Suggested MEPBM Rule Change

RD: There are NO 12 consecutive hexes of mountains on the map!

Will virtually.

I understand
your point, but the situation simply does not arise.

Yes it does, you've moved characters from one end of the Misty Mountains
to the other, and so have I.

Why is it crazy that a
company can cross open seas? They only need a boat, not a troopship or
warship, and therefore not a port or harbour. No self-respecting sea
monster or pirates would bother with such a craft. As for storms, heroes
and villains in every story brave the elements successfully (indeed, often
against overwhelming odds!) when the plot calls for it.

We're in a pseudo dark age / feudal age. Small craft do not cross open
seas. Gaining passage aboard a sea going vessel involves going via a
harbour, and often a very long wait before one finds a vessel going to
the right place.

So please, no changes to character/company movement. I know that some of
the things they can do in theory, they should not be allowed to do, but in
practice, such things are rarely if ever attempted. There is no point going
to all the effort of altering movement rules if all you do is complicate
things without some real benefit at the end.

It doesn't complicate, it simplifies, if they use the same method as for
fed cavalry. YOU are the one often calling for a more Tolkienesque
Middle Earth. Just look at the trouble that the Fellowship had in
crossing the Misties in LotR, or the fact that Mirkwood was only
passable to Thorin's company by sticking to the Old Road in The Hobbit.

Regards,

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

···

Richard John Devereux <devereux@lineone.net> wrote

Send reply to: mepbmlist@egroups.com
Date sent: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 01:34:13 +1100

Looks like there is a call for realism. :slight_smile: Not ME - I think you are
asking for a game that is more complex. Part of the beauty of the game is
that although simplistic in order format the skill behind using these is the
hard bit to get right (I see new players often get put off by such things as
the apparent simplicity - then getting killed 2 turns later). Just my
thoughts here.

Clint

I agree. There are a few things in the rules that are a bit quirky BUT
they are standard for everyone, experience teaches you the tricks
of the quirks, keeping the game a learning experience and a good
source of tips/tricks discussions.

So long as the game teams are balanced the game is fair. So
balance issues that CAN resolved are a goer, otherwise it's lots of
work for what will become a complicated game. At the moment
your opponents and your nation determine how complicated your
game is (not the rules) and thats a good thing.

My wish would be that it was impossible to buy your nation into
bankruptcy. Did people know that if you accidentally overbuy or
buy instead of sell you can bankrupt your nation out of the game
as you drive your tax up to cover the costs. The equivalent of a
PLATINUM AMEX, pay off by the end of the turn, otherwise they
repossess your nation.

Adrian Sheridan.

···

To: <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
From: "Harlequin Games" <pbm@harlequingames.com>
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Wish list, character movement.

Laurence G. Tilley wrote:

Both suggestions make the game more realistic, however a golden rule of game
design (IMHO) is not to let reality get in the way of a good game!

Good fantasy worlds need to be pseudo-real. That means, that gold can
fly across the world, but there has to be a defined magical explanation.
Tolkien's world did not have that kind of thing going on.

Wasn't JRRT the first writer to talk about the willing suspension of
disbelief and internal consistency in fantasy writing? Or is my tired brain
thinking of someone else...

Gavin

Yep good point.

Clint

>Looks like there is a call for realism. :slight_smile: Not ME - I think you are
>asking for a game that is more complex. Part of the beauty of the game

is

>that although simplistic in order format the skill behind using these is

the

···

>hard bit to get right
Yes, but if character's moved like fed cavalry, the system would be
simpler to grab, not more complex. There'd only be one movement
concept.

Regards,

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

Yeh it's called the Stupidity tax and I have been taxed heavily myself...
:slight_smile:

I know what you mean though. One game turn me46 we tried to change tax to
0% (lowest is 1% by the way) which was a sort of inverse S. Tax.

Clint (apologies if this offends).

···

****************************************************************
      Harlequin Games Middle Earth Games
pbm@harlequingames.com me@middleearth.co.uk
www.harlequingames.com www.middleearth.co.uk

               340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP
           Tel 029 2062 5665 12-6.30 Weekdays
                  Fax 029 2062 5532 24 hours
****************************************************************
        Middle Earth - Legends - Serim Ral
            CTF 2187 - Starquest - Crack of Doom
                   Battle of the Planets - Exile

----- Original Message -----
From: <sheridana@rpamail.cs.nsw.gov.au>
To: <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 11:37 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Wish list, character movement.

To: <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
From: "Harlequin Games" <pbm@harlequingames.com>
Send reply to: mepbmlist@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Wish list, character movement.
Date sent: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 01:34:13 +1100

> Looks like there is a call for realism. :slight_smile: Not ME - I think you are
> asking for a game that is more complex. Part of the beauty of the game

is

> that although simplistic in order format the skill behind using these is

the

> hard bit to get right (I see new players often get put off by such

things as

> the apparent simplicity - then getting killed 2 turns later). Just my
> thoughts here.
>
> Clint
>

I agree. There are a few things in the rules that are a bit quirky BUT
they are standard for everyone, experience teaches you the tricks
of the quirks, keeping the game a learning experience and a good
source of tips/tricks discussions.

So long as the game teams are balanced the game is fair. So
balance issues that CAN resolved are a goer, otherwise it's lots of
work for what will become a complicated game. At the moment
your opponents and your nation determine how complicated your
game is (not the rules) and thats a good thing.

My wish would be that it was impossible to buy your nation into
bankruptcy. Did people know that if you accidentally overbuy or
buy instead of sell you can bankrupt your nation out of the game
as you drive your tax up to cover the costs. The equivalent of a
PLATINUM AMEX, pay off by the end of the turn, otherwise they
repossess your nation.

Adrian Sheridan.

Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm

Send reply to: mepbmlist@egroups.com
Date sent: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 12:53:08 +1100

Yeh it's called the Stupidity tax and I have been taxed heavily myself...
:slight_smile:

it felt pretty stupid and won't happen again. So at least as a tax the
stupidity tax is generally a one off, but a hint for newbies, not too
many typos can eliminate a nation in one hit, this one can.

Adrian.

I know what you mean though. One game turn me46 we tried to change tax to
0% (lowest is 1% by the way) which was a sort of inverse S. Tax.

Clint (apologies if this offends).

None taken, if i was gonna get offended by peoples comments i
would've picked a topic where player stupidity wasn't in the issue at
all. :slight_smile:

···

To: <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
From: "Harlequin Games" <pbm@harlequingames.com>
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Wish list, character movement.

****************************************************************

sheridana@rpamail.cs.nsw.gov.au wrote

My wish would be that it was impossible to buy your nation into
bankruptcy.

But why? It's fun to see ideas for a wishlist, but you have to provide
some sort of argument. Nations with inept leaders, have brought
themselves to economic catastrophe in the real world, so why should
players be protected from the in the game?

I would however suggest that the rule book should have some advice on
this. Perhaps Clint should include a section in his new player guide.

Regards,

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

>RD: There are NO 12 consecutive hexes of mountains on the map!
>I understand your point, but the situation simply does not arise.
Yes it does, you've moved characters from one end of the Misty Mountains
to the other, and so have I.

RD: It is theoretically possible to move a character/company along 9 (never
12) mountain hexes in the Misties, 2408-2016. But i) how often does this
actually happen, given all the other possible directions? Can anyone recall
one single instance? ii) More often than not, a character/company does NOT
use the full 12 hexes movement allowance anyway, so the majority of such
moves are closer to the fed cav move which you advocate. Also note that fed
cav can force-march. Characters do not have this ability. In fact, it is a
damn sight easier for a character/company to force-march than it is for an
army, so, when characters/companies do cross more than one mountain hex,
just think of them as force-marching.

When drawing up rules which simulate real life, or a book, you need such
rules to reflect - SIMPLY - what is reasonable and likely to happen most
often. OK, you are going to get the occaisonal idiosyncracy of a character,
once in a blue moon, walking the length of the Misty Mts. You'll never get
100% accurate simulation, and small sacrifices have to be made in the
interests of playability.

>Why is it crazy that a
>company can cross open seas? They only need a boat, not a troopship or
>warship, and therefore not a port or harbour. No self-respecting sea
>monster or pirates would bother with such a craft. As for storms, heroes
>and villains in every story brave the elements successfully (indeed,

often

>against overwhelming odds!) when the plot calls for it.
We're in a pseudo dark age / feudal age. Small craft do not cross open
seas. Gaining passage aboard a sea going vessel involves going via a
harbour, and often a very long wait before one finds a vessel going to
the right place.

RD: Wrong! The Saxons and vikings crossed the North Sea in craft which were
basically rowing boats with a single sail. As I'm sure you know, the
vikings went much further afield, to Iceland, Greenland, America and the
Mediterranean via the Atlantic. A sea-going vessel does not have to be big
to be seaworthy! Indeed in the Age we are discussing, the opposite is true;
big ships which were basicly floating platforms for troops to fight over
were only used on rivers or close to land in fair weather.

Nor did Saxon and viking ships need harbours. With their shallow draught
they could be beached on sand, gravel or mud, and launched again with equal
ease. Now, I'm not suggesting that a Middle-earth company walking the
beaches of Anfalas would find a longship lying about. But if the company
commander knew he needed to cross open seas, he would seek help from the
local populace if friendly, or use rougher methods if hostile, and
persuade/compel them to place a seagoing craft of some kind at his service
where he wanted it.

>
>So please, no changes to character/company movement. I know that some of
>the things they can do in theory, they should not be allowed to do, but

in

>practice, such things are rarely if ever attempted. There is no point

going

>to all the effort of altering movement rules if all you do is complicate
>things without some real benefit at the end.
It doesn't complicate, it simplifies, if they use the same method as for
fed cavalry. YOU are the one often calling for a more Tolkienesque
Middle Earth. Just look at the trouble that the Fellowship had in
crossing the Misties in LotR, or the fact that Mirkwood was only
passable to Thorin's company by sticking to the Old Road in The Hobbit.

Regards,

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

RD: You are talking about a company which wishes to cross open seas having
to go to a harbour and pay gold to hire a ship! That is a complication.

I DO want to see any rule changes be compatible with Tolkien. But there are
times when you have to use a bit of imagination, as when finding a vessel to
cross open seas, in the interests of playability.

When the Fellowship tried to cross the Misties, it wasn't the terrain which
stopped them, it was malevolent sorcery influencing the weather, whether
from the mountain itself or from Sauron or one of his minions.

Thorin's company were enjoined to stay on the Old Road because the forest on
either side was under the influence of Elves, who had no love for Dwarves.
No doubt elf-friends, such as the Woodmen, were allowed to pass freely; and
whatever influence the Elves had, it did not stop giant spiders from setting
up home there, or orc warbands from raiding!

Regards,

Richard.

···

Richard John Devereux <devereux@lineone.net> wrote

>Both suggestions make the game more realistic, however a golden rule of

game

>design (IMHO) is not to let reality get in the way of a good game!
Good fantasy worlds need to be pseudo-real. That means, that gold can
fly across the world, but there has to be a defined magical explanation.
Tolkien's world did not have that kind of thing going on.
>
>So I think transfers should be easy and fast. Even though it is utterly
>against any concept I have of fantasy economy! :slight_smile:
An event which contradicts the established pseudo-physical and magical
laws of a fantasy world, weakens it in the eyes of the reader/player.

Certainly, lots of checks and balances would need to be put in regarding
a change to the caravan systems. It's a MUCH more difficult aspect to
chance than is character movement. However in a (theoretical) complete
reprogramming of the game, it would be worth doing. Want to send 25K
gold across Tolkein's Middle Earth? You should have caravans, guards,
bandits, and plenty of opportunity for planning, counter-planning, and
adventure.

Regards,

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

RD: Yes, in theory, I LOVE this idea. It's certainly more realistic and
more consistent with Tolkien than teleporting gold, timber or whatever.

However, I think this would require the whole game to be bigger. Every
caravan, like an army, would need a commander for a start, and especially in
the early game, there aren't enough characters to do everything you want as
it is! So the game would need more characters.

What if a few more transfer orders were added, enabling characters to trans
ALL commodities (not just food) from pop to army? Thus you could add
timber, bronze, mounts or whatever to your baggage train, and carry it where
it was needed. Unless of course you lost it in battle on the way!

Regards,

Richard.

···

Harlequin Games <pbm@harlequingames.com> wrote

RD: It is theoretically possible to move a character/company along 9 (never
12) mountain hexes in the Misties, 2408-2016. But i) how often does this
actually happen, given all the other possible directions? Can anyone recall
one single instance?

You're being too picky with my words. It is often done that a character
moves across several mountains, seas, and hills and rough hexes, where
the total journey would take several turns on foot.

ii) More often than not, a character/company does NOT
use the full 12 hexes movement allowance anyway, so the majority of such
moves are closer to the fed cav move which you advocate.

Yes sure. I can walk 20 miles in a day (or could when younger!). That
doesn't mean that I won't walk less than that on days when my
destination is nearer. BUT I cannot walk 20 map miles if there is a
mountain range in the way.

Also note that fed
cav can force-march. Characters do not have this ability. In fact, it is a
damn sight easier for a character/company to force-march than it is for an
army, so, when characters/companies do cross more than one mountain hex,
just think of them as force-marching.

Characters should move as fed cavalry, and that includes the force
march. Or more simply, they should move as fed ships at sea, having an
automatic 14 movement points to play with. Armies are presumed to march
12 days out of 14, unless force marched. Characters should be assumed
to have the personal motivation to work through the weekend!

When drawing up rules which simulate real life, or a book, you need such
rules to reflect - SIMPLY - what is reasonable and likely to happen most
often.

Exactly! You can get a lot further walking (or riding) along a road,
than struggling through virgin forest. We have a perfectly good system
which reflects this - the army movement one. To handle character
movement the same way brings more realism, AND simplifies the rules.

Regards,

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

···

Richard John Devereux <devereux@lineone.net> wrote

However, I think this would require the whole game to be bigger.

Indeed, as I said, this is a MUCH more involved wish.

Every
caravan, like an army, would need a commander for a start, and especially in
the early game, there aren't enough characters to do everything you want as
it is! So the game would need more characters.

Possibly, though there may be other ways of handling it. For example,
the transfer mechanism might have a distance related delay in it. So
your turn sheet reports "goods in transit" in the same way that it might
report anchored ships. The goods arrive a turn or two later, and are
subject to random events. Not so good as actually being able to control
the caravans oneself.

What if a few more transfer orders were added, enabling characters to trans
ALL commodities (not just food) from pop to army? Thus you could add
timber, bronze, mounts or whatever to your baggage train, and carry it where
it was needed. Unless of course you lost it in battle on the way!

Yes, you'll remember one game recently when my big army got massacred,
because your army which was coming to join it got "Special" serviced (it
just never goes away does it?) That army was without food, so I had 100
light cav with huge food stocks galloping to meet it. This army
accidentally bumped into one of our hapless enemies, and I thought I'd
lose it all. Then that army did not attack, and I got away. Then the
army it was going to feed got wiped out (Thanks mate!) so I had to turn
around and try to avoid losing the food as well. An unusual, but
interesting logistical situation. Logistics make a vital part of any
game with a war aspect, and their handling could be improved in MEPBM.

Actually, I'd like to see armies penalised more heavily for being
without food. Having a 1/3 point penalty for having to forage is not
realistic fo many armies. Armies did forage from the land, but this is
much more difficult in enemy territory, and proportionally more
difficult depending on the size of your army - sure you have more
foragers, but the food available is limited to what's on the farms
within riding distance.

Regards,

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

···

Richard John Devereux <devereux@lineone.net> wrote

>RD: It is theoretically possible to move a character/company along 9

(never

>12) mountain hexes in the Misties, 2408-2016. But i) how often does this
>actually happen, given all the other possible directions? Can anyone

recall

>one single instance?
You're being too picky with my words. It is often done that a character
moves across several mountains, seas, and hills and rough hexes, where
the total journey would take several turns on foot.

>ii) More often than not, a character/company does NOT
>use the full 12 hexes movement allowance anyway, so the majority of such
>moves are closer to the fed cav move which you advocate.
Yes sure. I can walk 20 miles in a day (or could when younger!). That
doesn't mean that I won't walk less than that on days when my
destination is nearer. BUT I cannot walk 20 map miles if there is a
mountain range in the way.

>Also note that fed
>cav can force-march. Characters do not have this ability. In fact, it

is a

>damn sight easier for a character/company to force-march than it is for

an

>army, so, when characters/companies do cross more than one mountain hex,
>just think of them as force-marching.
Characters should move as fed cavalry, and that includes the force
march. Or more simply, they should move as fed ships at sea, having an
automatic 14 movement points to play with. Armies are presumed to march
12 days out of 14, unless force marched. Characters should be assumed
to have the personal motivation to work through the weekend!
>
>When drawing up rules which simulate real life, or a book, you need such
>rules to reflect - SIMPLY - what is reasonable and likely to happen most
>often.
Exactly! You can get a lot further walking (or riding) along a road,
than struggling through virgin forest. We have a perfectly good system
which reflects this - the army movement one. To handle character
movement the same way brings more realism, AND simplifies the rules.

Regards,

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

RD: I could debate each point with you, but I'm not going to because of the
law of diminishing returns and also, judging by the lack of response, nobody
else seems interested!

To sum up, I argue that for characters to be able move 12 hexes regardless
of terrain is a fair reflection of the extra speed, versatility and mobility
which an individual (or group) of heroes has over an army. We are after
all, talking about the very best characters in their field (the fantasy
equivelant of the SAS?), who are not only motivated (as you said) but highly
resourceful!

You argue that terrain should restrict character movement but not to the
same degree as an army, ie 14 hexes without penalty.

If you are going to go down that road, I would argue that a character can
cover twice as much ground per day as an army. Therefore, if you are going
to change the movement rules to make characters subject to terrain, you
should give characters 24 movement points instead of the army's 12!

Also, characters can cross terrain which would be impassable to an army.
What about when Frodo and Sam scaled a cliff-face with the aid of a length
of elven rope?

I do see what you are driving at, but still prefer the rule as it stands.

Regards,

Richard.

···

Richard John Devereux <devereux@lineone.net> wrote

>However, I think this would require the whole game to be bigger.
Indeed, as I said, this is a MUCH more involved wish.

>Every
>caravan, like an army, would need a commander for a start, and especially

in

>the early game, there aren't enough characters to do everything you want

as

>it is! So the game would need more characters.
Possibly, though there may be other ways of handling it. For example,
the transfer mechanism might have a distance related delay in it. So
your turn sheet reports "goods in transit" in the same way that it might
report anchored ships. The goods arrive a turn or two later, and are
subject to random events. Not so good as actually being able to control
the caravans oneself.

RD: Well, the idea is that the caravans are controlled by neutral merchants
(not nations!), so this idea does have something to recommend it. The
further the goods have to travel, the more random events they would be
subject to. At it's simplest, nations would not be able to interfere with
such traffic.

Could caravans be shown on the map by icons? This would enable armies to
ambush them. However, the penalty would be severe - probably a game-long
ban on that nation transporting goods by caravan. Caravans, even more than
armies, should stick to roads wherever possible. The nations whose
territory a caravan passed thru should be able to levy a toll, thus giving
nations a financial incentive to leave caravans alone except in dire
emergency.

>
>What if a few more transfer orders were added, enabling characters to

trans

>ALL commodities (not just food) from pop to army? Thus you could add
>timber, bronze, mounts or whatever to your baggage train, and carry it

where

>it was needed. Unless of course you lost it in battle on the way!
Yes, you'll remember one game recently when my big army got massacred,
because your army which was coming to join it got "Special" serviced (it
just never goes away does it?) That army was without food, so I had 100
light cav with huge food stocks galloping to meet it. This army
accidentally bumped into one of our hapless enemies, and I thought I'd
lose it all. Then that army did not attack, and I got away. Then the
army it was going to feed got wiped out (Thanks mate!) so I had to turn
around and try to avoid losing the food as well. An unusual, but
interesting logistical situation. Logistics make a vital part of any
game with a war aspect, and their handling could be improved in MEPBM.

RD: Agree.

Actually, I'd like to see armies penalised more heavily for being
without food. Having a 1/3 point penalty for having to forage is not
realistic fo many armies. Armies did forage from the land, but this is
much more difficult in enemy territory, and proportionally more
difficult depending on the size of your army - sure you have more
foragers, but the food available is limited to what's on the farms
within riding distance.

Regards,

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

RD: Also, foraging is much less likely to be successful in unfavourable
terrain like mountains, or in winter, when crops are non-existent and game
scarce.

Regards,

Richard.

···

Richard John Devereux <devereux@lineone.net> wrote

If you are going to go down that road, I would argue that a character can
cover twice as much ground per day as an army. Therefore, if you are going
to change the movement rules to make characters subject to terrain, you
should give characters 24 movement points instead of the army's 12!

I'd be prepared to negotiate the exact number with you :wink: The number's
not the point, it's the principle that terrain should restrict movement
that's important.

Also, characters can cross terrain which would be impassable to an army.
What about when Frodo and Sam scaled a cliff-face with the aid of a length
of elven rope?

Yup, but they're using magic aren't they? Using this case to propose
that there should be new artefacts or spells which allow characters to
move in extraordinary ways, is rather different from suggesting that
because Frodo and Sam achieved this feat, that all characters should be
able to do it automatically.

The current character movement system is only consistent with the idea
of teleportation or flying.

Regards,

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

···

Richard John Devereux <devereux@lineone.net> wrote