Suggested Rules Changes for Mages

I sent the following email to ME Games. I would be interested in player feedback and opinion.

HI,

I assume you are still interested in player input about possible changes to the game, so here’s my few coppers. This is specifically about mages but I do have several suggestions for other aspects of the game if you are interested. These ideas are conservative because I believe that it is best to make slow and gradual changes to the game, since players already like the game just as it is. With this in mind I would prefer not to have any new mage orders added but rather to have lower-level mages made a bit more useful, and higher mages a bit more rewarding, by improving on existing orders and removing present penalties and restrictions on mages.

The following suggestions are meant to address the following problem: mages are too weak relative to the other character types.

It should be noted that one solution to this problem that has been made by others, notably by Tom Walton, is to allow mages some way of training up faster, such as through an ‘apprentice magery’ order that would allow one mage to train up another, in addition to the ‘prentice’ magery order. This is an interesting suggestion but I think that the difficulty of training up mages is more consistent with the Tolkien flavor because high mages become a rarity in the game, just as they are in Middle Earth. Adding an ‘apprentice magery’ order would increase the # of high level mages, and the # of mages in general, in the game dramatically, and this could significantly affect overall game-play and feel, which is at odds with my conservative leanings for game changes. I therefore favor the slow growth of mages.

General Suggestions:

•PrenMgy: Put this order on par with other similar orders for other character types (like GrdLoc), by making it in some way useful other than as simply a skill booster. I think adding a slight increase to the mages’ proficiency with his existing spells is in order. This would also the side effect of encouraging mages to learn spells at a lower rank because the consequence of learning the spell at a low casting rank would be mitigated since the casting rank would improve as the mage trains up. This is also more intuitive than the present way the order works because one would expect that a mage who studies magic intensely would improve a bit at his spell casting.

•Allow players to select their starting spells. Low level mages would then be immediately useful since they would presumably start with the spells that a player needs. This would also make naming muti-class mages much more practical. As it is, naming a multi-class mage generally is unadvisable because they tend to come with useless spells and can’t learn any new ones for a long time.

•Reduce the penalty for casting two spells. Being able to cast two spells without so much fear would make mages significantly potent. As it is, a mage that tries to curse/scry area on the next target, might die! Being able to cast two spells without so much fear would allow for a variety of interesting spell combos.

Suggestions to Make Mages More Useful in Combat:

•Allow Dark Summons, Offense, and Defense spells to all be cast under different orders, so that a mage with could combine two combat spells, making him/her much more useful in combat.

•Increase the probablity of survival/escape in combat for mages that cast combat spells. As it is, the probability of capture after combat makes one want to avoid using mages in combat.

•With combat spells that have a range of damage, allow the degree of success at casting to determine the result. So a very skilled mage would end up with a high-end result, allowing him/her to use a spell like Words of Death to inflict 2250 pts consistently, instead of getting a random result between 1250-2250.

•Consider allowing some artifacts to enhance the effect of combat spells.

Suggestions to Make Mages More Useful as Info. Gatherers:

Rather than introducing new spells as some have suggested, make some of the existing 940 spells more useful/practical. The following is a list of spells that are either fairly useless or could use some improvements. I have provide some suggested conservative improvements to improve each spell, which should be suffient to make the spell worth casting. A more radical idea that I like but did not include in the suggested changes is to allow the caster to increase the difficulty of the spell in order to extend the spell effects. For example, increasing the spell’s range, etc…

General Suggestion: Use seperate order #s for each list of 940 spells, thus allowing a mage to cast two 940 spells so long as they are from different lists.

Perceptions:
•Perceive Allegiance–In addition to the specified effect, notify caster of any attempted allegiance changes made by nations of the specified allegiance, or made by any nations attempting to change to the specified allegiance.
•Perceive Relations–Notify caster of attempted relations changes. Allow caster to perceive relations between other nations.
•Perceive Nationality–Allow spell to reveal character type in addition to nationality. An alternate way to make the spell more useful is to allow it to reveal the names of any characters that the target character has named.
•Perceive Power–Allow spell to reveal target’s challenge rank in addition to skill titles.
•Perceive Mission–Allow spell caster to specify which turn, present, past, or maybe even future for which to reveal the target’s orders. When specifying a future turn the spell effect would be delayed until that turn arrives. (Spell is canceled if caster dies first.) Degree of difficulty would depend on temporal proximity.
•Perceive Secrets–This is a great spell, but replace victory conditions with secrets that are actually useful: like artifacts held or character names or amount of gold in the treasury, recent encounters, stuff like that.

Divinations:
•Divine Army–Let the spell operate as a ‘scout army’ order (but w/out option to follow) in addition to described effect.
•Divine Allegiance Forces–Let spell reveal icon locations.
•Divine Army True–In addition to described effect, it could operate as ‘scout army,’ and an upgraded ‘divine characters w/ forces,’ revealing the presence of non-player forces like Ents. (Or are those already identified by Div. Chr. w/ Forces?)
An alternate way to make Divine Army/True more useful would be to allow them to act could act as army tracers, tracing the location of the army over multiple turns.

Artifact Lore:
•Research Artifact–Partially randomize some artifact special abilities. For example, some arties could have Spirit mastery 50% of the time and Dark Summons the other 50%. Perhaps add some special abilities to artifacts and require that they be activated by a ‘research artifact’ spell before they can be used.

Scrying:
•Scry Character–In additon to described effect, allow spell to also reveal: stealth score, challenge rank, nationality, and possibly even a limited character ‘history,’ if the spell is cast with high success. The extent and accuacy of the history would depend on the degree of success, and might reveal prior character activities and hex locations.

Hidden Visions:
•Reveal Production–Allow spell to reveal the exact production capacity of specified hexes.

Appreciate the thought that has gone into this. The meditation and examination almost assures that you will do well with mages under the current rules.

Respectfully, Mages are not at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the other character types. They just require long term planning–which is usually in short supply.

According to Clint, most games only last 15 to 20 turns. I will go into that a bit later. Mages are foremost a late game resource. The shortness of most games results in Mages appearing underutilized and, indeed, being less useful than the other character types. Long games are such a rarity that I have found most players flounder around in the late game if you can prolong it beyond the 15-20 turns most people are familiar with.

For a decade I played with GEI and Deft. The shortest game I played was 24 turns when my EO were finally pounded out. That particular game went on another 12 turns. Now, according to Clint and my own experiences games are significantly shorter. Why is that?

Let me propose it is because of the Company’s policy of replacing drops as soon as possible. In my very first Harley game (an old game 71) as soon as an enemy was discouraged and pounded out he was replaced with a better player. What are the results of this? Once you fall behind it is essentially impossible to catch up and win. As soon as you gain some ground by running someone off (short of total elimination) a new and energetic person becomes your opponent. So, once you fall behind (say, 6 to 11 nations) you might as well quit. There is little you can do against that order superiority (sans Mages, that is).

In summary: Mages ARE underutilized. They are underutilized because games are short. Games are short because of the company’s replacement policy.

“In summary: Mages ARE underutilized. They are underutilized because games are short. Games are short because of the company’s replacement policy.”

I’ll also submit games are shorter for a number of other reasons. For example, games are short because players have such good communication now adays, whole teams, instead of individual players quit once things turn south. For example, in game 95 the free were really, REALLY winning against the darks. 4 neutrals went dark and the free dropped a turn later. Under GSI myself and friends I’ve talked to saw numerous games whenre 11 beat 14, and 12 beat 13 often.

With that said I also agree that the replacement policy is a big reason as well, but Harley should not care about that. They make the most money from full games. So why allow games of 17 players go on to the “very neat” late game when the policy pushes 25 people into new, fresh games. This lessens the total number of games they have to run for a given set of people, increasing their profits per time.

I disagree about mages. Mages can be a late game weapon, but emmy and agent companies are far more deadly. Just look at 4th age where “late game” is turn 5 and you can see what I mean.

I think Many of Chris’s ideas are good.

General:

Prenmgy: I think this is the single coolest idea. A slight increase in spell ranks (0 to 2) for each spell would be cool. Or even better, practicing a spell increases your mage rank by 1 to 4 as well as the spell increase.

Choosing Spells: Dis-like this massively. Takes away flavor and makes everyone take the best spells all the time. Though It would be nice to allow nations with a lost list spell to start with it.

I think the biggest other thing which could be done which chris mentions is increasing the damage in battle. Perhaps double it. IT is simply not worth the orders or risk of death to kill 200 HI in most cases.

See ya,
Ken

Mages have only the 1 order to increase ranks so i would like to see another one added, say:

I would like to see that prentice magery can be done in any hex. A mage would carry his lore books around with him so while not in a home pc hex he could prenmgy say 1-3 each turn, while in a home pc hex it would be 2-6 each turn.

This would enable mages to get their ranks up quicker and be more useful throughout the game.

Ian

Laurence Tilley had an idea regarding naming mages: name a mage Type and he/she’ll get only those kinds of spells. Example, name a “Combat” mage, and he’ll get a Heal, and 2 combat spells (a 4th if your naming at 40) for example. Name a “Lore” mage and he’ll only get Perceive or Divine spells, that sort of thing.

The game is shorter now due mostly to increased communication. In fact, as a result of increased communication, filling dropped nations likely prolongs the games - people leave and Everyone knows about it, his/her allies just hand it in to. Instead, the nation gets filled and the team can carry on confident they haven’t lost the game due to someone else’s overtime or Mexico vacation. In the Dark Ages, players playing in a fog started in the fog and simply plodded on through until they got a result sheet in the mail telling them they’re done. It’s simply not possible to compare then and now, sorry.

Anyone with Name Mages at 40 most certainly should be, more powerful rules or not…

Brad

As always, Brad, I respect your views which are always well thought out. Disagree that Company policy has no efect on game play. It has everything to do with game play, game length and character choices.

You do bring up one of my favorite subjects. The fog-of-war. This was always a strength of this fantasy simulation. The combination of up to 25 persons interacting and the fog-of-war produced a very realistic result in the mental stresses on and decision making choices of the simulated commander. Ever since my association with the Company, the fog-of-war has been under active attack by the Company. XMLs, Palantir, etc are antifog-of-war instruments. Early on the GMs objected to misinformation on these forums, blackops, false flag ruses and the like. I beleieve the GM attempt to moderate this forum was partly due to a ‘fairplay’ issue.

The more this game becomes like the alsoruns, the less “realistic” it becomes.

I’m a little confused why you think replacing dropped positions shortens the game. In my old GSI days it was not uncommon to start a new game and see a “group of friends” join for “the first time” and drop en masse never to be replaced. One game in particular (2950 g49, my first game in fact, I was WW) a group of 5 joined and took NG, SG, Rohan, Rangers, and Silvan. They were never heard from again past turn 0. One of the FP managed to nab SG up by having, ahem, “his girlfriend” grab it up off the dropped nation list . . . none of the other 4 positions were ever filled. Destroying 4 positions on turn 1 should have a shortening effect on any game I would presume. Oddly enough, the other FP stuck it out (unlike today’s wimpy players), won all 5 neutrals (thanks to some arrogance on the DS side), and won the game.

Russ

The unannounced introduction of mini-teams of 4 or 5 persons was an issue I had with GSI. It has not gone away. My GSI experience was they filled drops in the early game but not past turn 12. Thus, after the early game you could fall behind and still hope to win by eliminating the ‘weak sisters’ one by one.

Now with the Company, I have won from behind. This was done by deliberately prolonging the game into the late game (which was unfamiliar territory) and winning with the mages. This tactic, apparently, was so alien to the Company that some of the defeated nations are now on the PRS list while the victors are not.

You know the one about 3 blind men all describing an elephant from different perspectives? There is no “one truth” here. I don’t see how company policy has had such a drastic affect on the group experience.

The bulk of the players are newer. Their point-click-and-please-me-NOW life experience is rewarded in the “We’re behind, all the automated information tells us so, so we quit and start fresh next week.” short-game ethos. Maetzings made a better map than Palantir, IMHO, but as it takes more time to get a print out from it, Palantir is a default. Mike Mulka’s AutoMinister game information sheet is a pale and weak immitation of my own game sheets that I personally compile for my grudge/team games, and I know others who manually parse and organize more information than I do. While these new public-domain programs might reduce the fog somewhat for “the masses”, communication technology and the historically compiled information lists had long since taken care of the fog issue amongst experienced players long ago. I think the problem is simply presumed proprietaryship of information - petty jealousy that everyone can access information and technology that was available only to the chosen few who worked at it in the past. Things change - the “masses” used to have to hand-wash all their clothes while only the well-to-do had access to technology freeing them from the labour. Don’t blame the Company, they’re not driving this engine they’re simply trying to hang onto it.

Consider the anecdote from game 95 above - that FP team was so skilled (I’m aware of the make-up, I wasn’t involved, though) they should have been able, given the will, to make a game of it and, IMHO, were even-money odds to emerge victorious. It would’ve taken a long time and it wasn’t “guaranteed”…so they fled the scene for easier pickings elsewhere. They were already beating the snot out of 10 DS, why should a mere 4 neutrals still in the early game (not built-up powerhouses) who could easily have been led by incompetent fools scare them so much? Ah well, such is the way we cry foul and take our balls home so quickly, never to be blamed, mind you, always someone else’s fault (or the system…or the Company…?).

In regards to the mages carrying their lore books around, consider they need access to laboratory materials and equipment to boil up their newt tails and such - hardly travel gear. Without being a reactionary, I like the spells as they are and don’t really believe they require beefing up. If artifact attributes were randomized (totally against what those artifacts represent in Tolkeins writings), then the Arty Lore spells might be beefed up a bit to satisfy our impatience, but that’s about all. Divine Characters with Forces is a ScoChar that can be done from far away without requiring Move order - how is this not powerful enough? And if your wee blocking army has one of those underutilized mages in it, mayhap you have a surprise challenge in the middle of nowhere against one of those “Characters With”…hey, that’ll increase mage rank quickly too!

Admittedly, many of the spells mentioned in the opening to this thread were designed for a very foggy gaming environment. There may be reasonable arguments for adding new spells, but those that exist were once quite useful. Maybe the best option is to develop variant gaming environments - look at Gunboat, much foggier than “normal” games, and seemingly increasingly popular.

Brad Brunet

Hi Brad,

I agree about Divine Characters with Forces. Notice that this spell is not on my list of spells that I think need beefing up. Seems the only defense of spells like “Divine Allegiance Forces” is the fog-war argument which you made, but which only applies to gunboat. I love gunboat and agree that mages and their spells are much more useful in that scenario, especially with rules like the one that you can’t take offensive action against a character until you know what nation the target is from (making “Divine Nationality” very useful, although there are still some spells that are lame no matter what scenario you play, like Reveal Production). That argument doesn’t address the problem with team games does it? Do you have any suggestions for team games?

Hi Ed,
Can you help me understand how mages are more useful in the very late game? It seems debatable as to whether a company of three 70 mages with curses is more powerful than three 70 agents, or three 70 emissaries. Even if the mages ARE stronger than the agents (or emis) at rank 70, the agent (or emi) ranks would continue to rise, unless the mages got some challenges in. Certainly rank 100 agents or emmies are stronger than rank 70 mages? The mages would have to stay home to PrenMgy to rank 100 and then form two-man curse teams. To get to rank 100 from rank 30 would take 18 turns minimum, so it wouldn’t be until the twenties that such mages would go offensive. Are mages really that much better than their counter parts at rank 100 that it would be worth waiting that long for them to go offensive (assuming the game is going for a very long time)?

I wonder if there is some reasonable way to make games longer (without changing the comany’s policy) and if that would necessarily be a good thing. If the game cannot/should not be lengthened then maybe mages SHOULD be allowed to advance at a rate that is comparable to other character types.

Christian, if we are ever on the same side I will SHOW you what I mean.

There is no problem with team games… Spell A is good for independent games, but should be beefed up for team games? No, learn the spells you need, leave the rest be. There’s a certain subtle beauty to much of this game. Ed will show you next time you’re on his team…

Brad

I really think reveal production is a vastly underutalized spell, especially in the start of a game. if you have a low level mage with the spell he is basically useless for anything but capital orders and that spell. Cast it in an area you want to camp in and reveal gold. Now you have 5 hexes to send your emmies to for a guaranteed boost to you econ.

Ben

While few would actually 705 this spell, if known it can really help boost gold and/or mount production. Give it to Finduilas, Beawyn, or a Dun mage, for example, and that nation has the option to work towards something. Again, long term thinking…

Looking for gold in rough hexes is one good use of that spell. But the range! 3 hexes…hopefuly your mage is in range so you don’t have to waste time moving your mage around instead of 710ing. Regardless, I’d be happy to learn or start with the spell though since the rest of the list has kick-ass spells.

Dear Brad and Ed

You (Brad) seem think mages are just as useful in the present standard game as they are in a fog war environment–they’re just used differently? I don’t have a problem with some spells being useful in this kind of game, and other spells in that. But team games are by far the most popular game and IMO mages accross the board are distictly disadvantaged in the team game because of the way the game is played nowadays, compared to how useful they were in the fog of the old GSI days (my first game was 12 years ago–didn’t play since then till recently).

How often do you guys name 30Ms in a team game? I don’t unless I see a specific need. How often do you name multi-class mages in a team game? It is a rarity for myself (though I have not played many games). If you are like me in this regard, then is this not strong enough evidence that mages are not as useful as other characters in the team game? That is “the problem.”

Or if you do name mages more often than I or 95% of other players, then it appears that you do so as part of an overall strategy to prolong the game. But why SHOULD the game be prolonged? Why would a 48 turn game be better than a 24 turn game? Perhaps there could be some sort of variant designed specifically to prolong the game for players like yourself (or maybe myself–I don’t know). Maybe then the idea of long games could start gaining some popualrity.

Even so, what about blokes like myself who are playing team games (perhaps because gunboat is too expensive) and happen to enjoy playing with mages (and I have developed a variety of tactics for using them–I get the subtlety part of game; no need to show me that), and are in games that probably aren’t going to last into the 9th inning? I would love to name more multiclass mages and mages in general but in most cases it just doesn’t make sense unless I have the 40M ability or some other incentive.

If the only argument for keeping the rules unaltered is that mages are part of a secretive overall strategy to win a prolonged game, then 95% of the players are out of the loop and won’t buy your argument unless 1) You tell us why it is better that the game should be prolonged and 2) How mages are supposed to be a bigger help in the end-game than agents and emissaries. Then maybe we can toss some ideas around about how the game could/should be run or designed differently in order to make games last longer.

Brad, Ed, your comments both before and now are appreciated.

Christian

Ed, Brad, tell me if I am getting warm here…

The end of a long game is about racing to take the enemy’s hidden back up capitols that were raised from off-map camps, while the guys on defence race to raise new MTs before they lose their assets.

One could use emi & mage or emi/mage squads to Palantir, Divine Characters, Curse, InfOther, Perceive Secrets, in that order, on enemy capitols/MTs/cities. It would go like this: the palantir id’s targets comander at capitol and informs of backup MTs. Divine Character reveals backup comms for challenge/curse/kidnap. Next turn, Curse/Challenge/InfOther at capitol, Palantir on next target, and move to next target all in one turn. If done right the next target would be new capitol so palantir would reveal any newer backups raised that same turn. Ideally you would div.char w/ forces two turns before moving in with curse/emi squad so that agents could take out any backup comms on the same turn that the mages move in. As the final target is hit, do a Perceive Secrets to make sure you got him. Two such squads would be devastating.

Arthedain needs to name 1… 1 in 25 games as other FP also in order to help get the numbers of mages up.

How often do you name multi-class mages in a team game?

Not on my teams…

Or if you do name mages more often than I or 95% of other players, then it appears that you do so as part of an overall strategy to prolong the game.

Not to prolong, but in the event of a prolonged game. Get your Name At 40 nations with a couple each and eventually they’re trained up to cast many useful lore spells. Like the Characters w/Forces spell I so admire… :wink:

Why would a 48 turn game be better than a 24 turn game?

Besides more than twice as much stuff happening in the same game? It’s the difference between a sitcom and a full length theatre film. Comic books and novels.

Even so, what about blokes like myself who are playing team games {snip}that probably aren’t going to last into the 9th inning?

Aha, but what happens if they do…?

Brad

Christian, you are thinking creatively. I knew you would go far with the mage capabilities present. That is only ONE way to use mages in the late game. There are others Ed