etc were made.
(What you need 4 commanders?! Sort of thing).
Clint (player)
···
>From what I hear the DS team died due to a lack of
>team-play. (Two capitals and two deaths by turn 6?)
That's a distortion. One player was relatively inexperienced, and
didn't tell us his capital was about to fall. The second player went
due to an order error in transferring him a backup. Being attacked on
two fronts by huge armies was the main cause though.
Oh yeh, what generally happens with this format is that we put it out in
Bree, (hint), and the suggestor gets most of a team sorted and then we can
put the work in at our end. (A few times we have been bitten by the great
idea no players scam).
How many players can you think of who might be interested? Does Michael
have any contacts down under who might like this sort of idea? What about
the Americans etc?
Clint (back in GM mode)
···
Hi,
OK it looks as though there isn't much enthusiasm amongst people that
lurk around this mailing list for a new scenario.
My own situation is that once game 15 has finished (surely it can't be
long now??) I'll be looking for another PBM. I'm a bit bored with the
normal Middle Earth set-up, so would be more than interested in playing
an alternative scenario. The normal set up doesn't interest me at the
moment. I was very interested in the WoTR scenario, but it started about
a month or so too soon - I just didn't have the spare time and money
then
Clint, is there likely to be an alternative scenario set up in the near
future? If not I'll probably look around to join another PBM (not that
there's a lot out there at the moment that looks particularly
interesting).
Colin.
Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
Don't forget the insane agent hit as well... Was just quoting one of
your team mates here btw...
Don't quite know what he meant by that. I do know that we had
spectacular failures by our agents at rank 60+20 assass bonus, all
failing turn after turn.
Were you being hit by the FP in the south at
the same time as agenting them?
Yup. In the end they even came by sea and landed in Noldo land. Phil
Quirk put up a City/Castle quicker than I could blink. And there was me
sitting "safe" in the top corner.
One thing was information about where you
guys had starting capitals from your locations gave us an edge I think.
We knew where most of yours were, but there was noting we could do about
it. We were already on the back foot militarily, and could not retake
the bridgeheads you and the Freeps had made on our side of the mountains
- let alone get anywhere near your capitals. And as for agents - they
all seemed to have come with rubber daggers.
Mostly interested in the tactics employed as it was right at the beginning
of our ME gaming experience and lots of mistake on set-ups etc were made.
Yeah, pull the other one.
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
Talk to me live when I'm online with Yahoo Messenger
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ My ID=LGTilley
···
Harlequin Games <pbm@harlequingames.com> wrote
The other one has no bells I am afraid. First team game, with us going in
on an average of 1 turn a player I think it was. Yeh we had similar luck
with our agents.
Clint (player)
>Mostly interested in the tactics employed as it was right at the
beginning
···
>of our ME gaming experience and lots of mistake on set-ups etc were made.
Yeah, pull the other one.
