Agent Actions And Relations

[fragilesi]

Anyone know for sure?

I have been labouring under the assumption that when my agents attempted to issue offensive orders against another nation the relations held towards that nation were important. Basically if I hated them I stood a better chance of succeeding than if I only disliked them.

However, the rule book only seems to indicate that the target's relations to you are relevant. From my 1650 rulebook (which is very old dating back to ME21 under GAD so bear with me if there's been an update since!) . . .

"Relations affect the chances for success for some agent and for some emissary orders. In general, the better the relations a nation has toward your nation, the easier it will be for your agents and emissaries to carry out certain of their missions".

I can't see anywhere that indicates that the agent's relations to the target are relevant. This would actually make sense to me with assassins being pretty cold-blooded types, the last thing you'd want is for them to be boiling with rage and hatred and make mistakes!

So, is it a myth that downgrading helps you with agent orders or is there some truth in it? Is there something I've missed in the rulebook?

Cheers, Simon.

[Arthedain73]

If you have played so long and are an 'Olde Timer', why have you not reached your own conclusion? Is it your hope that one of Peter's old drinking buddies knows something you don't>

[fragilesi]

Originally posted by Arthedain73
If you have played so long and are an 'Olde Timer', why have you not reached your own conclusion? Is it your hope that one of Peter's old drinking buddies knows something you don't>

Like I said, I've always felt certain that the agent's relations to the target were relevant. However, what I've read in the rulebook seems to indicate otherwise.

Even if I went back through every assassination attempt that I've ever seen I doubt I could prove it either way with the stats to any real degree of relevance or accuracy.

Conclusions are fine if you have the evidence to draw them from, even after this time I don't feel that I do.

Simon.

[Brad Jenison]

Simon; the reason the quote you posted reads as it does is that the better the relations between you victims nation and yours the less likely security will be out looking for you rather than the official enemies of their state.

Thus you slip through security with less notice as they are on the alert for someone else.

[fragilesi]

Thanks Brad, I agree it makes sense.

I'm still left with the question of whether the agent's relations towards the target make a difference or not though.

Cheers, Simon.

[Arthedain73]

Since the matter is of concern to you and you seek assurances, yes relations serves as a force multiplier in everything except personal challenges. You are welcome.

[darrell]

In the Rulebook, under the descriptions for all of the Agent orders, it says that the outcome depends on (among other things) "the relations between the nations". This seems to indicate rather definitively that relations matter both ways.

Also, I checked the emmy InfOthr command for giggles and it specifically says that only the target nation's relations toward you affect the outcome, and not your relations toward the target nation.

Hope that helps.

[Arthedain73]

Let me suggest that if Simon cared what the rule book said he would not be using one more than 12 years old. He asked if someone knew for sure. I'm sure. By no means is that the only error in the rule book.

[darrell]

The quote that Simon used in his original post is also in the most current rulebook on page 15. I don't think it is an error at all. The quote specifically says that Agent *and* Emissary orders are affected by the target nation's relations toward your nation. This is true. It just so happens that your relations toward the target nation *also* affect Agent orders, but not Emissary orders, you just have to look in more than one place to get all the information.

I am certainly not going to defend every portion of the rulebook, but if you know of glaring errors, I would be very interested to hear about them. Maybe a new edition is in order? Or at the very least some kind of addendum. While I certainly agree that the rulebook can be very vague at times, I can't think of any part of it that gives flat out wrong information. Please enlighten us if this is not the case.

[Arthedain73]

Clint posted some rulebook errors a few months ago on the list. Perhaps he will also post them on your new, and excellent, forum also.

[Player]

Originally posted by Arthedain73
Clint posted some rulebook errors a few months ago on the list.

Is this the post on the MEPBMLIST that you're referring to:

From: "Middle Earth PBM Games" <me@M...>
Date: Wed May 8, 2002 4:15 am
Subject: Rules Updates

If you know of any rules that are not correct in the rule book it would be a
great help to the players and us if you can inform us and we can then update
the House Rules and keep players upto date. (They are presently in the What
to do section of the House Rules).

Thanks

Clint

There were a few replies, and I recall other similar threads on the rules. None of the replies or subsequent responses by MEGames detailed "Errors" in the 7th Edition Rules. All the complaints were of the nature "the rules aren't clear." Once you learn how to read them, they're quite clear.

[fragilesi]

Originally posted by Arthedain73
Let me suggest that if Simon cared what the rule book said he would not be using one more than 12 years old. He asked if someone knew for sure. I'm sure. By no means is that the only error in the rule book.

Thanks, I am curioous how you know this with such certainty though.

Simon.

[jasonab]

Originally posted by Arthedain73
Clint posted some rulebook errors a few months ago on the list. Perhaps he will also post them on your new, and excellent, forum also.

This post was made by Stuart in May (2002):

Greetings,

This is to give you some clarifications and corrections to the ME rulebook
we have recently learned about.

***The 630 Rescue order will release a character in one of seven randomly
chosen hexes - the hex the hostage is in and/or one of the hexes surrounding
his current location. The rulebook is incorrect when is states the hostage
will be released in the location where he is rescued.

***The 260 Siege Pop Center order does work for navies, and they do not
anchor ships - but the navies do need to be able to anchor ships. The
rulebook is incorrect when stating navies can't siege a pop center.

If you have any questions concerning this issue, feel free to get in touch
with us.

Good Gaming,
Stuart

[Arthedain73]

Simon let me turn your question back on you. You play this game for many years. You subconciously evaluate hundreds of agent orders. You intuitively arrive at the correct conclusion, vis-a-vis national relations and agent orders. Suddenly you distrust your own good judgement. Why was that?

Yes, it was Stuart. Thanks.

[nanook]

All the complaints were of the nature "the rules aren't clear." Once you learn how to read them, they're quite clear.

Oh, man -- don't get me started.

First, the rules are often dead wrong. The combat algorithm, for instance, says that results of pop center assaults are calculated before troop losses are assessed. That's just not true. The turn sequence for hostage escape attempts is also wrong; it's listed after agent orders, but can occur both before and after.

Second, in many more places, the rules are misleading. The table that under "Force Needed to Threaten" that you need 2500 troops to Threaten an MT, but as we know, Gothmog doesn't read the rulebook, which goes on to add for Threats that

"To be successful, the Army must be large enough to overcome the Population Center's instrinsic defenses, which are based on size, loyalty, fortifications, and the presence of their defending Armies."

Again, just not true. Threaten does seem to depend on Command rank -- which isn't even mentioned there -- and it can be done by an army too small to Capture the pc. Also, the above "explanation" suggests Threaten can be attempted in "the presence of..defending armies." It can't, as it says later in the rulebook.

Finally, some orders are inscrutable. Specifics about Siege Population Center, certain rules concerning naval movement and combat, many details of turn sequence -- all those can be guessed by experience, but not by reading the rulebook.

Experienced players know and take for granted omissions in the rulebook (that issuing 285 Flee is the same as ignoring an encounter, or that a nation can live without an MT as a capital between orders 250 and 949), and it's fine to rely on experience or experienced friends.

But don't count on the rulebook.

Nanook

[Player]

Originally posted by nanook
Oh, man -- don't get me started.

First, the rules are often dead wrong. The combat algorithm, for instance, says that results of pop center assaults are calculated before troop losses are assessed. That's just not true.

I've had successful pop centre combat and then had my army disbanded because they're under 100.

The turn sequence for hostage escape attempts is also wrong; it's listed after agent orders, but can occur both before and after.

You'll note under Sequence of Events on the Orders Quick Reference page (109) it says "The following list provides a general indication of the sequence of events in ME-PBM" The italics are not mine, they're in the book.

Second, in many more places, the rules are misleading. The table that under "Force Needed to Threaten" that you need 2500 troops to Threaten an MT, but as we know, Gothmog doesn't read the rulebook, which goes on to add for Threats that

"To be successful, the Army must be large enough to overcome the Population Center's instrinsic defenses, which are based on size, loyalty, fortifications, and the presence of their defending Armies."

Again, just not true. Threaten does seem to depend on Command rank -- which isn't even mentioned there -- and it can be done by an army too small to Capture the pc. Also, the above "explanation" suggests Threaten can be attempted in "the presence of..defending armies." It can't, as it says later in the rulebook.


The paragraph format rules are VERY rarely taken as how things go. I have long ago tossed them away as potentially useful archived material and rely almost solely on the actual order descriptions. For example, on page 83 one reads: "Threaten Populatin Centre: Success is based on the Command Rank, the size of the Population Centre, the Loyalty rank of the populace, the size of the threatening army, the presence of any war machines, and the presence of any fortifications." You'll also note under "Prerequisites" the point "Enemy armies are not present"

Finally, some orders are inscrutable. Specifics about Siege Population Center, certain rules concerning naval movement and combat, many details of turn sequence -- all those can be guessed by experience, but not by reading the rulebook.

Experienced players know and take for granted omissions in the rulebook (that issuing 285 Flee is the same as ignoring an encounter, or that a nation can live without an MT as a capital between orders 250 and 949), and it's fine to rely on experience or experienced friends.

Um, the Encounter Message on your pdf tells you that issuing no response is taken as FLEE....


But don't count on the rulebook.

Nanook

When taken into full account, I strongly suggest DO count on the rulebook. Whenever I've been the victim of either a misinterpretation or, frankly, insufficient rule research, I've always been able to discover my error.

I'll repeat, MY error. I've made many, but I cast not the blame elsewhere.

[Player]

Thanks Jason for the research finding Stuart's post.

I know that all other hostaged characters escape or what have you, to those 7 hexes, but could not find the specific description of such in the rules (quick perusal, I admit). Is it even there? If so, I'm curious as to how those situations are described. I would make sense that All such circumstances whereby a character is alive but unable to issue orders at all and is then "released" would work the same way.

As for the seige order, well, that's obviously an error in the program, no? How is a navy, without anchoring ships, expected to cut off all the roads leading to the population centre that happens to be on coastal flatlands or have docks? Silly that, but those poor much-maligned rules take the heat...

[nanook]

I've had successful pop centre combat and then had my army disbanded because they're under 100.

Fine, but you know that if you attack a pc with enough strength to take it but too little con to survive -- say, an army of MA with a combat arty -- then miraculously, the pc is NOT burned to the ground, because your troop losses are counted first. The sequence listed is just plain wrong.

You'll note under Sequence of Events on the Orders Quick Reference page (109) it says "The following list provides a general indication of the sequence of events in ME-PBM" .

Well, if you read "general" as meaning "possibly incorrect" rather than "rough outline without all details," fine. But it's still misleading at best.


You'll also note under "Prerequisites" the point "Enemy armies are not present".

Right, which is why I said
It can't, as it says later in the rulebook.

In any case, the point is that some things in the rulebook, such as the description quoted in my above post, are simply incorrect.


Um, the Encounter Message on your pdf tells you that issuing no response is taken as FLEE.....

Um, surely you've been in games where newbies issued it anyway. In any case, it isn't, um, in the rulebook.

And isn't the other example still troubling? You can live without one of the requirements for a nation (a Major Town or City) until order 949, while another -- the need for a non-negative treasury -- can't wait until Gold arrives via order 948. That is NOT clear in the rulebook. On the contrary, it suggests the two needs are equivalent.

And what about details for naval movement, which you've asked about, or the elusive mechanics of sieges? Weakly documented at best.

The rulebook seems clear only once you have enough experience to know which parts of it to trust.

Nanook

[fragilesi]

Originally posted by Arthedain73
Simon let me turn your question back on you. You play this game for many years. You subconciously evaluate hundreds of agent orders. You intuitively arrive at the correct conclusion, vis-a-vis national relations and agent orders. Suddenly you distrust your own good judgement. Why was that?

Quite simply because there are so many variables and I haven't played many agent-strong nations in the past, in fact up until very recently just about none. The problem is with perceptions about the rules is that the only non-circumstancial evidence we have is the rulebook and clearly I'm doing even that a favour here!

I've seen it all too often in the past that perceptions somehow metamorphasise into fact and very soon become gospel without anyone noticing just how they got there. And this is in all walks of life not just mere PBM rules!

That's why I ask . . .

Simon.

[Clint]

You can generally send us an email about any aspect of the game that is pertinent to your situation. Generally I won't answer questions on game mechanics here - too broad a spectrum and too time consuming - but if you have a specific question about something you are about to do and you need clarity then get in touch in time for us to answer.

Note we might just inform you "to be discovered in the course of play", but more often we are able to assist.

Clint

[Player]

Stuart lists 2 orders that are in "error", although 1 is obviously a program error (seige with a navy) but we'll allow the rules to bear the brunt of criticism.

Otherwise, the rules are fine. If one chooses to interpret words like "generally" to mean "exact" then that person can only look in the mirror when the problems arise, or choose to sue the education department that graduated them, not cry unfair at the rules themselves. It's that simple. Get over it.

[Player]

Originally posted by nanook

In any case, the point is that some things in the rulebook, such as the description quoted in my above post, are simply incorrect.


No, they're not incorrect. The description on "threatening a population centre" details various "intrinsic" aspects of a pops defense that one must "deal with" before they can "attempt" to threaten a pop. After reading the 498 order, it's quite simply obvious that one cannot threaten a pop if there's an enemy army there, it's quite obviously common sense in fact. Thus, one will attempt to Attack Enemy with one army and threaten with another, no? Or, the order fails, for reasons CLEARLY outlined in the rules, and the player simply has to accept that fact that it ain't a video game with cheat codes for "god mode" and sometimes all doesn't go one's way.

[nanook]

If one chooses to interpret words like "generally" to mean "exact" then that person can only look in the mirror when the problems arise, or choose to sue the education department that graduated them


Or, the order fails, for reasons CLEARLY outlined in the rules, and the player simply has to accept that fact that it ain't a video game with cheat codes for "god mode" and sometimes all doesn't go one's way.


That tone isn't necessary in response to my posts.

First, I wasn't being a jerk. We have enough of that already.

Second, I posted relevant oversights in the rules:

- some are wrong. The sequence listed in the pc combat algorithm is one.
- many are misleading. Say what you will, but when it says "Force Needed to Threaten", it suggests to a new player that they actually need that many troops to Threaten.
And "...must overcome the pc's intrinsic defenses which are based on size, loyalty, fortifications, and the presence of their defending armies" likewise suggests enemy armies act -- like fortifications and high loyalty -- as a deterrent rather than an absolute prohibition. Yes, there is better text under the order itself -- and it should be clarified under the earlier description.

Third, I didn't personalize any of this, and you don't need to either. If I've ever ordered Threat in the presence of enemy armies, it must have been more years ago than I can remember. I just gave it as an example of something woefully misleading.


not cry unfair at the rules themselves. It's that simple. Get over it.

You know, I was just talking about the rulebook, which can be improved. Leave the personal attacks out of it.

Nanook

[Player]

Nanook,

I apologize for my indelicate choices in phrasing my points. No personal attacks were intended. I admit, I have felt a certain degree of frustration in regards to this and other similar threads in regards to the rules on the mepbmlist@yahoogroups at different times.

I certainly understand and appreciate many peoples concerns over the percieved unclear MEPBM rules. Clint has asked for players input towards a new and improved rule book project. They hope to clear up many of these difficulties in understanding. I have submitted multiple pages to the company in this regard.

But I guarantee you that my posts above in this thread will certainly speak for a great many of the experienced vets in the game, including many who had replied to mepbmlist threads. I have myself started on the "ReWrite the Damn Things!" argument until I looked more closely into the scope of the problem when Clint requested player submissions for their new edition project.

I believe the rules, may on occasion, sacrifice crystal clarity for the sake of brevity. But, all the information is there. Excepting the 2 errors beaten to death already (they might even get fixed one day...), the rules do not lie. All other concerns I have seen, including all of these here, source their true causes in player error and misinterpretation - but it isn't the books fault any more than my horrible slice is my driver's fault.

Clint sent off a package to all interested parties. It included the information and examples of the types of things they were looking for in their new edition. I suggest you ask then about this information and take a good look at it. I quite quickly determined that they would at a MINIMUM triple the length of the book itself.

Would that make things more "clear"? No, it would make it worse, turning off new players even more so then their first 2 games worth of frustration with the rules as they exist. A 300 page rule book is not the way to go.

What's the solution? "learned in the course of play" is the standard company answer. How else are you to accomodate the myriad of possible situations that may or may not come about, and make them all "clear" in the rule book? Not possible, simply not.

You have obviously had a problem recently with a population centre combat. Have you been in communication with the company in regards to the exact situation in your game? Please do so and have them either confirm the rule book is wrong, or shed light on what happened in your situation. As I've stated, it's worked properly for me.

Regards,

Brad

[fragilesi]

Okay, I think that I wish I'd never asked, I was just curious and interested in the opinions of others. I really can't see why such a question has caused such angst.

I'll go on record as saying I never wanted to criticise the game which I think is absolutely fabulous in itself. Sure it has some problems or imperfections but overall it's simply the best.

Not sure I'd say the same about the atmosphere on the forum though!

Simon.

[darrell]

Hey don't be sorry Simon...if nothing else we are all reminded that the rules can sometimes be vague and/or contradictory. While this thread did get a little caustic, I honestly don't think that anyone was trying to personally slight anyone else. Just another limitation of communicating with people you've never met via text.

To you and everyone else out there, please don't hesitate to post your questions, thoughts, theories, etc. about the game. In the end I think we all benefit from discussing some of the "gotchas" and inconsistencies in the rules. As long as the conversation remains civil then I think it's a great way to share knowledge about the game.

[nanook]

Not sure I'd say the same about the atmosphere on the forum though!

It's ok, Simon -- no grudge here, and it was still a helpful thread: Brad's right that the orders section of the rulebook is the most reliable part, and I'd never thought of it that way. Besides, I wasn't criticizing the game, which I love.

Brad, thanks for the thoughful reponse. Sorry I took offense, and I'm with you that we don't need an enormous rulebook that explains every detail.

But the book could be more clear. If we do lose many newcomers for what they perceive as unfair rulings, we'd all benefit from a rulebook improvement. I wrote an economics section for the update, which I think answers the most common questions in half a page. If four more pages in the book reduces the questions for Clint and prevents newcomer frustration, that seems worthwhile.

Will the update be overdone, and are we better off leaving it alone? Maybe. You remember all the posts on that debate.


About the combat algorithim, we've talked about it -- you came up with the Larry Theory of PC combat.

The rulebook states that PC combat is resolved before troop losses are counted, but I discovered that if you attack a pc with sufficient strength -- in this case, with a combat arty -- but so little Constitution that the army is eliminated (which was fine with me -- I just wanted to destroy the pc and move my commander home), the pc miraculously survives.

This is expressly contradicted in the details of pc combat, which computes the impact on the pc before the troop losses.

Incidently, the commander was fine -- it was not treated as unsuccessful pc assault -- but he brought home no glory.

Your Larry Theory says that there must be one surviving footsoldier -- say, Larry -- to dance on the burning ruins. No Larry, no combat victory.

Dan

[Clint]

Would that make things more "clear"? No, it would make it worse, turning off new players even more so then their first 2 games worth of frustration with the rules as they exist. A 300 page rule book is not the way to go.

That's what we've created Bofa for - 44 pages long and much more simple. We also try to get experienced players to help out in any normal game.

What's the solution? "learned in the course of play" is the standard company answer. How else are you to accomodate the myriad of possible situations that may or may not come about, and make them all "clear" in the rule book? Not possible, simply not.

As far as I was aware we do try to help out here. Just ask and often you'll get a useful answer. We can't always do it, either the question is 4 pages long (or the answer would be) or there are a number of "solutions".

So with the new rule book I am hoping that it will cover in depth examples, advice and tactical advice. Most of this is the sort of thing players ask for. It will also have experienced questions answered in some depth. Clearly this will be too much for some people - that's why we're wondering about splitting the new rulebook into a few sections. Help very welcome with this project though.

Clint

[Brad Jenison]

Simon; never feel like you can't ask a question. I don't know what Arthedain's problem is, he seemed to be the only one who really flamed at you in particular. Perhaps there's history there I don't know about. I think though some of the other posts in this thread just show how strongly many people feel about the game. Are the rules unclear on some points? Certainly and they should be. In nearly all the orders discussed in your thread my opinion is that you shouldn't have perfect ability to predict anything, certainly doesn't happen in real life. That is why I answered you in the manner I did.

So keep on asking when you feel the need to, disregard those who respond like a jerk and glean what usable information you can from those who do post thoughtful and considered views.
I've played several games, but still learn little bits in each and every new one. For example until my last game I thought characters on ships were safe from assassination. Not so, if they are in coastal waters they can be killed by an assassin. Asking questions when you are in doubt is good, as there are probably others wondering the same thing as you and the discussions hopefully make all of us just a wee bit better at the game.

Best of luck

Brad

[Player]

Larry! RRIIIIIIgghhhhhht! Forgot him.

Yes, Clint and Co are excellent at responding to multiple newbie questions. I've played with an extremely quick to email newbie who inundated poor MEGames with multiple queries during the first 5 turns of his first game. 1) Clint at al were exceptionally patient and fair in their responses to him at all times, even though I'm sure they were temtped to tell him to "read the f'in rules already!!!". 2) Clint, y'er welcome, he mostly asks ME these things now..! ;)

Just thinking that a "Newbie Package" of relatively short essays that suplement the rules and START with a focus on teamwork might be the way to go, with further in depth resources available on the web if necessary.

Cheers,

the Other Brad

[Arthedain73]

Brad (not the other Brad), Simon asked a question and I answered it. He then required the rationale, which suggests an ulterior motive. As Clint has pointed out, persons requring authority and credentials should contact Harley.

[LGTilley]

Originally posted by Player


As for the seige order, well, that's obviously an error in the program, no? How is a navy, without anchoring ships, expected to cut off all the roads leading to the population centre that happens to be on coastal flatlands or have docks? Silly that, but those poor much-maligned rules take the heat...

Well you're confusing program error with lack of internal consistency in the game design here. It's less stupid than having resources fly across the map via magical caravans.

You could justify it with historical precident about naval blockades and coastal towns dependent upon ship borne imports - Ancient Carthage etc. But more interesting perhaps, is to think about where the strange rule comes from: It's one of a number of bad fixes for a botched system, that of navies. If you try running Corsairs, it soon becomes very frustrating due to the stupid number of extra pickup ships orders which have to be given to run a successful naval campaign. It's this aspect, which unfairly peanalises navies vis a vis armies, which must have been apparent to the original designers/playtesters. But instead of just making the pickup ships order automatic (or rather warships picked up by default when an army moves to sea) they botched it by bringing in all the daft stuff about orders where then navy "does not anchor ships, mut must be able to anchor ships".

And don't mention armies on the shore being able to defend their navies at sea against other navies. Makes me puke.

[lionatus]

Taking the point of the Reaction 2 encounters again. FLEE will get a char away from say the Demon of Aglarond. Consequently I have had this same encounter withourt issuing the FLEE order assuming the char would. The char was subsequently attacked presumably for hanging around too long.

To be safe follow common sense.

With the 498 order. The no. of troops present can be calculated as a percentage of those needed thus enhancing the chances of taking the pop centre. Added toi the command rank minus pop.centre loyalty and value of forts gives the answer. Positive usually means almost near perfect levels of success whereas negative usually mean failure. Gothmog indeed does not need the rulebook.

[Brad Jenison]

I've had the same thing happen to me, not with the Demon but a dragon that I elected no response for assuming that I would flee, instead that dragon chomped my character leaving him for dead. Choosing no response is not exactly the same as choosing to flee. You may be right hanging around instead of fleeing immediately can sometimes have bad consequences.

[Player]

Originally posted by LGTilley
But instead of just making the pickup ships order automatic (or rather warships picked up by default when an army moves to sea) they botched it by bringing in all the daft stuff about orders where then navy "does not anchor ships, mut must be able to anchor ships".

Well what if you don't Want to send the guys away with all the ships? What if you want 2 navies, one mostly transports and the other all the warships? All the various permutations of possible choice, depending upon your strategy/plans/desires cannot be taken into account. At least 798 is after 765...just imagine...

Correct my simple logic, but doesn't "automation" "automatically" remove individual choice, however idiosyncratically it may manifest itself?

While I haven't pushed the naval game too much myself (5500 dead in the water at Dol Amroth - oh well, time to recruit cav...) the "does not anchor ships but must be able to anchor ships" makes perfect sense to me, at least in the case of the Threaten pop order. The Commander is Threatening the people, in effect saying "Don't make me come over there..." Well, if he CAN'T come over there, there is no basis to threaten. The failed order is the bluff called, the commander says "Stubborn damn Dunmen" and sails off to try somewhere else.