so people still play this game?

Originally posted by Baja21
[b]http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/2nded.htm

Here is the website ya’ll were looking for…

I can tell we are about to open a can of worms here. Let the debate begin! [/b]

Please remember that I have no idea how the game has changed, if at all, in the last 8 years or so. My comments should be leavened with many grains of salt.

I’ve read over the proposed changes and while I like a few of them, I think others replace old problems with new ones (e.g., having armies carry gold to pay their men, rather than drawing from the treasury). In addition, I simply don’t like a number of the proposed ideas because, to my mind, they make no more sense than what has gone before.

The theme I see running through the changes is one of tweaking the current game system in such a fashion as to make it more enjoyable. But ultimately I think that certain portions of the game system (remember my disclaimer above) need to be tossed and replaced entirely to solve certain fundamental problems. Brian and I proposed a number of changes to GSI in the past, and we even created a new game out of whole cloth to address the difficulties one ran into by adhering to the current code. The latter course is, I think, the only truly viable one.

As I said in previous posts, I’m not playing so I’m going to refrain from throwing stones or rehashing old, frustrating issues that were never resolved by GSI. But on the brighter side, having an additional 8 years of programming experience under my belt I realize now, with a much greater clarity, that the code that’s being used to run the game can’t be terribly complex. I know how I would write this code, and I know that such a thing would be simple in comparison to some of the other projects that I’ve done over the years for large corporations. One could quite easily rewrite and playtest the modified code - in the world of programming this isn’t even close to rocket science.

So far as I can see, the MEPBM gaming experience hasn’t even advanced to the client/server level, like Stars! or many other games of this nature have. That makes changing the code - and playtesting it - all the easier. If I had my druthers, though, I’d just start from scratch, and along the line make it client/server as well (server on the company’s end, with the client having a wide range of functionality, including the autosend of turns straight to the server).

But here I’m admittedly biased. Back in '94 or '95 or whenever Brian and I wrote ‘War of the Ring’ as a replacement for MEPBM, and I even coded most of the server side at one point (wish I’d kept that). So I already have something else in mind, something which I think is ‘better’ than the current system (remember the bias), and am less likely to be satisfied with changes made to the current GSI code, regardless of what they happen to be. What may be ‘good enough’ for current players would probably fall short for me, and that makes my commentary particularly useless if the underlying assumption is to keep the basic code framework provided by GSI.

Tom

Shayne,

When I got back in the game, I emailed as many people I played with whose email addresses I still had. This is the reply I got from Brian Lowery:

"Good to hear from you, still in Stone Mtn?

I have not played in years, Steve Latham (Blind
Sorcerer #97) is still at it. I have tried a few
times but have found myself uncharacteristically
dropping games :frowning: - not a nice thing.

Wishing you luck!

P.S.

Try the dark side :slight_smile:

Brian Lowrey (Witch King #97)"

Brian

Originally posted by meredux
[b]Hello there, Clint. As for criticism…well, I’m not playing the game anymore and I don’t see the need to cast stones. Ancient history, and all. If people are enjoying MEPBM then who am I to rain on their parade?

But briefly, my frustrations were lumped into four categories. I have no idea if any of this is relevant anymore; I don’t know if the game still has the same mechanics, or if it’s been changed, or whatnot:

  • problems with certain game mechanics
  • problems with GSI, customer service, and a complete refusal to implement any changes, even if they were clearly for the better
  • problems with certain players who forgot that the sole purpose of a game is to have fun, else there’s no point in playing it
  • problems that had nothing to do with the game or GSI, but with the publication of the Mouth (e.g., tons of hate mail, nasty phone calls to myself and my then-girlfriend, etc.)

Clearly the last two points weren’t anything the company could do anything about, and they were ultimately the straws that broke the camel’s back. As for the first two - like I said, I’m not playing anymore so there’s no reason to rehash the past.

If people are having fun then that’s all that really counts. I wish them, and you, well.

Tom [/b]

Tom,

All but the first have gone away for me. I’ve become more philisophical about problems with mechanics. Sometimes results that seem counter-intuitive just happen (see 2000 US election and popular vote count for an example).

As for the others, I’ve found customer service much better. The players (given my enormous experience in one game) quite pleasant and, well, as “From the Mouth of Sauron” hasn’t (and will not) resume, nothing nasty there either.

Actually, playing one game (and only one game) and doing nothing else (i.e., the mouth) has allowed me to enjoy — actually enjoy — the game again.

Brian

Originally posted by meredux
[b]Brian:

I don’t even have the original list. I got rid of most of my gaming material some time ago, and everything MEPBM with it. I haven’t even thought about this game in years.

It’d be nice to see the list, though, just for kicks.

BTW, do you remember when we were working on the War of the Ring game, the one we were going to code? The one that GSI threatened to sue our pants off over if we published it? Well, I finished it not long after I quit playing MEPBM, but later deleted it when I dumped most of my old gaming stuff.

However, a couple of years ago I went through a box of old floppies and found a half-completed version of the game, I think the last version I ever sent to you. I kept it for old times sake, although I haven’t actually re-read it in detail. A blast from the past, eh? I even coded part of it (the server side) but I don’t have that any more, either. It’s the “High Kings” version, the one we were thinking about doing to avoid the threat of lawsuit.

Ah, those merry days! The first time anyone ever threatened to sue me! (grin)

Tom [/b]

I’ll post it here.

When I moved I got rid of most of my gaming stuff, too. Fortunately, I kept my rulebooks and map.

Our “War of the Ring” game? Sure, I remember that. In fact, I recall Bill trying to buy us off, too. On the one hand, I wish we’d have taken the money (at least we’d of had something to show for all that work), but on the other, it was fun to make him sweat, if only for a little while.

Brian

Originally posted by meredux
[b]Brian:

It’d be nice to see the list, though, just for kicks.

Tom [/b]

As promised, your suggestions for Bill. I post this for Clint to read through as well.

"Notes

I’ve divided this into three sections: that which you asked for, which I believe to be things you might include on a new player ‘hint’ sheet; those suggestions made by players which wouldn’t require any modification to game code; and those suggestions made by players which would require modification to the game code.

I realize this is in excess of your original request, but as part of my search to find the mistakes most commonly made by new players I picked up a number of oft-repeated comments on the workings and pitfalls of ME-PBM. Many of these go beyond the original assignment of drawing up a hint sheet. I thought that you may find the second and third sections in some way valuable, if only in review of the current game system.

Section 1: Suggestions for the Hint Sheet

I’ve divided the possible hints by ascending order number to more easily organize them. Those things which don’t fall under a specific order number are listed last. Many of these suggestions were spurred by the tales of error and confusion related to me by old and new gamers alike. I’ve only listed those which seem to crop up on a regular basis, as the exceptional cases are usually too situation-specific to qualify.

All of this is written in a non-user-friendly format. I’m assuming that you will be doing the actual writing for the hint sheet, turning it into something a new player can read. If I’m in error, drop me a line and I’ll convert it into text that new guys can understand.

Order 175: many neutral players are laboring under the assumption that once they change allegiance, their relations with the opposing side will be downgraded to ‘Disliked’. Conversely, they believe their relations with their new allegiance will be upgraded to ‘Tolerant’. A strong reminder of the true situation might be in
order.

Order 180/185: clarify that in order to make an attack on another player, your relations to that player must be ‘Disliked’ or ‘Hated’. It matters not a whit what his relations are to you.
Also clarify that in order to pass through friendly armies or fortified pop centers, either or both of the involved nations (depending on the circumstance) must have ‘Tolerant’ or ‘Friendly’ relations.

Commentary: it’s amazing how many people still get this wrong, even though it’s printed in black and white in the book. A reminder wouldn’t hurt.

Order 210: new players tend to go about challenging other people’s characters left and right. Warn new players that other nations may, and probably will, have characters far more powerful than your own. Be wary when issuing challenges!

Commentary: as an aside, you might consider listing all the dragon names in the back of the book under the Glossary section. Some new players mistake dragons for the characters of other people and challenge them, then scream in rage (rightly, I think) when said characters get eaten. It only makes sense that Bain, for example, would be able to tell a dragon from an orc, and in his wisdom choose not to challenge said dragon…

Order 290: tell new players that many lost artifacts are found via encounter, not the 900 ‘Find Artifact’ spell. I had a number people tell me that they located an artifact and then moved to the hex, only to find that they couldn’t pick it up with the 900 order. Clarify this for the new guys.

Order 300: post a strong warning against raising taxes too high, especially if you have alot of low-loyalty pop centers that aren’t fortified. New players will raise taxes 40%, not realizing that loyalty can drop drastically, which in the wrong circumstances can swiftly lead to disaster. This lack of understanding has led to a number of people dropping and/or their nations collapsing.

Order 400+: clarify that in raising troops, you can specify arms and armor from pop center stores. These items will be made with no additional order requirement, allowing the nation to bypass the ‘make arms/armor’ and ‘upgrade arms/armor’ orders. Too many new guys are still raising unarmed/armored troops, making the arms/armor, then equipping said troops.

Order 498: stress the fact that threats can be unreliable if the army commander doesn’t have a high command rank, or if the pop center is large/fortified/has a high loyalty. Many new players assume that if you have the minimum required troops, success is almost a sure thing.

Related note: clarify that pop center loyalty adds extra points to the defense strength, it doesn’t cut defense strength (e.g., a town with a 50% loyalty has 1500 defense points, not 500).

Related note: many players (alot of veterans, too), fight in the belief that their own pop centers will add their entire defensive strength to their armies if an army battle occurs in the hex. That is, if an army fights over the town described above, they believe the presence of that town will add 1500 defense points to their army EVEN IF THE ENEMY DOESN’T ATTACK THE TOWN. This isn’t true. Please point this out to the new players, they’re getting some very bad information on this.

Order 798: an old one, but clarify once again that in order to get more than transports, you MUST pick up ships. Players still don’t get this one. Also, this order can only be executed by the army commander, NOT a commander with the army.

Orders 850 & 860: stress that when marching without food, the hex values are multiplied by 4/3 and rounded up for EACH INDIVIDUAL HEX. I know it says this in the rulebook, but I get many complaints from new guys who multiply the whole path of march by 4/3, then round up.

  • Carefully go over, once again, the turn sequence. Make it quite clear whether or not you pay for troops if they die in battle during the turn. Same goes for ships, fortifications, blown ports and harbors, revenues from pop centers lost to the enemy, etc. Players get quite stumped over this.

  • Make sure players know that buys happen before sells. People mess this up regularly.

  • You state incorrectly in the rulebook that a nation must have a capitol at all times. This is not so. If the nation loses it’s last MT during combat, then has one transferred to it with order 949, it lacks a capitol for most of the turn (since a capitol must always be at a major town, as per the rulebook). Point this out to new players as a way to avoid getting knocked out having someone else transfer you a new capitol on the same turn you lose your last MT).

Suggestions for Competent Play

(1) Don’t dive head-long into combat without first taking the time to determine the strength of the enemy. Do so through scouting orders, spells, or best of all by contacting players who’ve been in the game for awhile. Precipitous moves can be disastrous.

(2) Carefully compare the strengths and weaknesses of various troop types prior to recruiting them. Make sure your nation can support the troops you raise for the length of time you intend to keep them around.

(3) Food can be of critical importance to army movement. Make sure your armies have enough food to allow them to reach their intended targets, or that the targets are close enough that feeding the army isn’t required.

(4) It pays to concentrate your armies. Not only does this free up other commanders for critical tasks at the capitol, it also prevents your forces from being destroyed in detail by a much larger enemy force.

(5) If at all possible, always have a back-up commander for each army, preferably a commander/agent. This character will take command of the army in case the primary commander is killed, preventing the army from disbanding. A commander/agent can also guard the primary commander, making it less likely that he’ll be assassinated or kidnapped.

(6) An agent attack mounted against your nation can end the game for you if you don’t take the proper precautions. Assume the enemy will attempt to assassinate your army commanders and your characters at the capitol whenever the opportunity arises - then work to avoid that. Regardless of who your character might be or how powerful he or she appears, that character is always vulnerable to assassination.

Note: those new players familiar with Tolkien and/or I.C.E. assume that somehow their ‘name’ characters are invulnerable to agent actions (“surely Tarondor couldn’t be assassinated!”). Thus, they don’t bother to guard.

(7) Assume the enemy will have better characters than your own, or better artifacts until it’s proven otherwise. Don’t challenge enemy characters unless you’re reasonably certain you can defeat them. If an enemy has the opportunity to challenge your own characters, issue the order ‘215 - Refuse Personal Challenge’ if you don’t think you have a good chance of winning the combat. And remember - artifacts can easily be transferred, and they play an important part where
challenges are concerned!

(8) Try to pick and choose your fights to favor your own troops. Pay careful attention to terrain, climate, and tactics; these can spell the difference between winning and losing when facing an opposing force. Remember that the enemy has an advantage when fighting over one of his own fortified pop centers.

(9) It’s easier and faster to recruit a single troop type into an army than many different troop types. You can also train up a single troop type more swiftly since several commanders can issue the 430 ‘Train Troops’ orders during a single turn for the same army. However, having only one troop type in the army can limit your options concerning tactics, and may hinder your operations in terrain that doesn’t favor that type of troop.

(10) One of the fastest ways to train up characters with command skill is to attach two commanders to an army, then have the secondary command do 430 ‘Train Troops’ while the primary commander does order 435 ‘Train Army’. In this case, the secondary commander will get 1-5 skill points for being in the army when the primary commander does order 435, then get another 1-7 points for doing order 430 (for a total of 2-12 command points in a single turn). In this fashion, commanders with low skill scores can be trained up to adequate levels fairly quickly.

(11) Be especially careful with fleet movement; it can be extremely tricky. Ships are difficult and expensive to replace, so commit them only if the goal is worth the loss, or when you have no other choice.

(12) Pay careful attention to the loyalties of your pop centers. Those with low loyalties will fall faster to enemy forces, and emissaries may be able to come in and take troubled pop centers quite easily. This is especially true if the enemy is operating a company of well-trained emissaries in your territory.

(13) Seasonal changes make a big difference in the
production rates of many nations. Plan accordingly; plan in advance.

(14) Review the map carefully. The destruction of
certain bridges and fortifications can leave some nstions wide open to attack, or make it very difficult for the enemy to reach them. Use the terrain to your best advantage when placing pop centers, fortifications, and bridges.

(15) Consider putting down camps once you have a decent emissary or group of emissaries. Camps increase production and can later be upgraded to villages or better provide tax revenues. If you have a poor nation, camp creation may be the only way to remain a viable power in the game.

(16) Don’t let camp loyalty fall below 15. Once this happens, the camp has a chance of being abandoned each and every turn, wasting your investment. If at all possible, have one of your emissaries go to the camp and issue the order 520 ‘Influence Own’ until the loyalty score is 20 or more.

(17) Don’t base your economic health entirely on the sale of what you produce. If you’d go bankrupt assuming none of your sell orders are accepted (or if you miss a turn), then your nation is over-extended. And remember: an ally can’t save you from bankruptcy by transferring gold to your nation during the turn you go under!

(18) Gather intelligence whenever possible. Use agents to scout, mages to scry, and emissaries to take others as double agents. These tools are extremely useful in determining the strength of the enemy and what the enemy is doing. Information can be the key to winning the game.

(19) Try to keep as many characters as you can. Don’t let empty character slots remain empty for long. And when creating characters, concentrate on those which will fit your particular nation; avoid the ‘vanilla’ approach of making a few of everything (unless that happens to be just what your nation needs). Also, avoid making too many multi-class characters; they cost twice as much as a single-class character and take considerable training to become proficient.

(20) Communication with other players is often vital if you wish to survive, much less win the game. Attempt to establish contact IMMEDIATELY with the players of your allegiance and with neutrals, even if they aren’t within your particular region.

(21) Remember, there’s no guarantee that just because a player is in your allegiance that he’ll act to your benefit. Ultimately, only one person can win the game, and many will try to do so regardless of what kind of icon your armies sport.

(22) Be careful and cordial in your contact with other players. Don’t give away vital information to someone you don’t trust. Always be polite, and if at all possible avoid threats (especially with neutral nations).

(23) Read the rulebook. Then read it again. And again. Vital information concerning the execution of certain orders may be missed the first or second time through.

(24) PLAN AHEAD! Always plan at least five turns in advance. Make sure that all of your characters, goods, and gold will be in the right place at the right time. Look to the future and see where you want to be 10 or 20 turns down the road - then work towards this vision. PLAYERS WHO PLAN AHEAD ALMOST ALWAYS DEFEAT THOSE WHO DON’T!

(25) If you’re new to the game, one of the best things you can do is hunt down an experienced player who knows how things work. Don’t settle for anyone; find a player that gets good reviews from people other than his or her immediate friends. If you can hook up with a veteran, this player can give you pointers and advice that you may otherwise have to earn through hard experience.

(continued in next message)

Originally posted by meredux
[b]Brian:

It’d be nice to see the list, though, just for kicks.

Tom [/b]

(continued)

Section 2

These are suggested changes to the game which require no modification of the code. These were the ‘pick of the litter’, either making exceptional sense or being suggested by several different players (you wouldn’t believe some of the nonsense I’ve heard … or maybe you would).

  • Many new players are at an extreme disadvantage because they don’t have any idea on the kinds of forces or characters they’ll face. Thus, new players often lose many of their resources early on, crippling their positions. There are two solutions to this problem:

    • the setup turn (turn 0) includes a listing
      for ownership of forces and pop centers.
      Change the listing so it reads ‘rumors
      indicate a small/medium/large army/navy at
      x location’. This would give the new
      player some vague idea of how strong local
      forces are in comparison to his own,
      without revealing more specific information
      (troop type, armor, training, command rank
      of commander, etc.)

    • On the back of the nation description sheet
      the currently comes with the set-up turn,
      write some nation-specific commentary on
      strengths, weaknesses, and what one might
      expect from one’s neighbors. Also include
      some possible suggestions for a new person
      playing that nation. Currently, the back
      of the sheet is blank, so this wouldn’t
      mean printing up any additional pages of
      material.

    • Move the Dragon Lord’s regional map two
      hexes west. This would improve the
      information availabe to both the Dragon
      Lord and Witch-King immeasurably, giving
      them a better chance of responding to enemy
      movements.

    • Change the turn result sheet so that all
      character deaths come with a descriptive
      and colorful tale of how the poor character
      died, where and in what shape the body was
      found, etc.

    • Allow players who end up with neutral
      nations to specify whether or not they want
      to play in a grudge game. Many neutral
      players don’t like grudge games and will
      drop when they find out they’re in one,
      disrupting the balance of power.

    • Direct quote: “The game description could
      describe more exactly, which orders a navy
      commander can give and which not and which
      orders will anchors his ships. The
      description says: ‘Most orders that can be
      given to Armies can also be given to Navies
      as long as the Navy could anchor its ships
      and become an Army. If the Navy could not
      anchor and become an Army, then orders
      pertaining to the troops or baggage train
      may be restricted. This does NOT mean that
      the Navy will become an Army by issuing
      such orders…’. You can’t write things
      more diffusely. The words ‘most’ and ‘may’
      alone take care that you don’t know whether
      that one command you want to give will be
      accepted and will anchor the ships.
      Additionally the description of the
      different orders says ‘army commander only’
      for some commands a navy commander in a
      shore hex can give, too (like ‘put troops
      on maneuvers’).”

Note: there were alot of complaints concerning
the inexactness of the rules, and the
diffusion of the rules within the rulebook
(all relevant information concerning an
action wasn’t in a single easy-to-find
place, nor was there an index on critical
topics). The rulebook generated more
negative comments about Middle-Earth than
any other single subject.

 - Include all of the relevant "Whispers" 
   articles as a packet available to new 
   players, either when they join the game or 
   for an additional price.

 - Include the "Whispers" Q&A articles as a 
   standard part of the new player packet GSI 
   sends out.

Section Three

These suggestions require actual changes to the code. Unlike section two, they couldn’t be implemented without possibly changing the balance of power within the game. Some require minor changes, others are major overhauls.

  • increase the ratings of light troops by a couple of points. This would make them more cost-effective than heavy troops in terms of maintenance, yet still allow the heavies to retain their own advantages (recruit more strength faster, food consumption and armor upgrades more efficient, etc.).

  • Allow a free RECON from an army not moving evasively each turn. Or add a ‘move and recon’ orders for armies, costing perhaps two or three movement points to execute.

  • Disband armies automaticaly after you hit 100% tax instead of knocking the player out of the game. This would save many new players from getting blown out early.

  • Alter the ‘Uncover Secrets’ order so that it sometimes provides the same information that Nation Messages do (e.g. “there’s a rumor of a theft attempt involving Ji Indur at 3024”). Currently the order is next to useless. And, if you do this, alter the ‘Spread Rumors’ order to create false rumors in this same vein.

  • Make the presence of characters in a town, especially agents doing ‘Guard Location’, increase the chance of reporting foreign characters.

  • Allow the ‘Move & Join’ command to apply to companies as well as armies.

  • Add a parameter to the move navy command that lets you pick up all the ships in a hex and move, rather than just the transports.

Note: this was a very popular suggestion. Many players expressed discontent over the current situation, wherein in the army commander has to execute an additional order to pick up warships.

  • For a price (say 6 points for CAV and 4 or 5 for INF) let an army move to a hex where ships are achored, get on board, and keep on trucking. The order would be something like this:

880 w w sw PU w sw sw normal

where the PU is PICKUP SHIPS.

Note: this also received alot of positive comments, mostly in the vein of “it makes navies more flexible than they currently are.”

  • Make casting a spell a 1-5 skill rank improvement. After all, most of the command orders result in rank improvement.

Note: a popular suggestion, but rather unrealistic, I think.

  • Add an ‘Influence Morale’ order so emmisaries with armies can do an order.

  • Add a Track Character order: an agent could attempt to track and follow a character who starts the turn in the same hex, essentially following him around the map. This wouldn’t work if the character uses magic to move, or is attached to an army.

If the agent fails, he might fail to move, move some distance and stop (lost the trail), or even move in the wrong direction!

  • Add a Track Army order: allows a characer in your own army to track an enemy army that starts in the same hex. A device to allow one army to pursue another.

If the agent fails, the army could simply not move, move a couple of hexes and then stop (lost the enemy), or move in the wrong direction. Moving in the right direction might be bad news, as the enemy could lead your forces into an ambush or an encounter with many agents…

  • Mage Training: allow one mage to train another with a ‘train apprentice’ order. The first mage would get no skill increase, the second 1-5 points (if the second could also Prentice) or 1-10 points (if the second can’t also Prentice). Limit the train order to characters whose skill rank is more than 10 points lower than that of the trainer.

Example: a character will a mage rank of 50 could train another character so long as the second character doesn’t have a skill rank of 40 or better.

This would allow a nation to train new mages faster, but would be limited by the skill rank of the trainer. Unless you had a very good mage, your training would top out with just a few orders (but make that new mage much more useful in a much shorter period of time). This would definitely help mage-heavy nations, yet wouldn’t allow these nations to create supercharacters through faster training. It would also keep the Ring safe from being found early in the game.

  • Reduce the frequency of dragon encounters dramatically, and make them unrecruitable. If play is balanced through dragon recruitment, find some other mechanism to take it’s place.

Note: dragons also excited quite a bit of interest, almost all of it negative. Many players stated that dragons were the ME-PBM equivalent of nukes, allowing a stupid or incompetent player to gain an advantage through luck or access to information. Almost everyone I talked to wanted them taken out of the game completely (or made very rare, and almost always deadly).

  • alter the ‘change allegiance’ order so that only three neutrals can join any one side. The last two don’t have a choice; either they remain neutral, or they join the opposition. This would balance the game and force neutrals into the war earlier, so they couldn’t sit out and win the game by declaring at the end.

Note: this suggestion was very popular among allegiance players, and very unpopular among neutral players. The allegiances were sick and tired of having four or five neutrals join one side, then end up in the winning positions; the neutrals didn’t want their choices taken away from them. Personally, I sympathize with the allegiance players.

  • alter victory point tallies so that all allegiance players receive 10 bonus points a turn. Neutrals receive nothing. The longer a neutral stays neutral, the farther behind he’ll be. This would force neutrals to declare faster, yet not make it impossible for someone to stay out for 20 turns if he really wanted to. It’d also ‘reward’ the allegiance players for getting pounded on starting turn one.

Note: another popular suggestion among allegiance players and unpopular one among neutrals. I liked it quite a bit, though.

  • add a nation transport order that allows you to
    transport goods from several listed locations, rather than one location or all locations. This would reduce the logistical headache of trying to get goods to various places while in the midst of raising armies (e.g., you wouldn’t ‘steal’ the bronze that an army needs to recruit with).

  • eliminate Rhudaur as a player and divide this nation up among the Witch-King and one other Dark Servant. Move one of the Dark Servants from Mordor to the Misty Mountains/Rhudaur area to even out the regional disparities. Mordor is too crowded anyway.

  • alter the Dwarven setup by moving Zarak-dum to the Grey Mountains or Iron Hills. Remove the dwarven village on the Sea of Rhun and make the village in the Blue Mountains a town.

  • Spread Harad out more towards the internal south so that the position isn’t ‘pointed’ at Southern Gondor. This gives Harad a more pressing interest in the south, in the activities of the Corsairs and Easterlings, and leaves him somewhat more vulnerable to attack by either side. Harad wins too much.

  • Reduce the Corsairs by one major town. The Corsairs win too much.

  • Move Vamag to the internal south. Alter the setup so that the Blind Sorcerer has a major town/port on the coastline, not the Quiet Avenger.

  • Add a RETREAT tactic. The army that executes this tactic would only fight a single round (at a large tactical disadvantage), then retreat one hex away from the site of the battle (towards the nearest friendly pop center?).

  • alter troop strengths to reflect national advantages and disadvantages. For example, make Dwarven heavy infantry worth 11 or 12 points, but reduce dwarven cav (any type) by 1 or 2 points. There’s already a troop strength list on the nation information sheet that comes with the setup, so the mechanism is already in place to implement this.

  • reduce transport ship constitution.

  • if you don’t remove dragons from the game, consider giving them the chance of dying in battle, especially if the army they’re with loses.

  • expand the encounter set. Make some encounters one- time-only events. Add encounters which may benefit the nation several turns down the road, rather than immediately (so it takes some thought to put together cause and effect).

  • as others have said, make training and commander skill much more important than what weapons/armor the troops are carrying. Make morale more important as well (perhaps have the army break and dissolve once casualty percentages exceed current morale).

  • as an alternative, remove arms/armor from the equation altogether. Infantry with no arms/armor are militia (2/2), infantry with bronze weapons/armor are light (5/5), infantry with steel arms/armor are heavy (10/10). Makes more sense than the current system, has the side benefit of making training/command rank/morale the primary determinants of army effectiveness. A combined example of the last two would be:

Step 1: determine base troop strength by type
Step 2: multiply troop strength by the average
of training and command skill as a
percentage.
Step 3: combine troop strengths to find army
strength.

So, 500 men with bronze (arms/armor would be one characteristic, not two) would qualify as light infantry (5/5). Basic strength is 2500 points. Give them a training of 40 and a commander with a skill rank of 70, which produces a mean score of 55. Multiply this as a percentage (55%) against base strength and you end up with an actual strength of 1,375 points.

Now, use morale like this. Average it with the mean score found by adding together training and command rank to produce a route percentage. For this example, let’s say morale is 65. With a mean score of 55 added in, we get an average of 60 as the route percentage. This army will stand up to 60% casualties (1500 points of damage) before it breaks and dissolves. Or better yet, before it has a CHANCE of breaking and dissolving (checked by the computer each round).

You see that training, command rank, and morale make BIG differences. A skilled and energetic army is quite capable of defeating an unskilled and demoralized army several times it’s own size; perhaps many times it’s own size.

  • rather than have combat weapons increase army damage, have them increase morale. There aren’t any instances in Tolkien’s works where magic swords ‘deflect many a blow’, etc. The weapons were more a tool for inspiring the troops than anything else (men cheered the appearance of Anduril outside the walls of Minas Tirith because it meant the King was on the field, not because it would ‘kill a score of troops before they knew what was happening’.)

Section Four

I’m not entirely sure that section one above is what you were looking for in terms of hints for new players. I didn’t want to get too specific, as some of my tactics don’t work particularly well for some nations. You also said that the hint sheet was only going to be a page, and once section one hit five pages I decided it was time to stop.

Sections two and three are essentially ‘cut & paste’ operations that I cleaned up a bit (some spelling and grammar was rather poor). Again, the suggestions were either the most interesting or the most popular (if not that particular suggestion, many in the same vein). The biggest complaints were about:

 - the rulebook.
 - the information advantage that veterans
   have over novices.
 - the heavy/light troop argument.
 - dragons.

If I may, I’d suggest that perhaps you might sponsor a survey through the game by adding a question sheet to the turns results. Ask players what they like and don’t like to find out what really needs to be changed and what doesn’t. My sources range all over the map in experience and viewpoint, but they still only encompass a small
portion of the total number of gamers (readership is somewhere around 150 or so not counting bulletin boards, but direct repondents/contacts are currently slightly less than 100). Thus, the results above might not reflect what players in ME-PBM overall think or want.

Tom, if eight years has not erased your bitterness then you should leave this site and stay away from the game. Frankly, I don’t think we are interested in whimpering from way off.

Originally posted by meredux
[b]Brian:

I don’t even have the original list. I got rid of most of my gaming material some time ago, and everything MEPBM with it. I haven’t even thought about this game in years.

Tom [/b]

Tom,

Actually, when I first got back into the game I read all our old issues to try to get “back up to speed.” Reading them, specifically our First and Last Words, made me kind of wistful and I wrote a “NOT From the Mouth of Sauron”, issue 49, which was my final sendup to the good old days. I think it is actually available here as well.

Brian

Originally posted by Arthedain73
Tom, if eight years has not erased your bitterness then you should leave this site and stay away from the game. Frankly, I don’t think we are interested in whimpering from way off.

Tom,

Well, I stand corrected. Apparently, there are still asses that play this game.

Brian

I could see this list generating interesting comment on the mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com email group.

Tom sounds like he considers himself to have outgrown this game. Shame, his efforts helped pioneer the amount of available knowledge and information in this game. Many of the points are now redundant, as most first time players are far in advance of what is described here and the old MoS articles. The society of gamers playing this one has changed since then. In many games where I’ve met old vets coming back from a long hiatus, their grasp of the game is very much below what their pedigree appears to claim, much like my computer programming courses from the 80’s.

Originally posted by Player
[b]I could see this list generating interesting comment on the mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com email group.

Tom sounds like he considers himself to have outgrown this game. Shame, his efforts helped pioneer the amount of available knowledge and information in this game. Many of the points are now redundant, as most first time players are far in advance of what is described here and the old MoS articles. The society of gamers playing this one has changed since then. In many games where I’ve met old vets coming back from a long hiatus, their grasp of the game is very much below what their pedigree appears to claim, much like my computer programming courses from the 80’s. [/b]

Yes, coming back to the game as an experienced player and looking like a rube was certainly something I’ve wanted to avoid, and I’ve worked hard to play at the highest level that I’m capable of (since my return).

Given my experience with one game it seems like the mean level of play has increased slightly, but that the “floor” has climbed more. I think that the game being played by more online players, the sharing of pdfs, the posting of projected orders, and the willingness of people to amend their moves based on other people’s suggestions and/or for the good of the team has made quite an impact. The “mouth” was specifically designed to raise the floor, so what we wanted was what the game has become. I could hardly complain.

Really I don’t see that much of a difference from five years ago. I’m still a “middle of the pack” player, and I’m fine with that.

Brian

Brian I welcomed Tom back to the game. I did not welcome him back to moan about eight year old injuries. Yes, I despise people who feel sorry for themselves.

Originally posted by Arthedain73
Brian I welcomed Tom back to the game. I did not welcome him back to moan about eight year old injuries. Yes, I despise people who feel sorry for themselves.

I think he had (and still has) some valid criticisms of the game. Do I think the current incarnation of the game addresses those? Those that it can, it addresses beautifully. In the level of customer service and improving where it can. I think Clint et al. due a fabulous job.

If he is “moaning” (your word, not mine) it was from the level and amount of personal assault and insult we received from the experienced gamers who felt we were “giving away their advantage.”

Playing with players who are, on the whole, polite and considerate, you cannot imagine the level of invective to which we (but mostly he) were subjugated.

Do I think Tom would enjoy playing the game again, and do I wish he would play? Absolutely. Do I think he would improve players who play with him? Yes. Would I play a game with or against him? In a heartbeat. Do I think your second post (to which I responded, maybe too quickly) is conducive to this? No, I don’t.

Brian

Brian if you can recruit him, then good for you–and the rest of us.

Originally posted by Arthedain73
Brian if you can recruit him, then good for you–and the rest of us.

Well, I don’t think I can, but maybe he will surprise me. Thanks for the sentiment.

Brian

Originally posted by Arthedain73
Brian I welcomed Tom back to the game. I did not welcome him back to moan about eight year old injuries. Yes, I despise people who feel sorry for themselves.

I didn’t come back to ‘moan’, as you put it. What I did, if you have a basic grasp of reading comprehension, was reply to a post made by Clint asking for constructive criticism. I specifically stated that my problems with the game 8 years ago fell into four groups, which is why I stopped playing it, and that there was nothing whatsoever he could do about two of those groups. I then made it clear WHY he couldn’t do anything about the last two groups (i.e., players who were downright assholes, and the incessant hate mail).

It appears that issue number 2 was addressed and that the company now in charge does a far better job. Issue number 1 will never be addressed, I think - but that’s neither here nor there. Issue number 4 is no longer relevant since the Mouth will never be revived.

As for issue number 3 - players who’re downright assholes - I think you’ve proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is still a problem. Unwarranted personal attacks over a GAME are just plain ridiculous, not to mention the purview of the childishly immature, and if this is still a staple of MEPBM (much as it was 8 years ago) then you can bet your bottom dollar that I won’t be spending $6.80/turn to ‘relive the past’.

Although I’m beginning to wonder if you, perhaps, weren’t one of my mystery phone callers in days gone by…

Tom

Originally posted by Player
[b]I could see this list generating interesting comment on the mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com email group.

Tom sounds like he considers himself to have outgrown this game. [/b]

This is incorrect. I stopped playing MEPBM for many reasons. ‘Outgrowing’ the game is non-sequiter, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with any statement I’ve made on this forum.

[b]

Many of the points are now redundant, as most first time players are far in advance of what is described here and the old MoS articles. The society of gamers playing this one has changed since then. In many games where I’ve met old vets coming back from a long hiatus, their grasp of the game is very much below what their pedigree appears to claim, much like my computer programming courses from the 80’s. [/b]

Tricksy tricksy! A rather subtle challenge, eh? Gollum would be quite proud of you.

But I’m not going to play again. It was good seeing the Mouth and taking a trip down memory lane, and that’s enough for me.

Like I said, so long as y’all are having fun that’s all that counts.

Tom

Eh, worth a shot… :wink:

In many games where I’ve met old vets coming back from a long hiatus, their grasp of the game is very much below what their pedigree appears to claim

I’m an old vet, that has come back. One thing that needs to take into consideration is rust.

After not playing or even thinking about the game for 7 years, coming back to play and trying to remember all the little nuances. Like for example, having to have at least 1 food in an army to be considered fed when moving off a pop center.

In 7 years you forget a lot of stuff.

Shayne.

Before things get out of hand, I’m going to wrap this up.

Like I said originally, I found this forum completely by accident while doing research for a book. A rather odd set of coincidences which led to the discovery that someone, somewhere, had actually preserved all 48 issues of the Mouth. To that person, I say “thank you, it was fun seeing all the old stuff again”.

But I have no intention of engendering any sort of debate. I don’t play ME anymore, nor will I. That says nothing whatsoever about the game, or the people who play it currently; I’m just not interested, is all. That lack of interest, combined with the baggage that comes with ancient history, is why I won’t be joining the game anew.

Let me stress: my actions in this regard say nothing about MEPBM or the people who play it. If you have fun, then that’s all that counts. 'nuff said, eh? Go forth and conquer!

In any event, seeing the Mouth was worth the side trip. Perhaps in another 8 or 10 years I’ll stumble on a site like this again, and maybe then I’ll be tempted. Until that fateful day,

Tom