Super Rhudaur the new GB standard?

[Kitirat]

Is the monster Rhudaur now a "Standard" upgrade for all 1650 Gunboat games? I thought this was a "player request" for a game or two, not the standard GB 1650 set up. Hope so. Looked down at the GB set-up stuff for a turn which ran today and noticed all those upgrades listed.

Personally I find the massive upgrades disturbing, lets give the darks parity on the north and advantage in the south and give the free a fort? (Note, I play both sides equally commonly and am not in a game with these modifications).

A fort on 1910, sure, give him some help, but god, 5 fortification increases and a city and mt upgrade? along with the WK getting a city upgrade?

Anyone who has played with these modifications on either side care to comment? Were the free winning all the gunboat games or something???

If your going to do this, are we going to "correct" the woodmen or dunlend for their inefficeincies? maybe let Harad start with 1-3 free harbors "removed" , give the Dragon Lord a few upgrades as well or give Arthedain a back-up capital when, now that rhudaur doies not have to use his starting armies to really defend, just block, he sends the majority of his forces to take out good old #4?

sounds overly zealous, but I'm just concerned that the flavor of the game will change too vastly when there is parity in all but the southern theater (dark advantage).

If it is going to be the "standard" can we ask for a classic set-up or some such?

See ya,
Ken

[happymadcat]

I agree ithe Rhu improvements are way to much... 1910 Mt/fort and a fort
at 1908 ok but to improve 2208 to MT/F makes DS too powerfull in the
north..

Guy

[Clint]

Can't comment at present as I'm in a game with them.

Clint (player)

As a GM they appear to be what players wanted so I've supported it.

Clint (GM)

[Ed Mills]

Yes indeed. Why have a challenging position requiring equisite skill and non-conventional thinking? Dumb the thing down to the lowest common level, by popular demand. This sort of thing is one, of several reasons, why I have opposed Harley's efforts to 'improve' the game.

Can't wait to see the Kin Strife and see how creative The Company is.

[happymadcat]

There is nothing wrong in improving the game. I can see why ME improved
the DS Rhuduar position in GB due to its need for gold support but improving
2208 was a step too far..

But steps have to be taken in life aswell as ME.

Guy

[thuiatt]

Hopefully we can get some feedback on Rhudaur Upgrade after the games finish.

As Clint says, in the game so can not give my two cents yet.

tim

[Kitirat]

As a GM they appear to be what players wanted so I've supported it.

Clint (GM)

Cool, Is there a specific thread on this, would be interested in reading it, only think I saw stuff in passing.


See ya,
Ken

[Kitirat]

As a GM they appear to be what players wanted so I've supported it.

Clint (GM)

Actually, can we get a tally of free v.s. dark wins before this modification in gunboat? I am rather curious as to if the free are always winning.

If Clint does not have stats, perhaps we can get something together as players. I'll start a "which side won thread for your 1650 gunboat game" in a bit, but no need if Clint has the info.

Thanks,
Ken

[DaveHolt]

I am in 2 GB games (94 & 96) with these experimental WK/Rhu improvements and I was a part of the player group that proposed them.

Without revealing anything about either of those games that is not common knowledge, in one game 2 DS nations (11, 24) have been eliminated by turn 21, and in the other game 3 DS nations (12, 13, 21) have been eliminated by turn 21. no FP nations have been eliminated in either game.

I can't comment further until the game(s) end... If you must decide now, you can look at the data above to decide if you think we "overpowered" the DS...

Now to the more abstract concept of game balance in GB. I firmly believe the FP have a big advantage in GB without modifications to the DS nations that depend on teamwork in normal 1650 to surive. In normal 1650, DS
teams depend on:
- market manipulation to boost economies
- shared intel on character sightings to be able to project character assets to best effect
- shared intel on dragon sightings to put the dragons in the armies needed most
- economic aid & backup pop centers flowing to the isolated DS nations under heaviest concerted FP attack

GB provides none of the above.

As to Kitirat's question about GBs played - I've played in 2 GBs that completed: GB 14 as FK/CL(with mid-game BS add), GB 71 as NG/Duns(with late game NE add). GB 14 lasted until turn 24, ending Dec 04. GB 71 lasted until turn 13, ending July 05. In both of these completed GBs, the FP won. They were played with the traditional pairings and NM/Rhu fort upgrades. Coming out of GB 71, several players caucused and concluded the DS needed beefing up to make the game more "fair & even" and longer lasting. We also highly desired a "no-quit" requiremnent on the players, as player drops are hugely hurtful to a GB side. That was the genesis for the no-quit,"monster" Rhudaur/WK games...

Dave

[Kitirat]

Hey Dave, thanks for the input. I REALLY like the no drop rule. However, in the gunboat games I play in, I generally pair with a friend for the two nations and pick up a thrid when it becomes available (and yes I say when, not if).

In the only completed Gunboat game I have play in it was 2950 and the DS won turn 18 (I was the dog lord in this game) with the Witch King & White Wizard eliminated and only the dwarves, south gondor and rangers remaining on the free side.

In the gunboat I am in now now, it does not have these newer rules.

See ya,
Ken

[Drukarzun]

Personally I find the massive upgrades disturbing, lets give the darks parity on the north and advantage in the south and give the free a fort? (Note, I play both sides equally commonly and am not in a game with these modifications).

...

sounds overly zealous, but I'm just concerned that the flavor of the game will change too vastly when there is parity in all but the southern theater (dark advantage).

Greetings Ken,

Seemed to me the flavor of the old game was a marked advantage to the FP, ceteris paribus. Not sure I even agree with you that the servants have the advantage in the south, as the QA is very vulnerable in GB.

If your experience has been that the DS have the overall advantage, I would suggest that drops played a much bigger role; either that, or the FP were inexperienced (let's be kind here <g>). Hence our experiment in game 94. As Dave pointed out, doesn't seem to have helped as both WK and Rhu are eliminated on turn 21 -- no state secrets here, as dead nations and updated pairings are reported on the 'front sheet' (I think Clint likes to call the cover email to which the turns are attached).

Regards,
Drew

[Mormegil]

As one who previously opposed Dave's theory of disadvantaged DS, I must admit that he has some points. Coordination and teamwork make up a lot of DS strength in normal games, more than on the FP side.
My point of view was somewhat influenced by my experience of being on the receiving end of two (obviously rare) occasions when the FP lost GB games. In GB 136 (then Art&Har combo) and 18 (took SG over on t10 when WM were already out) - both games dragged into the thirties, but the outcome was not in doubt until t20 I guess.
The utter helplessness of most FP combos when facing a DS character assault can be a frustrating experience, but so can be the military inferiority of some DS nations. ME Games has done something to mend this by regrouping the combos, for example the Noldo/Harad combo is a hell of a lot stronger than previous Arthedain/Harad.
I think the beef-up for Rhudaur is necessary (though one can debate about the scale), and even with the improvements, Rhu will have a hard time.
There is one thing though that matters much more than fortifications or combos, and that is player skill. Have one key position (Noldo, CL) be occupied by an inept player, and the whole game will be ruined. There is no chance to give advice for teammates and mistakes can be fatal. So GB, as repeatedly said, is strictly for veterans. MEGames has a responsibility here, but the best way is to set up a game among people you know, and you will have a fun time.

[BaaBaaRox]

There is one thing though that matters much more than fortifications or combos, and that is player skill. Have one key position (Noldo, CL) be occupied by an inept player, and the whole game will be ruined. There is no chance to give advice for teammates and mistakes can be fatal. So GB, as repeatedly said, is strictly for veterans. MEGames has a responsibility here, but the best way is to set up a game among people you know, and you will have a fun time.

Yeah, I agree completely. For the stats I have played in 5 gunboats, DS won 3, FP 1 and DS are currently winning the 5th... mainly because they have a number of the key positions being played very well.

BtW Bernard, I was Cors / Dragonlord in G136... glad to be your nemesis ;-) The way I remember it, QA thankfully sent his Vamag army against you, and I just about managed to break the back of S Harad before both my nations went bankrupt (Cors was at 88%+ tax rate for several turns...)

Cheers
Mike

[happymadcat]

Yeah, I agree completely. For the stats I have played in 5 gunboats, DS won 3, FP 1 and DS are currently winning the 5th... mainly because they have a number of the key positions being played very well.

Cheers
Mike

Hi Mike,

So you dont agree with the Freeps having the advantage in GB as
some other players are claiming? I agree the importance of key
positions being played well in either side is probably the most
important influence on the outcome of the game..

Guy

[BaaBaaRox]

On my experience, DS have the upper hand, but I am sure Clint will have a bigger sameple to draw from.

When I played DkLts / Rhu I really struggled economically and in the end had to let Rhu go to the wall. CL is a better pairing from that point of view.

I can see the case for strengthening Rhu to make it a better standalone nation in the 12v12 scenario. But if you *assume* that every position is played by a strong player, then Harad is hugely dependent on SG sending navy south / CL looking elsewhere and fails the *standalone* test imo. If the object is to give everyone a military game, then its not just the Rhu that needs something, and arguably the CL needs to be nerfed.

How about a NKA until t10 1650 gunboat with SuperRhu? Or how about Easterlings is DS, CL doesnt play and Easterlings and Nmen get upgrades ala super-Rhu?

[happymadcat]

I played in a grudge team recently who replaced Harad with EA just to try
something new.. The EA position would have to be beefed up considerably
for it to be viable.

Yes Harad needs a couple of towers in the South bank...

Guy

[thuiatt]

I still think the free people are stronger. Yes Haradwaith gets nuked, but so do the Witch King, Rhuduar and Dragon Lord. The Corsairs can absorb the loss for the Dragon Lord, but the Witch King and Rhudaur are tough to absorb.

Lets see how the no quit gunboats finish 94 and 96 then we can have some hard data to compare.

tim huiatt

[Mormegil]

I think it's obvious that there a far too many screws to be turned and too many opinions about that, so it seems impossible that we all can agree to new "standard GB rules". so why should GB games not be individual custom games?

this is the way it could be done (IMHO):

1. get together a group of people willing to play a gunboat game, 12 to 24 players (two-player teams or single players) of equal skill, who agree to a no-drop policy
2. agree upon special rules & modifications for the ACTUAL game
3. distribute nation combos PER RANDOM
4. write a journal so others can share after game end
5. have the hell of a game
6. repeat 2-5 as often as you like, with any desired and consensual changes to the setup

For my part I hope that, when GB 94 should be over, we can keep that bunch of people together and start another GB game, thus creating a stable "GB circle" for many games to come. I guess many of us have reached a point where gaming quality greatly depends on competence not only on their own side, but also the opponents. I wouldn't want to miss that.

[DaveHolt]

Tim - please note that in GB 96, CO & DragL are out. So i'm not sure about your point on CO absorbing DragL losses... But as you say, we'll analyze after these games are concluded.

Bernd - bingo! that would be great with me. Though I'm not as keen on the "random" idea as i like some nations (DS or FP) better than others due to play style needed for different nations. But the idea of asking current players if they want another go before opening it up to others would be a fine plan.

It is however interesting to note that there have been drops, even though 94 & 96 are "no-drop" games... Maybe we don't invite the droppers back...

[Drukarzun]

this is the way it could be done (IMHO):

1. get together a group of people willing to play a gunboat game, 12 to 24 players (two-player teams or single players) of equal skill, who agree to a no-drop policy
2. agree upon special rules & modifications for the ACTUAL game
3. distribute nation combos PER RANDOM
4. write a journal so others can share after game end
5. have the hell of a game
6. repeat 2-5 as often as you like, with any desired and consensual changes to the setup



I thought that was exactly what we had done with game 94, with item 6 being implied rather than explicit. Btw, I kept a journal for the first part of the game, until Dave said he wasn't keeping one, so I let mine lapse.

Drew

[Drukarzun]

It is however interesting to note that there have been drops, even though 94 & 96 are "no-drop" games... Maybe we don't invite the droppers back...

Hell no we don't invite the droppers back!

[DaveHolt]

I thought that was exactly what we had done with game 94, with item 6 being implied rather than explicit. Btw, I kept a journal for the first part of the game, until Dave said he wasn't keeping one, so I let mine lapse.

Drew

LOL. oh sure. blame it on me...

[Mormegil]

C'mon you guys can't let me down like that! I made a journal entry of about ten lines for every five turns, like 0-5, 6-10 and so on. Thats not that much work. So grab your pdfs and catch up with me, will ya! :D

[DaveHolt]

Bernd,
i hereby promise to deliver more post-mortem analysis of my play than 10 lines per five turns. there. satisfied?

Dave

[Drukarzun]

LOL. oh sure. blame it on me...

Only when it's your fault... <g>

[Drukarzun]

C'mon you guys can't let me down like that! I made a journal entry of about ten lines for every five turns, like 0-5, 6-10 and so on. Thats not that much work. So grab your pdfs and catch up with me, will ya! :D

I was writing up a paragraph per turn, for the first, I dunno, 8 or 10 turns. It's just not quite the same to write after the fact, as it is to write with the anticipation of the upcoming turn looming...

[Alain]

Tim - please note that in GB 96, CO & DragL are out. So i'm not sure about your point on CO absorbing DragL losses... But as you say, we'll analyze after these games are concluded.

Bernd - bingo! that would be great with me. Though I'm not as keen on the "random" idea as i like some nations (DS or FP) better than others due to play style needed for different nations. But the idea of asking current players if they want another go before opening it up to others would be a fine plan.

It is however interesting to note that there have been drops, even though 94 & 96 are "no-drop" games... Maybe we don't invite the droppers back...

I am likewise playing in game 96 and I look forward to interesting discussion afterwards.

But whatever the reason, I do not think a player dropping in a no-drop game should be invited back to another no-drop game.

Alain

[happymadcat]

Tim - please note that in GB 96, CO & DragL are out. So i'm not sure about your point on CO absorbing DragL losses... But as you say, we'll analyze after these games are concluded.
..

You're right Dave, the DrL and Cors are a weak pairing.. Cripple the Cors
and that can effectively put both nations out of the game. I would
prefer to see a paring of DogL/Cors and DrL/BS..

Just my 2 cents

Guy

[Woody]

GB games I have played in ended

36 = FP
136 = DS
84 = FP
97 = DS
6 = DS

No distinct FP advantage here. IMO drops rather then game balance have been the major decider in most of these games so I am interested to see how 94 & 96 pan out. There are also three other GB games running presently 97, 7 and 19 not sure if these are no-drops as well.

In the beginning I did advocate changing the Rhu start-up, but now I am not so sure I believe fiddling with the rules to attain game balance is the way forward. It is difficult without factoring out drops to say if one side has an advantage or not and also playing styles have evolved.

The only Rhudaur I know to have finished a GB intact was in 97 and he put that fact down to none of the FP NW nations turning up. I played it once myself and was creamed by turn9.

I was amazed how little, well actually nothing, the WK did to help out, this was also a common theme on game end from other Rhudaur players. GB is a different mentality although to even the newest of WK players there must be certain obvious benefits of lending the smallest of hand to your DS neighbour the fact that you don't talk to them, see their pdf's makes many/most revert to looking after their own and considering the Rhu as a useful little speedbump.

Does this need a rule change or just better play from the WK/DS. Or maybe this is good play as the 7/8 turns of quiet means the Dragons/Curses/Agents are on line and the NW FP have disposed of Rhu but have a real problem with the WK.

Having played or am presently playing 8 GB games it is actually interesting to see how with no collusion the playing styles have adapted and changed. I would agree the DrL / Cors combination is now much harder to play as it has become a primary target for the FP especially with the SG/Eoth combination.

Dwarves take GG, Eoth goes round the backdoor and takes his back-up, rest of Eoth go after DolG and the SG fleet pops up in Corsair land may not be fatal but is at least quite a depressing scenario and all within 2/3 turns.

However, doesn't mean we should change the set-up to help them out, maybe we will see the CL moving agents to cover the approach to the DrLo back-up and his+LR cavalry heading for North Harad.

Conversely you can take the opposite argument and say it is not necessarily that the game has developed standardish openings but the fact that the SG/Wood + Noldo/Eoth combinations were changed to SG/Eoth that means this is a much more natural strategy for the SG/Eoth to adopt.

Maybe the solution is find pairings that leave no pair with any obvious target/strategy (easier said then done). Or to allocate pairs at random so that even no-one knows what combination they are up against (also with its weaknesses as you know that a Card/Arth or CL/QA combination would be drawn out the hat.)

Having said all that I think I have contradicted myself twice and come to no firm conclusions only to say that there are many nuances to GB that are yet to be explored that means no one really knows if one side or the other has an advantage.

[thuiatt]

[QUOTE=DaveHolt]Tim - please note that in GB 96, CO & DragL are out. So i'm not sure about your point on CO absorbing DragL losses... But as you say, we'll analyze after these games are concluded.

I actually like the Dragon lord/Corsair pairing and would be willing to take my chances against Harad/Noldo and Southerngondor/Eothraim. If you get any help from the QA and or Cloud Lord throws in a couple of agents every now and then you can really do some damage. I think as the Dragon Lord however, you do need to be able to get one or two agent artifacts to help your nation out.

The problem in general is the Dragon Lord and Rhudaur are just week postions it doesn't matter who they are paired with. If you run into a great military Haradwaith player, then yes I think the Corsairs will be in trouble also, but it should leave Mordor unscathed for a while.

Hopefully we can get most of game 94 to play the game again.

tim

[BaaBaaRox]

How about a different approach... make WK Rhu one of the pairings, and xfer a CL town to each of them, otherwise standard set up. Overall the DS dont get any stronger - but WK Rhu get to coordinate vs the onslaught of the 6 or so nations that can come gunning for them...

[Alain]

How about a different approach... make WK Rhu one of the pairings, and xfer a CL town to each of them, otherwise standard set up. Overall the DS dont get any stronger - but WK Rhu get to coordinate vs the onslaught of the 6 or so nations that can come gunning for them...

I have suggested that to Clint before and I think it is definitely worth a try in one game. The drawback is of course there is no safe fallback in Mordor in this scenario and potentially there will be no additional support send from the other DS. If this position is not forgotten by the other DS and they send some (agent) support at least, I think this would be a good sollution.

Alain

[DaveHolt]

I think the WK/Rhu combo is destined for early death.

[happymadcat]

I think the WK/Rhu combo is destined for early death.

In most cases I would agree; unless both raise taxes to 80% and
attacks with everything... It would need a very agressive player
to have any chance of working

[seejaie]

And one major town can't keep either of them alive- ICU for a failed state is much more than a secure capital. What kind of imperialist foreign policy is that?

[BaaBaaRox]

I think the WK/Rhu combo is destined for early death.


Well, maybe. But based on the 5 gunboats I have been in, I would fancy my chances (or at least relish the challenge) ;)

It would be quite hard for Cardolan and Arthedain to commit to all-out attack knowing what the combined might of WK and Rhu can do... and I reckon a good WK/Rhu player can count on either Card or Arth or Dun having a bad hair day for whatever reason...

As Rhu in gunboat 86 I (humbly) thought I did pretty well despite Arth and Card and Duns focusing mostly on me (I was closest) simply because I could see them coming... if I had got any support from WK or financially from the other nation (my DkLts was broke big time having lost 3621 and 3120 early on and had ****ty luck with camps) I reckon I could have had a nice emmy position with enough dragons to frustrate FP attempts an Rhuduar-icide for many many turns. Also in that game Rhu managed to bankrupt Duns with just 600HC, but that is another story :p

[br_fisher]

I think that the Rhudaur modifications are overwhelming-- I expect a massive shift in the flow of the game in the northwest where WK / Rhudaur stalemate the Free-- I'll be interested to hear how it plays out.

I agree that Rhudaur needed the extra fort that it was given at 1910, but a city/castle, a second fort, and then a major town/fort? Is the goal to create military parity in the northwest? If so, you're unbalancing the game overall-- the free need to prevail in the northwest to help in other theaters where they are more vulnerable. Are we going to give Dunland a castle at his capital to make up for his vulnerability?

I've not seen any unfairness in game balance from the gunboat games I've played-- each side seems to have an equal chance of victory. The darks are hurt in gunboat because they can't coordinate dragons and agents as easily, but the Free can't talk to each other and can't see that, say, the Northmen are in trouble.

I'll be curious to see how the modification plays out, but it seems unbalancing to me.

[Ed Mills]

Everything in this game is subtlely inter-related. You make a minor change and it causes ripples from map edge to map edge and turn zero to turn last. The 'improvers' don't see this, or don't care. They just want to ride their hobby horse.

[Kitirat]

Score Card Thus far:

Gunboat 1650 games:

FP wins: 5
DS wins: 7

Ok so thus far, just from the people sampled it looks like a pretty even set-up with DS having a slight upper hand.

Why then are we improving the DS position?

See ya,
Ken

[seejaie]

I am still a bit of a newb - have there only been 12 completed gunboat 1650 games ever? Or is that in some current form? What was the difference between the format of those 12 games and the format of the ones before it?

[Kitirat]

"I am still a bit of a newb - have there only been 12 completed gunboat 1650 games ever? Or is that in some current form? What was the difference between the format of those 12 games and the format of the ones before it?"

No, these are just the 12 people have responded being in so far and seeing ended.

Most GB games recently have a fort at 1910 and 4217. Some of the older games had arthedain and harad as a pairing, but now it is noldo harad and athedain/woodmen.

The games with the super rhudaur are still ongoing and no one has one as far as I know.

See ya,
Ken

[SmokeYou]

Hi Dave Holt (teammate in 94) and others,

I play in GB86 (ending this turn 32 with evils winning) the Corsairs and DrgL and love the position. SG sent his starting capital fleets to South Harad and I had to battle them. But that was the last time he had a fleet land on Corsairs or Harad lands. I sent out navies of 10-15 warships with
1 transport to engage SG/Harad/SE’s fleets. SE sent his fleet at me early
and I destroyed it in 2 separate battles. SG’s fleets I destroyed in a number of navy battles. One such battle occurred over 3 turns when I was picking down his giant warship/transport navy. It took planning with navy placement and even a decision to move out an attacking navy with troops of mine to cut off SG’s fleet so my next navy could finally take SG’s transports out. It was fun as this was by far the most navy battles I have ever had. DrgL and Corsairs never sold any timber so I could build warships. Other points:
-Turn 1 or 2 I raised Corsairs taxes to 86% to help support DrgL and my huge armies. But than you have to make sure you have some type of emmy or emmy combo going around to your MT’s to get their loy up before the goods come take them with emmys. I used a number of 10c/10a/10e (10a to avoid kidnaps) commanders in 100MA armies. Once you take South Harad you can lower your taxes.
-DrgL got toasted in Mirkwood very fast as NM armies in Mirkwood also attacked DrgL’s capital and my “3” attemps to reveal SE cities failed. If I would have revealed 1 of them they would have lost it. DrgL than played purely defensive in back of Mordor making sure I could spot when a good army was approaching and had MA blocking armies in place (could not afford HI). Than I would bring in a dragon once I saw incoming armies, ect…. DrgL did get some mage and curse arties but seemed that DrkL or
QA and others beat me to most agent artys. Got a curse squad together (to late to save IK/DogL/FK capitals) but that helped a ton with taking back North Pass and Ithil Pass.
-I was able to get DrkL position once it was dropped (Rhu died) and it was near bankruptcy. Worked hard with help from Corsair’s and other kingdom’s giving gold. (this game you could send a diplo every 5 turns). The point here is that Kingdoms that have gold still need to guess who might need some and send it to them when they are able.

I can go on and on but I enjoy the corsairs/drgL position.

John aka GB94 teammate of Dave’s and GB86 Cor/DrgL/DrkL




[QUOTE=DaveHolt]Tim - please note that in GB 96, CO & DragL are out. So i'm not sure about your point on CO absorbing DragL losses... But as you say, we'll analyze after these games are concluded.

[Kitirat]

From the lastest Bree.

Total Dark wins in Gunboat 1650 games: 2
Total Free wins in gunboat 1650 games: 1

Thus the total for 1650 format now at (note that none of these are BEFORE the rhudaur enhancements. In otherwords this is not because of the improvements, but before them):
Dark: 9
Free: 6

Also interestingly from Bree:
Total Dark Servant wins in 1650: 6
Total Free wins in 1650: 1

Total across both 1650 and 2950:
Dark: 9
Free: 2

(LOL the dark side even won the 3 way 1000 game).

The point: I believe people are used to the flow of the game now that we use email and have a wealth of time and information to plan. This has a signifiant impact and is an advantage for the dark side over-time based on their character resources and ability to more rapidly corridinate economy and troops with their close proximity on the map (for the majority of them). When Gunboat is played and the corridnation returns more to the levels of the original game design, people used to playing the dark side see the drop in corridination and become concerned about balance.

However as the facts have shown thus far from data recieved, if anything, Gunboat equals out the playing field and the two sides return to more of the original power levels of the game. The darks still win more, but it is not in as great an advantage.

Thus I am concerned as to why we are modifying the game to a dark servant advantage, and so overwhelmingly?

Why are we making the winning team stronger again?

The flow of the game tends to have the NW darks die off along with the dragon lord. It is the time it takes for this to happen which is often the gauge of the players. Meanwhile, the darks often gain advantage in the south and east and thus the flow of a classic 1650 game.

I'll await to see how the alterations effect the game, but I see no good coming from this.

See ya,
Ken

[seejaie]

We are making the DS stronger because good is dumb.

Yea, if those numbers continue, its a bit of an indictment of the buffed rhudaur.

[Ed Mills]

Kitirat: Are you talking about Bree #30 (December 05), or something more recent? I'm asking because I have not received anything more recent than #30. Thanks.

[Kitirat]

Bree 31, went out last week. If you need me to send it to ya let me know.

[Ed Mills]

Thanks Ken.