Second Age, 10 player (4 to a side with 2 neutrals) variant. Interest? (Clint?)

Question Clint (can more then two nations in a variant have the no
limit on characters (can go up to 21 at turn 1 if need be) advantage
the two kindoms have in 4th age???

For everyone else...

New Game Variant Questions.

First a quick background.

I am currently in three games. 2 1650 games and a BOFA game with some
new friends.

In one of the 1650 games, we've had wonderful communication. In the
other, while we have a number of great players, our communication is
not particularly bad or good and we've had some people
do "interesting things" like retiring their Nazgul.

However, in the BOFA game, the communication has been outstanding. It
is simply a tremendously fun game, and it takes a ton less time to
coordinate.

The key difference is the number of players. In small games (2-5
players on a side), your team does not have nearly the chance to have
poor communication, and the time it takes is much, MUCH less.

So in a sense, it is between a normal game (tons of emails and time)
and gunboat (no emails and time).

So I got to thinking about what I personally would most like in a
game. It would be a small group on each side, where neutrals are
around, but are not overwhelming. Where , like in BOFA, tension
exists each turn, but it is on a much more mature scale.

Since a number of my other friends seem to feel the same way, I
wanted to get a general consensus from the boards about interest in
the following variant. Also as a variant, having only 10 players
required make for a easier to fill game. As a game designer for a D-
20 company/board game group, I might have the required skills to set
this up well…

2nd Age: The Last Alliance of Men and Elves. (Yes I know there has
been another version for this, but it was a full 25 players).

Rules
Each of the 4 primary nations on each major side has no limit on
their max characters from the opening turn (just like the kingdoms in
4th age). [Clint could we do this easily, without hitting the source
code).

Each of the 2 Neutral nations have the standard progression of # of
characters. They are not the main players, but in time can become an
asset to their side. They however, can choose to remain neutral (like
in 4th age).

No one ring victory. Game ends at turn 30. (Points to sides based on
other nations eliminated, etc). Either Sauron gains enough power from
the ring to overcome the free, or the free overcome Sauron and take
the ring… By having a 30 turn game, the tension stays high ,and
players should (hopefully) be less likely to quit, because they could
still win/place if they "just hold on". I see it happening in
bofa. "Lets see if we can hold to turn 10!" Is a common saying.
I'm not going to spend much effort on it until Clint says it is
possible and I get 10 total interest players, but here is a quick
break-down.

The nations are very strong. This is a time of legend. The characters
are strong, as are the pop centers (for the most part). Think 1650 if
you started the game around turn 25.

Good
Noldo (With Giligad and most of the current Noldo minus Elrond's sons
who were not around.
Sinda (With Cereborn and Galadriel, and their daughter Celebrían who
were around a lot at this time)
Arnor (With Elendil, and Isildur (who had just fled north when Sauron
had taken Minis Tirith as his own (the starting point of the game).
Gondor (With Anárion holding Oz and still as the L around mordor)

Evil (Working titles)
The Dark Lord (Sauron & His Servants)
The Northern Nazgul (The first 4 Nazgul and their northern fallen
kingdoms)
The Haradran (The Fallen who live south of Mordor, including the QA,
who seduced them (In my thinking anyway)).
The Fallen (The Other Nazgul, mostly around Rhovianin and Mordor)

The Neutrals
Dwarves
Mountain Men (Will they come to the aid of Gondor???)

Any ideas or suggestions are great, but basically, I am looking for
if there is any interest in a high powered, low number of allies with
less potent neutrals (at the beginning) game.

In one of the 1650 games, we've had wonderful communication. In the
other, while we have a number of great players, our communication is
not particularly bad or good and we've had some people
do "interesting things" like retiring their Nazgul.

Oh, love it! I bet that made for team harmony, and happy bunnies. Do
tell, do tell! I don't expect it would be PC to tell us the player, but
tell us at least which Nazgul it was who got given his cards.

What does a nazgul say when he's retired? Can you see the hooded form
slamming the office door and shouting "You're not firing me, 'cos I RESIGN,
and you know where you can stick yer (bleep) job!"

The key difference is the number of players. In small games (2-5
players on a side), your team does not have nearly the chance to have
poor communication, and the time it takes is much, MUCH less.

That's maybe why paired games (2 nations each) of 1650 & 2950 ate becoming
popular. You only need 4 or 5 reliable communicators to form a team.

So I got to thinking about what I personally would most like in a
game. It would be a small group on each side, where neutrals are
around, but are not overwhelming. Where , like in BOFA, tension
exists each turn, but it is on a much more mature scale.

That's a hard one. The maturity thing depends on individuals. BOFA was
designed as a tester for beginners, and is presumably helping, but only to
a degree. There's always a risk that you'll get a bad game unless you sign
up with a team, and a risk that you'll have a weak opposition even then.

Since a number of my other friends seem to feel the same way, I
wanted to get a general consensus from the boards about interest in
the following variant. Also as a variant, having only 10 players
required make for a easier to fill game. As a game designer for a D-
20 company/board game group, I might have the required skills to set
this up well…

2nd Age: The Last Alliance of Men and Elves. (Yes I know there has
been another version for this, but it was a full 25 players).

Rules
Each of the 4 primary nations on each major side has no limit on
their max characters from the opening turn (just like the kingdoms in
4th age). [Clint could we do this easily, without hitting the source
code).

In the old days, they made (proportionately) most of their money out of the
first 21 turns, where we were all paying the same rate, but there were much
fewer orders to input, and less paper to print. Not sure if this is still
true now it's all automatic. Note than some players don't use Meow or
Automagic though.

Each of the 2 Neutral nations have the standard progression of # of
characters. They are not the main players, but in time can become an
asset to their side. They however, can choose to remain neutral (like
in 4th age).

No one ring victory.

Rather takes the essence out of Middle Earth. It's jolly hard to achieve a
One Ring victory you know. This is one thing the programmers got right -
in all the years of MEPBM, no group of players has "cracked it" so that One
Ring victories are striven for early in each game.

Game ends at turn 30.

Dreadful. What if the game's in full flow at turn 30, and everyone's
thoroughly enjoying themselves? I think 4th Age may have a rule like this,
artificial and daft. Something like a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio of surviving
nations is a much better limiter. But even then it could tell against you
if the "bug" had built himself a huge and powerful nation, and trying to
take him out was giving you good entertainment value.

(Points to sides based on
other nations eliminated, etc).

I don't think that can be done in a scenario mod. It would mean adjusting
the code (no chance) or calculating scores by hand.

Either Sauron gains enough power from
the ring to overcome the free, or the free overcome Sauron and take
the ring… By having a 30 turn game, the tension stays high ,and
players should (hopefully) be less likely to quit, because they could
still win/place if they "just hold on". I see it happening in
bofa. "Lets see if we can hold to turn 10!" Is a common saying.
I'm not going to spend much effort on it until Clint says it is
possible and I get 10 total interest players, but here is a quick
break-down.

The nations are very strong. This is a time of legend. The characters
are strong, as are the pop centers (for the most part). Think 1650 if
you started the game around turn 25.

Good
Noldo (With Giligad and most of the current Noldo minus Elrond's sons
who were not around.
Sinda (With Cereborn and Galadriel, and their daughter Celebrían who
were around a lot at this time)
Arnor (With Elendil, and Isildur (who had just fled north when Sauron
had taken Minis Tirith as his own (the starting point of the game).
Gondor (With Anárion holding Oz and still as the L around mordor)

Evil (Working titles)
The Dark Lord (Sauron & His Servants)
The Northern Nazgul (The first 4 Nazgul and their northern fallen
kingdoms)
The Haradran (The Fallen who live south of Mordor, including the QA,
who seduced them (In my thinking anyway)).
The Fallen (The Other Nazgul, mostly around Rhovianin and Mordor)

The Neutrals
Dwarves
Mountain Men (Will they come to the aid of Gondor???)

Any ideas or suggestions are great, but basically, I am looking for
if there is any interest in a high powered, low number of allies with
less potent neutrals (at the beginning) game.

I quite like your nations, and I think any scenario suggestion is worth
developing. My one thought though is that it might play like BOFA on an
over large map. You may find that the armies have to travel for three
turns every time they want to find an enemy.

I'll watch your project with interest.

mefacesmo.gif
     Laurence G.Tilley

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

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

···

At 05:20 02/02/2004, dakinis wrote:

> Where , like in BOFA, tension
>exists each turn, but it is on a much more mature scale.

That's a hard one. The maturity thing depends on individuals. BOFA was
designed as a tester for beginners, and is presumably helping, but only to
a degree. There's always a risk that you'll get a bad game unless you sign
up with a team, and a risk that you'll have a weak opposition even then.

Note the game of Bofa is very strategic. Played it a lot and although the arena of battle is restricted that's only due to less players (you get pretty much the same of localised battles with few players in the normal game).

Would anyone want to play in a Bofa Veteran game - all the 1650 orders allowed no turn limit (and normal character limits so you can name 4, including Ems). We've got 3 players interested so need 2 more.

Clint

I think this variant sounds like lots of fun. I'm in an FA game now
where 4 of our teammates are very non-communicative, but the other 4
are great. It's very frustrating. I think the fewer number of
allies would help coordination a lot.

I've never played the versions besides FA, but I would love to try
out this variant if it can be done.

Bob

Question Clint (can more then two nations in a variant have the no
limit on characters (can go up to 21 at turn 1 if need be)

advantage

the two kindoms have in 4th age???

For everyone else...

New Game Variant Questions.

First a quick background.

I am currently in three games. 2 1650 games and a BOFA game with

some

new friends.

In one of the 1650 games, we've had wonderful communication. In

the

other, while we have a number of great players, our communication

is

not particularly bad or good and we've had some people
do "interesting things" like retiring their Nazgul.

However, in the BOFA game, the communication has been outstanding.

It

is simply a tremendously fun game, and it takes a ton less time to
coordinate.

The key difference is the number of players. In small games (2-5
players on a side), your team does not have nearly the chance to

have

poor communication, and the time it takes is much, MUCH less.

So in a sense, it is between a normal game (tons of emails and

time)

and gunboat (no emails and time).

So I got to thinking about what I personally would most like in a
game. It would be a small group on each side, where neutrals are
around, but are not overwhelming. Where , like in BOFA, tension
exists each turn, but it is on a much more mature scale.

Since a number of my other friends seem to feel the same way, I
wanted to get a general consensus from the boards about interest

in

the following variant. Also as a variant, having only 10 players
required make for a easier to fill game. As a game designer for a

D-

20 company/board game group, I might have the required skills to

set

this up well…

2nd Age: The Last Alliance of Men and Elves. (Yes I know there has
been another version for this, but it was a full 25 players).

Rules
Each of the 4 primary nations on each major side has no limit on
their max characters from the opening turn (just like the kingdoms

in

4th age). [Clint could we do this easily, without hitting the

source

code).

Each of the 2 Neutral nations have the standard progression of #

of

characters. They are not the main players, but in time can become

an

asset to their side. They however, can choose to remain neutral

(like

in 4th age).

No one ring victory. Game ends at turn 30. (Points to sides based

on

other nations eliminated, etc). Either Sauron gains enough power

from

the ring to overcome the free, or the free overcome Sauron and

take

the ring… By having a 30 turn game, the tension stays high ,and
players should (hopefully) be less likely to quit, because they

could

still win/place if they "just hold on". I see it happening in
bofa. "Lets see if we can hold to turn 10!" Is a common saying.
I'm not going to spend much effort on it until Clint says it is
possible and I get 10 total interest players, but here is a quick
break-down.

The nations are very strong. This is a time of legend. The

characters

are strong, as are the pop centers (for the most part). Think 1650

if

you started the game around turn 25.

Good
Noldo (With Giligad and most of the current Noldo minus Elrond's

sons

who were not around.
Sinda (With Cereborn and Galadriel, and their daughter Celebrían

who

were around a lot at this time)
Arnor (With Elendil, and Isildur (who had just fled north when

Sauron

had taken Minis Tirith as his own (the starting point of the

game).

Gondor (With Anárion holding Oz and still as the L around mordor)

Evil (Working titles)
The Dark Lord (Sauron & His Servants)
The Northern Nazgul (The first 4 Nazgul and their northern fallen
kingdoms)
The Haradran (The Fallen who live south of Mordor, including the

QA,

who seduced them (In my thinking anyway)).
The Fallen (The Other Nazgul, mostly around Rhovianin and Mordor)

The Neutrals
Dwarves
Mountain Men (Will they come to the aid of Gondor???)

Any ideas or suggestions are great, but basically, I am looking

for

if there is any interest in a high powered, low number of allies

with

···

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, "dakinis" <dakinis@y...> wrote:

less potent neutrals (at the beginning) game.

Presumably they also say the engagement's off & chuck the ring back at Sauron.

Richard

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Laurence G. Tilley
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 3:02 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Second Age, 10 player (4 to a side with 2 neutrals) variant. Interest? (Clint?)

  At 05:20 02/02/2004, dakinis wrote:
  >In one of the 1650 games, we've had wonderful communication. In the
  >other, while we have a number of great players, our communication is
  >not particularly bad or good and we've had some people
  >do "interesting things" like retiring their Nazgul.

  Oh, love it! I bet that made for team harmony, and happy bunnies. Do
  tell, do tell! I don't expect it would be PC to tell us the player, but
  tell us at least which Nazgul it was who got given his cards.

  What does a nazgul say when he's retired? Can you see the hooded form
  slamming the office door and shouting "You're not firing me, 'cos I RESIGN,
  and you know where you can stick yer (bleep) job!"

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