SV: A controversial (no doubt) query!

mepbmlist
#1

Dear Pat,

The answer is simple...........
People wants value for money, 1650 gives the highest value for money for
most people.
The nature of the 1650 game, where everyone knows exactly what everyone else
starts with, the highly chess-like military startup, where numeruos of
different strategies and tactics can be deployed instantly from turn 1, is
exactly what is so appealing regarding the 1650 scenario.
Both the 2950 and FA scenario is based on too much "building up" in the
start and too much uncertaincy about all the elements (artifacts, nations,
riddles...), people who wants instant action and some sort of certaincy of
what they can expect, will be "bored" in those scenarios, thats why they
chose 1650.

Med venlig hilsen

Kim Andersen
Dsb IT Support
St. Kongensgade 130
1264 Kbh K

Tlf afdeling: 33 37 89 70
Tlf Direkte: 33 37 89 72
E-mail: kan@dsb.dk

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----

···

Fra: Patrick & Stacey McDougall [mailto:psmcdoug@home.com]
Sendt: 3. juli 2001 23:32
Til: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Emne: [mepbmlist] A controversial (no doubt) query!

I've just reviewed Clint's stats regarding new player requests for the
various Middle Earth games, and was simply shocked! Being the type that
is used to being beat up and lambasted for my sheer stupidity, I offer
the following query, and my opinions which obviously go against those of
the vast majority. . .

First, a little background-- I first started playing ME-PBM around 10-12
years ago, and I believe I played both 1650 and 2950, though I can't
swear that I maybe just played one of them twice. Being much more
penny/pence-less then, I eventually had to stop playing the game, and
only came back and started playing again last year. This time around I
joined a fourth age game, which is now in its 10th turn. I've also
recently joined another fourth age game. This being said, I'm still
pretty much a novice-- especially to fourth age.

To the point-- I fail to understand the comparably immense popularity of
the 1650 game. If I'm not mistaken, each 1650 game features the exact
same nations in the exact same starting locations with the exact same
pop center size and fortifications manned by the exact same characters
and exact same armies. Likewise, I believe the number assigned to
artifacts remains the same, and they retain the same powers from game to
game, with the only variable being the locations at which they are
hidden. As such, everyone knows who the "favorites to win" will be, who
is most likely to get swamped very quickly, which artifacts everyone
will be pursuing, which characters will be wandering about challenging
and kidnapping/assassinating, etc. If I'm wrong on any account here,
please make me aware of my error(s)-- I hope I'm not making false
assumptions.

Soooo. . . why is 1650 so popular? Do most of you prefer the static
nature of the game and its relative predictability?!? I honestly
believe that some of the hardcore veterans of the game have much of the
game down to a science, and probably even have a Bill Walsh-like game
plan drawn up before the game starts (for those of you who aren't
long-time American football fans, Bill Walsh was the head coach of many
of the great San Francisco 49ers teams of the 80's, and was known for
scripting the first bunch of plays- 20 or so if I recall- of each game
BEFORE it started, thereafter using the plays to start the game). I'd
think that fourth age would be more popular and in many ways be more of
a challenge, being that so much more is variable in the game (starting
locations, types/strategies of nations, not knowing who is who or what
is where, etc.). Is it the agent-related stuff (kidnap/assassinate
abilities) that drives people away?

Honestly, I'd like to hear your opinions-- that IS one of the purposes
of this board! If you LOVE 1650 tell me why. Who knows, you may
convince me that I'm short-sighted and should give 1650 a go. Also,
what makes 1650 so much better than 2950? Are the 1650 games simply the
preference of "power players" (i.e., folks who want military actions to
dictate practically everything)? If you've played fourth age and don't
like it, why?! PLEASE, I NEED enlightenment!!! (please be gentle)

  Pat

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#2

Been waiting to chime in on this one ...

I happen to agree with _most_ of what's been said ... and most of my comments
"build on" or refer to what's already been said in this string (so, for
elaboration on most points, see those earlier messages).

1650 is the oldest, most-established, most "chess-like" scenario, and tends to
be the one "veterans" of the game prefer, based on the "most bang for the buck"
theory.

2950 is much "slower starting" (tho' a newbie certainly can get killed off in
the early game easily enough ... not paying attention in that damn economics
class _can_ come back to haunt you ... :), takes awhile to "get going" (at
least, compared to 1650, which is what _most_ "veteran players" were "weaned
on"), and _some_ people are "less informed" on 2950 startup information (in
actualily, there is just as accurate, and detailed, information on 2950 out
there to be found ... no harder or easier for the newbie to find ...).

FA is the "random" scenario, and therefore more complicated for the newbie, and
either very appealing (new inut!) or unappealing (usually know factors being
unknown leads to significantly more "adminstrative" effort to play "properly;"
possible "luck of the draw" relationships that create serious disadvantage, if
not outright unplayability) to the veteran. FA also has the disadvantage of
being an "agent fest" (in the non-agent-modified scenarios). So, some veterans
like it, even more hate it (unmodified - the LAS and NKA variants seem to be
attracting the veterans back to FA ... or at least has them considering it
again, for the first time in quite awhile).

I agree with whoever said that 2950 is probably the best scenario for newbies,
tho' it has the disadvantage of a lower concentration of veterans. The "ideal"
way to learn MEPBM, IMHO, would be to play 2950 with some veteran teammates.
Not easy to accomplish ... best bet would be as a neut (or "fill-in") player in
a 2950 grudge game. Note that this is not a very self-serving thing to point
out (given that I like to play 2950 neuts), as it may cause a "run" on neutral
positions for 2950 grudge games. Nevertheless, I think 2950 is still the "way
to go" compared to 1650 or FA for a newbie, as the early-game difficulty level
is lower, and thus one would be more likely to survive ones mistakes than in
either of the other 2 scenarios.

As for what I prefer ... probably 1650 grudge games (12 v 12 format). Why?
multiple reasons, including all of the "classical chess" type arguments, because
of the drawbacks of FA (especially the "agent issues"), and because of the
slowness of 2950. Still, I try to be in at least one game of each scenario at a
give time (I tend to play alot of games, tho' I have dropped off in "game count"
dramatically over the last year, due to a conscious decsions to improve the
quality of my play and enjoyment of the games, both of which suffered when game
count soared ...). I had sworn off FA alltogether, but it's now "back in the
mix" now that the agent-limited scenarios are available (currently playing in 1
FA NKA, 1 2950 grudge game, 2 1650 grudge games, and one 1650 "regular" game -
albeit the one-week variety, which I prefer, but that's a _whole_ _different_
topic ... :).

Anyway, that's my $.02 (US!)

b (Ben Shushan)

Kim Andersen wrote:

···

Dear Pat,

The answer is simple...........
People wants value for money, 1650 gives the highest value for money for
most people.
The nature of the 1650 game, where everyone knows exactly what everyone else
starts with, the highly chess-like military startup, where numeruos of
different strategies and tactics can be deployed instantly from turn 1, is
exactly what is so appealing regarding the 1650 scenario.
Both the 2950 and FA scenario is based on too much "building up" in the
start and too much uncertaincy about all the elements (artifacts, nations,
riddles...), people who wants instant action and some sort of certaincy of
what they can expect, will be "bored" in those scenarios, thats why they
chose 1650.

Med venlig hilsen

Kim Andersen
Dsb IT Support
St. Kongensgade 130
1264 Kbh K

Tlf afdeling: 33 37 89 70
Tlf Direkte: 33 37 89 72
E-mail: kan@dsb.dk

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Patrick & Stacey McDougall [mailto:psmcdoug@home.com]
Sendt: 3. juli 2001 23:32
Til: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Emne: [mepbmlist] A controversial (no doubt) query!

I've just reviewed Clint's stats regarding new player requests for the
various Middle Earth games, and was simply shocked! Being the type that
is used to being beat up and lambasted for my sheer stupidity, I offer
the following query, and my opinions which obviously go against those of
the vast majority. . .

First, a little background-- I first started playing ME-PBM around 10-12
years ago, and I believe I played both 1650 and 2950, though I can't
swear that I maybe just played one of them twice. Being much more
penny/pence-less then, I eventually had to stop playing the game, and
only came back and started playing again last year. This time around I
joined a fourth age game, which is now in its 10th turn. I've also
recently joined another fourth age game. This being said, I'm still
pretty much a novice-- especially to fourth age.

To the point-- I fail to understand the comparably immense popularity of
the 1650 game. If I'm not mistaken, each 1650 game features the exact
same nations in the exact same starting locations with the exact same
pop center size and fortifications manned by the exact same characters
and exact same armies. Likewise, I believe the number assigned to
artifacts remains the same, and they retain the same powers from game to
game, with the only variable being the locations at which they are
hidden. As such, everyone knows who the "favorites to win" will be, who
is most likely to get swamped very quickly, which artifacts everyone
will be pursuing, which characters will be wandering about challenging
and kidnapping/assassinating, etc. If I'm wrong on any account here,
please make me aware of my error(s)-- I hope I'm not making false
assumptions.

Soooo. . . why is 1650 so popular? Do most of you prefer the static
nature of the game and its relative predictability?!? I honestly
believe that some of the hardcore veterans of the game have much of the
game down to a science, and probably even have a Bill Walsh-like game
plan drawn up before the game starts (for those of you who aren't
long-time American football fans, Bill Walsh was the head coach of many
of the great San Francisco 49ers teams of the 80's, and was known for
scripting the first bunch of plays- 20 or so if I recall- of each game
BEFORE it started, thereafter using the plays to start the game). I'd
think that fourth age would be more popular and in many ways be more of
a challenge, being that so much more is variable in the game (starting
locations, types/strategies of nations, not knowing who is who or what
is where, etc.). Is it the agent-related stuff (kidnap/assassinate
abilities) that drives people away?

Honestly, I'd like to hear your opinions-- that IS one of the purposes
of this board! If you LOVE 1650 tell me why. Who knows, you may
convince me that I'm short-sighted and should give 1650 a go. Also,
what makes 1650 so much better than 2950? Are the 1650 games simply the
preference of "power players" (i.e., folks who want military actions to
dictate practically everything)? If you've played fourth age and don't
like it, why?! PLEASE, I NEED enlightenment!!! (please be gentle)

  Pat

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/