1000 Set-ups

[Clint]

Just curious to get some feedback on the 1000 changes we've made recently.
Generic feedback would be interesting as well here.

Clint

[DaveHolt]

I participated in FA 144 & 145 last year in the midst of the FA rules upgrade. And I just now designed and submitted 2 nations for the new FA GB 48. I really like the new regions better than the ones we had last year, especially the one-nation per region rule. This will give nations (even ones in congested regions) a chance to get their act together prior to being pounced upon by the enemy. I think the new SNA bonus cash for unpopular/poor-production regions in addition to the prior pop upgrades is also a nice touch. So all in all, I think the rules are indeed an improvement. The modification to cost for different skill class also reflects the value of those starting character types and is a good change. A50 max is also good.

Good work and kudos to everyone who has been participating in the fasup group to get to this point!

Dave

[Halex13]

It was so easy, it confused me, LOL

[Scavenger]

I like the new FA changes. I had given up on the FA after my second game where my nation was pounced on by an enemy team that had the kidnap/assass bonus and double scouts. It really made my day when I saw that my four characters in my capital army were kidnapped on turn 2. (it downhill from there) ;-) With the new changes, that won't happen as fast which should make a better game.

Scavenger

[happymadcat]

It was so easy, it confused me, LOL

Hey! You just copied the map I sent you!! Lol :p

[Halex13]

Hey! You just copied the map I sent you!! Lol :p



Yeah OK, but you stole my SNA's, so I had to change mine around, and still had to change some of the pops from your "copied" map, good thing I didn't copy off your test in school, I'd still be a 40 yr old Freshmen, LOL

[happymadcat]

Yeah OK, but you stole my SNA's, so I had to change mine around, and still had to change some of the pops from your "copied" map, good thing I didn't copy off your test in school, I'd still be a 40 yr old Freshmen, LOL

Lol, you saying you arent a 40 year old freshmen? :p Hmmm, now your
SNA's were totally different but ok... :confused:

[Clint]

I know there's a lot more 1000 players out there - care to comment? I'd like to know if we're going in the right direction here.

Clint

[DennisBarry]

Well, I've only set up in two games now; one old and one new. I think the newer regions were a great idea as it gives everyone at least one reliable PC set up due to the... uh... orange dots on the new map. At least, I think they were orange. It's useful since insurance is out the window nowadays.

Also, the latest character design rules seem a bit more even. Thanks for not getting rid of that perfect A40 w/ C10 & stealth 10 as a Price bonus for 800 gold... even though I didn't take it this time.

My 20 Won worth (about $0.02 USD),
Dennis

[Kitirat]

Overall excellent, even the new players I helped get into the game understood most of it and the excel fille from Mulka is really well done.

There are some minor things I have noticed in the 2 games I've been in, mostly involving some of the regions (south mirkwood and north mirkwood come to mind) and their general poor set-up for advantage ratio, but in most cases minor. I'd still love to see a way to give more remote regions (those surrounded by enemies like Rhun is in 43) gain some boon to help their surviability as this would likely decrease drops a bit (not that rhun dropped), but over all it is a sound improvement IMO.

See ya,
Ken

[DaveHolt]

I'd like to second Ken's compliments to Mike Mulka for the FA setup spreadsheet. Brilliant! Mike, you are an excel god.

[Clint]

Thirded... :) Mike for Excel President.

(those surrounded by enemies like Rhun is in 43)

Rhun is one of the most popular regions in the game. With the safe capital hex and eastern edge it's regularly picked so I think that on the whole players feel it's strong.

What's wrong with the Mordor regions? What could be done to improve them?

What other improvements would you make to the format? I quite like the concept of SNA bonuses for the Northern regions vs economy of the south. Maybe we can extend that? (Eg lose 1 village from your set-up gain 2,000 gold to SNAs).

What about other ideas?

Clint

[Kitirat]

Rhun is one of the most popular regions in the game. With the safe capital hex and eastern edge it's regularly picked so I think that on the whole players feel it's strong.

What's wrong with the Mordor regions? What could be done to improve them?
Clint

******
The rhun region is excellent, the component I was mentioning was the isolation from allies/surronded by enemies in game 43.

The mordor regions are some of the best in the game, east mordor is incredible. The regions I feel are an issue currently are southern mirkwood and to a lesser extent northern mirkwood. These are currently "any" regions as in people who pick "any" regularly get placed there. I believe these can probably be fixed by adding them to the free MT instead of Town listing.

One thought is the south is no longer as strong as it was in the past as with the extra pop centers, the game is hitting camp limits turn 4! that is a max of 3 camps per emmy if they are starting characters. This lessens both the emmy advantage (though not enough to reduce the cost IMO) but makes the south's boon a bit less. In otherwords I think the north has come to be roughly as good, or close as the south. And in general, more options tends to allow people more ability to min/max which can break games. So I personally dislike the trade in upgrades for more SNA's.

"What other improvements would you make to the format? I quite like the concept of SNA bonuses for the Northern regions vs economy of the south. Maybe we can extend that? (Eg lose 1 village from your set-up gain 2,000 gold to SNAs)."

The one nice thing here is less starting pop centers.

"What about other ideas?"

Some ideas which spring to mind:
Regional Fortifications: Much like you have the free upgrade and tower for roads and mountains, grant fortifications based on the general threat level of the area:

Near & Far Harad, Eriandor, Dunland, Lorien, Rhudaur, Rhovanion: Tower
Southern Mirkwood, Northern Mirkwood: Fort

Or alternately give them extra pop center gold (1 or 3K) to give them more options.

This would offset these locations general issue of poor general placement and or the fact they often face threats from two sides (or 3 sides for the mirkwoods).

A simple idea regarding improving the position of isolated regions is:

If there are more enemies in adjecent regions (neutrals count as enemies to free and darks, and vice versa) then allies, gain a free 1000 gold for pop centers (or 2000 if your region is not adjecent to the edge of the map or on the sea).

If there are no allies in adjecent regions, gain a free 3000 gold for pop centers (or 5000 if not on edge or sea).

Does the game need it? I think to some extent (though the town to MT upgrade is probably enough) it might needs something for these situations, but a good player is not replaced by a free fort and some probably feel there needs to be weak regions in the game.

Another issue:

From what I see, the neutral team has a real advantage and there is little incentive for the 2-5 "true neutrals" to switch sides (this assumes a 8/8/9 split, both kingdoms are neutral) especially with a kingdom being aligned at start. I really have no idea how to correct this, but it is a big enough issue that that it plus the three way game is enough to lessen the interested of 6 of the 8 guys who play MEPBM with me from wanting to hit 4th age again. I think the idea of no contact between the three sides (and no true neutrals) is GREAT and that concept would get some of them interested, but I know that is a specialty game and not the standard.

One idea would be to simply give the free and darks the (adjecent enemy) bonus described above to pop center money, counting neutrals as foes, but not give it to neutrals.

Another possiblity is to do a 9/9/7 split, but neutrals get both kingdoms. Problem with that is if 4 are true neutrals it leaves a 3 person aligned neutral team which is probably too weak. Another option is a 8/8/9 split with a kingdom each to the free and darks.

As for SNA advantages for the north instead of a free pop center,why not let them cash in the bonus pop centers as you mentioned perhaps at a rate of 1000 for a camp, 2000 for a village, 4000 for a town, and 6000 for a MT?

Just some thoughts.

See ya,
Ken

[wyndhammer]

I think I'm in line w/ Ken's comments about the neutral teaming/lack of incentive. In the very beginning I rather thought this whole scenario was more or less a battle royal but the alliances have held still to this day...ds always wanna pound the free and the neutrals fully expect to be fondled lovingly while they build up for ever then clobber the opposition for a time...

my main gripe is this game has become more robotic than I had hoped...in the beginning it was thought that agents were over powerful, then the claim was emissaries, now my claim is that it's too much cav...no variation occurs anymore in a scenario that was suppoosed to have all kinds of freedom...

w/o fail I see 3-5 nations per side making cav...which is fine...but what's the point in the other snas if all we're going to see everybody's brother making cav and hiring for free? It may be just my own bitchin but I liked 1650 better because every nation has different setups...not every nation looks like another nation albeit the names and faces are different...

I would like to see something along the same lines as what is done w/ the +20 a/k each game...only so many nations get those hire for free/mounts combinations...only so many nations get market/emis combo...blah blah

I just think that if we can limit the mundane choices it forces more creativity for the nations...I took several snas before that it seems dont get much attention and i actually got laughed at for it...why would u take mages and not the mounts and hire for free? What's the point?

The point was to design a nation that was more fun to play IMO...

feel free to tell me I'm daft, I just wanted to comment.

Jaz Morgulhammer (wyndhammer's bro)

[Clint]

Hya Jaz

That's what I've tried to do with the SNAs, change the costings so that they were more interesting and therefore more varied designs. (Ditto for regions on the map, and try to make a more "realistic" approach to pcs in Mountains and on roads). Note we have more varied designs now-adays compared to before.

I think we've succeeded in using the entirely of the map now - and broadly that systems for PC set-ups seems to work (could be tweaked and improved, or even radically re-designed - but generally it seems to offer choice for regional placement).

Ditto for the Characters - they are drastically changed (within the remit that you still have 8 at game start and have 6k to spend but the type of characters have changed drastically over the last few games).

If you've got specific suggestions that would be interesting to hear. One way to effectively limit the SNAs that players pick is to change their costings. So how would you (or anyone else change these?). It's possible that combat nations are too strong but if so then I'd say just slightly so (I've seen them work and not work so I think that they are roughly even to character improvement - which is what I think 1000 is strong on).

Navies is something we specifically tried to address - basically they were un-cost effective - now there seem to be a lot more navy nations out there which I think adds to the game.

Clint (GM)

why would u take mages and not the mounts and hire for free? What's the point?

Well as a player I agree that if you have Mages them you must have Conjure Mounts - unless you're going for Weakness squads. I've done the artefact searching bit as well (done nearly all the items for 412/418/428) and think that that bit is under-rated by players.

But note the above is partially because I rate Cavalry as around 2.5x as good as HI so anything that can get you to cavalry is worth the investment. I'd say it's not the strongest bang for your buck to pick anything else. Hire for free I personally think is over-rated. :D But isn't that part of the beauty of 1000 - that different players have different opinions on what's correct/best?

Clint (player)

[wyndhammer]

Clint,

I am down w/ the sna cost changes...I think I liked the "other" ds spells partly b/c it allowed to try another tilt to the game by allowing other things to be bought w/ the same money...

Personally I think mages are underworked and can add much to the power of an army as well as provide tons of useful intel on one's enemies...so I'm not overly concerned about the not conjuring...

If most people seem happy w/ the current setup situations then I'm cool w/ trying oddball setups to see how much fun I can have...:)

I agree that the setups are better, I like the regional aspect and the improved characters...

all in all I'm a happy guy, no rain on my parade...baby...

Jaz Morgulhammer

[wyndhammer]

:eek: How dare he use my name!!:)

Here are my two cents. The regional placements are quite good for spacing out nations and keeping things from becoming crowded in the beginning. I think the characters aspect is fine, but I think keeping the agents so expensive is a touch overdone. I understand most folks aversion to agents, but I think a few high powered folks is a good thing. Speaking of which, the only aspect of the game I have any quibble with is the mageling's lack of power. The much feared curse squad is history and though a weakness squad is possible it takes forever and a holiday to get it going. Also, I find that artifacts are underutilized in the new scenario. In my opinion, the artifacts are a rich part of the history of MiddleEarth and they have been pushed aside in favor of hiring heavy cavalry for free. Though the age of Elves and Dwarves has passed, the relics remain and most nations have some history with certain items being possessed(the kingdoms come to mind) and others know rumors of such things. I would like to see the artifact cost either lowered or allow every nation to start with at least one artifact at game start for free. This would give an allegiance say 7-8 arties at least and most likely more along with Victory Conditions that give the artie number.
Other than this, I tend to think that limiting cavalry production can be accomplished by limiting each allegiance to say three nations with conjure mounts but I don't see cavalry as an overpowering force if agents/emissaries are able to get their juices flowing; thus 60pt agents at game start and maybe increasing the camp limit by one turn to give folks a better shot at stabilizing the economy with resources/more camps to offset the marauders of magi conjuring mounts and filling the land with horse poop.
Just a thought I wanted to share.
The real wyndhammer
jerry game 40 Freep
game 45 DS

[Socrates]

I really like the region setup and yes...the excel sheet is awesome once one figures out it is all tied together. :)
I would like to see the current setup remain for a while without any more tweaks. I tend to think gamers will make tweaks until it is mutated beyond recognition.
Let us thouroughly explore the game as it stands for a few years before we make more changes. :cool:
Overall VERY happy with the current setup.

Oh and don't be hatin on the heavy cav just because we burn your cities and take your females. I love the smell of horsedung in the morning. Smells like... VICTORY!

[Halex13]

Can someone tell me if there used to be, or still is, an option were you could "move the map" in FA???????

[Tuormo]

Order 942
Type Emissary
Difficulty Average
Prerequisites Character with COMMAND and EMISSARY skill

This order allows a character with emissary and command skill to atempt to move the turn map for their nation. The turn map must stay within the normal map boundaries. Limit one move per turn. The capital hex must be on the map. UNLESS the order returns the capital to the map that turn. Success is based on the Emissary and Command ranks, and how centralized the capital is. The more centralized the capital (or if it's returning to the map) the easier the order. East/West will move the map one hex. North (NE/NW) or South (SE/SW) will move the map two hexes. The cost is 5000 gold up to turn 12, after turn 12 the cost is 3000 gold.

Tuormo

[Halex13]

Thank you sir, you've been very helpful, :)

[lionatus]

Thats something that could be changed. Why and order needs to be used by a CE to move the map is beyond me. A bit of common sense would apply, i.e. Gms discretion. And its not even automatic.

[DaveHolt]

Alan,
it's a game mechanic like any other. GM discretion should be taken out of it in this type of thing. Let the program run with it's probability models. that way whatever happens is "chance" and not the GM's fault.

I think it's cool that there's a game mechanic to move the map. I bet it doesn't get used nearly as often as is warranted. Sort of like building roads and such.

Dave

[Clint]

Okay looks like we're going in the right direction here with all the bits and pieces for 1000. I think I agree, see how this develops and then look at updating it later on. Thanks for all the feedback (ironically the one player that voted against the changes never played 1000 and doesn't play the game so that's a tad strange... :rolleyes: )

Alan: Orders - the same argument could be made for any choice that is made in the game. All take an order (or leave out an order that you could have done). Isn't that part of the game?

Clint

[Rollin Roberts]

OK....sanity check. The excel spreadsheet is good, but has glitches. Can't go into at the moment...currently in a game with Mike and we are not on the same team (yet?). He is an excel guru though......

I've taken to playing FA instead of 1650 as I enjoy the setup and the unplanned first turn ability. No one knows what anyone else is going to do. BUT, the set up is too tedious. The bonuses for region placement are interesting, but add to the confusion. So much so, that in a recent game, several nations had to have corrections made. With that said....ME was great (as usual) in correcting the mistakes, but someone not so versed in the game could have missed the problems and played on to their disadvantage.

I also think the restrictions on agents is too much. I played an agent nation in one of the first FA games...had 40 Agents, +20K/A and started with 3 60rank agents.....my agents continuosly missed targets and were in fact captured or killed so many times it wasn't even funny. In game 185 (I think that was the game) I had agents again and ran into exactly the same problems. In other games the agents of fellow teammates just seemed lack luster.

Now with that said....I don't usually play agents.....I don't like playing agents and avoid that setup.

I think mages are still just too weak. Very little insentive to play mages or to even have one as an initial character.

I'd also like to see nations be able to start with more artifacts than they do.

And with THAT said....I still prefer FA.

Rollin

[Rollin Roberts]

Ken had some points that I'd like to comment about

Another issue:

From what I see, the neutral team has a real advantage.

I disagree....if the DS and Free decide to just eliminate the neutral threat, then it is just a matter of time. I've done this in the past through heavy diplomatic negotiations once the neuts were determined to be aligning

and there is little incentive for the 2-5 "true neutrals" to switch sides (this assumes a 8/8/9 split, both kingdoms are neutral) especially with a kingdom being aligned at start. I think that there is still a great incentive to join the DS or Free when playing a neutral. The strength of either side is multiplied when a neutral joins as it is a +1 nation for one team and -1 for another.

I really have no idea how to correct this, but it is a big enough issue that that it plus the three way game is enough to lessen the interested of 6 of the 8 guys who play MEPBM with me from wanting to hit 4th age again. I think the idea of no contact between the three sides (and no true neutrals) is GREAT and that concept would get some of them interested, but I know that is a specialty game and not the standard.I enjoy the diplomacy so this option of inability to contact others would not be an improvement in my opinion.

Rollin

[Clint]

"I really have no idea how to correct this, but it is a big enough issue that that it plus the three way game is enough to lessen the interested of 6 of the 8 guys who play MEPBM with me from wanting to hit 4th age again."

If you're not a big fan of the Neutral impact (if I read this correctly) why not go with the Grudge format (either 12v12 or the 3 way game?) That way you don't have the issue (good or bad) of Neutrals impacting.

Clint

[Clint]

Regional choices, IMO, are a great success. In the past we constantly had to bump players to locations they hadn't choosen - the south being particularly well chosen and that annoyed players no end. Now you know where you'll be on the map, get to set-up appropriately and have a safe capital choice even if you don't get everything you want. I think that is a major boon.

It also rewards players for being in the North (and other regions of the map) (rather than penalise them as the old system did) and uses a lot more of the map which I think adds interest and variability to the game. With the SNA minor changes (bonus for being in the North) then it adds an extra twist IMO to set-up for the game. (Sometimes you need just that extra 1k SNA to do your set-up for example).

I agree it is more complex (but like all things once you've done it once then you know what to do), but the guaranteed capital tick-box was also complex and caused no end of confusion. I don't think we'll be tweaking it much for the short-term though as it looks fine to me (and from the feedback for others) so there's that benefit.

Agent question - well I guess that one will run and run... ;) (My own experience as a player that 3 60 rank agents with stealth with +20k/a would do rather well... :eek: )

Clint

[happymadcat]

I liked the new setup but I've only had to do one 4th age setup before
and that was a kingdom. I agree the regiional choices helps the Northen
players but I think a bigger reward should be given to the north east players
who suffer from terrible production.. An extra 3k SNA would be in order..

And yes I agree with Clint 3 60 agents with stealth and +20 k/a are
lethal... Its how you play them and Clint can testify to that in G12..

Guy

[Clint]

"An extra 3k SNA would be in order.. "

Way too strong IMO. Why the NE not just the North? I think the mix is fine. I'd be tempted by extra points for SNAs but at present I feel they are okay.

Clint

[happymadcat]

The regions with poor production, so I guess that counts Eriador aswell..
It makes a too large a difference between the poor production regions, Northen
Wastes, Rhionavvon and Eriador and the rest. Maybe a +3k is too much
but a +2k wouldnt be..
Just my 2 cents

Guy

[Clint]

But they get an extra Major Town already. Say @60% tax that's 4,500 extra gold per turn on down south (say 3 camps), plus additional recruitment and b/up safety. (Note I agree that their economy is not great - hence the improvement).

And 1500 SNA gold bonus. Opinions welcome.

Clint

[happymadcat]

Thats all well and good but safe camping is terrible especially for Rhionavon.
For example most players can safetly camp in their regions and gain good
product and gold in the camping window but the three most lacking
in products, Eriador, NW or Rhionvavon find that very hard.. This is
what makes the crucial difference between a succesfull nation and nearly
has been in 4th age IMO..

I'm not playing either of those 3 again can't you tell.. Lol Give me Rhu,
Agmar, Forlindon, Lorien or any of the south nations anytime..

Guy

[Grizzly]

I really have no idea how to correct this, but it is a big enough issue that that it plus the three way game is enough to lessen the interested of 6 of the 8 guys who play MEPBM with me from wanting to hit 4th age again. I think the idea of no contact between the three sides (and no true neutrals) is GREAT and that concept would get some of them interested, but I know that is a specialty game and not the standard.

If they are interested in a 3-way scenario please send them my way at BairG@nasd.com. I'm getting players together for a 3-way 4th Age game. Anyone else feel free to contact me as well. We're only a couple of players away from where Clint said he would post the game to the 'Games Filling' section.

Specific details can be found here:

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/mepbmlist/message/18889?l=1

and also in this very forum under "Drumming up interest...".

Greg

[Clint]

So why not camp outside your "safe" area? That's what I do all the time. Or play a less active Emmissary nation (note with the new pcs most camp limits are hit much earlier so ...)

Or don't choose a Northern nation... :)

Clint

[DaveHolt]

I agree with Clint. Camp outside your map. Do it strategically. Think.

And with respect to the complaint from someone that the setup was too complex, I humbly disagree. I *really* enjoyed thinking through the setup and all of the ramifications of this decision vs. that decision, etc. For me, that's big fun.

[happymadcat]

Gee, camp outside the map.. I never would have thought of such a tactic..
Seriously now; in a GB it really does hurt a couple of nations who in the
limited camping window will land half the time on already created camps.
while having to camp outside their map.

Setup took 30 mins... Great Excel sheet..

[DaveHolt]

Guy - in FA GB, you'll want those camps outside your map. they're useful for all sorts of things beyond production:

a. stage a mage there that can do ScryArea & PrenMgy from a forward position to get you more map info that you don't yet have.
b. army food resupply
c. emmie training en-route to places
d. agent training en-route to places

etc.. And I'm sure you'll think of lots smarter ideas than those. Point is, to setup camps in good strategic locations is a bit of a crapshoot (i.e. did someone else camp there first or beat you to it on the 555), but it can payoff downstream. I bet the FA GB games are going to be very long games...

enjoy!
Dave

[Grizzly]

I bet the FA GB games are going to be very long games...

Game 44 certainly seems to be shaping up that way..

[cable]

FA SUCKS!!!!first of all another player's popctr was placed in my region with a tower on it and I was told It would not make a difference by a gm(this is not the response I expected) the tower was later removed but not the popcenter(problem not solved).then problems with meow and I was special serviced never did get it working correctly since the gm I was dealing with didnot know how it works(problem not solved).I switched to automagic for my FA game two turns of things working correctly now i am SS AGAIN!!!!DO NOT PLAY FA there are way to many problems but if you do play take hire armies for free and conjure mounts your enimies sure will anything else is a waste.

OTIS

[DaveHolt]

Well Otis, sounds like you're not a happy man.

I agree that Hire armies and conjure mounts are powerful. But I think there are lots of other combinations that are also powerful now and that work well against a nation w/Hire armies & conjure Mounts...
I bet there are lots more SNA combinations now days as the costs have been balanced quite a bit.

[happymadcat]

Huh? Whats this got to do with ME? Its not even a taunt!

[Overworked1977]

Unfortunately, I've recently learned that there are engines out there that randomly post ads to the blogsphere and message boards. This looks like one of those. Darrell, do be kind enough to block this user...

[TheWayfarer]

Question: Does every 1000 set-up include the possibility of internet romance and the love of a lifetime? If so I might just sign myself up.

The Wayfarer


Hello. My name is Svetlana. I am 32 years old.
I live in Russia in Cheboksari city. I can't find good man in our country and
i try find it in Internet. I don't have credit card to join a dating web site and i post it topic at this forum.
I want find love of all life and create family....If you write to me in the next letter i send to you my pic and write more about me.
Svetlana.

[Clint]

I've never heard of people getting together because of PBM before but heh, it could it be something we expand into in the future. You could get special encounters in your turnsheet... :eek: ;)

Clint

[VEO]

Great, new 285 options that cost thousands of dollars...! ;)

[happymadcat]

Great, new 285 options that cost thousands of dollars...! ;)

Only thousands? You spoil them Brad... :p

[Gavken]

Thirded... :) Mike for Excel President.
What's wrong with the Mordor regions? What could be done to improve them?
Clint

I agree - Mike is a God - but a spotted an error yesterday. If you try and put a location starting with 0 in the two bonus camps you get an error. A work around is to put a ' before the number. All the other cells seem to work OK with these numbers.

The Mordor regions from a neutral point of view are just not that good. Neutrals cant place in the mountains and as you dont get any regional bonuses they really aren't as useful as they should be. If I was playing FP or DS they'd be more attractive, but everyone seems to like the regional bonuses more than the safety.

Gavin

[MJD]

Overall, the 4th age changes do seem to be an improvement.

While the neutrals have an advantage in numbers if they stay together in the current format, they have several disadvantages, most notably including:

1. A requirement of having to downgrade nations of two other allegiances (as opposed to just one for FP and DS) just to be able to attack them.

2. No +20 k/a SNA

3. No starting PCs in mountains, which is relevant for some regions, but not all.

Overall, if the neutral team stays together, I think the 9/8/8 scenario with 9 neutrals, including both kingdoms is fairly balanced. In fact, I even think a game where two neutral teams were allowed (one of 5 and one of 4), and none of them could change allegiance (but they wouldn't be able to contact each other prior to game start, just like FP and DS).

Way back in the GSI days, I played in a 3-team grudge game that was fairly interesting:

There were 9 neutrals, but they did not have any kingdoms.
The FP and DS teams were 8 each, and each had a kingdom.
All allegiances started as disliked with each other, so the neutrals were not disadvantaged this way.

This was back in the GSI days, so all 3 teams had multiple nations with the +20 k/a SNA. Despite this, the game was still pretty much of a standstill with each allegiance having a front against the other. Overall, it worked out fairly well. A grudge game of this format might be OK, but again, the neutrals would have to start disliked versus the other allegiances.

I know that changes that would affect programming would be difficult, but adding a few interesting new SNAs wouldn't hurt. Maybe something like these:

1. Mages can learn all spirit mastery spells (cost, maybe 12000 or so, limit of one nation per allegiance). This would be powerful, but the fact that a single nation would have to devote many turns and 3-4 characters to kill one character plus giving it a high cost might make it OK. This would give mages another option to be more powerful. Overall, would this be stronger than conjure mounts? Armies at no cost? etc.? I'm not sure that it would, if a single nation had to tie up all of the characters for it, or work with another nation that only had weakness. The second option would still require a lot of characters, and 2 companies if there were a partial curses squad working with a partial weakness squad.

2. Multi-classed characters only cost 5000 gold. This would have to be expensive - at least 10000 or so, but it's another option for a varied character SNA.

3. Multi-classed characters are hired with a total of 40 points. Again, this would need to cost at least 10000 or so gold.

4. Nations can recruit twice as much LI as HI and twice as much LC as HC. So at a MT, a nation could recruit 800 LC instead of 400 HC. Because the light troops generally do better in more terrain types, this should probably cost at least 4000-5000 gold. This might just make the game a little less boring, with more varied armies, and would lead to some benefits with threaten orders, etc.

I know that anything involving new SNAs would require programming changes and therefore wouldn't be easy to do, but these are just some ideas if such changes are being considered at a later time,

Mike

[Clint]

Yeh we'll open up that discussion of programme changes when we get there.

There's been some 3way games but they're generally not very popular. The latest game filling is now 6 away though.

IMO Neutrals still have more advantages than disadvantages though. Mountain placement has been reduced with the advent of road/non-mountain bonuses for example.

Clint

[HolyAvenger]

Clint

Well I can see your point to the advantages of nuetrals going to an aligned side eventually would have some advantages if porperly played and commiting only late around turn 10 .. Early in game Nuetrals are way weaker than aligned nations and vulnerable. As game wears on like Nuetrals in the other variants they become powerful once again aligning with either FP or DS..
They have no advantage even if they are not attacked early if they remain nuetral .. the sheer number of downgrades means they have to keep excessive numbers of Command characters at their capitol hinders thier military use.. This gives both the FP and DS the extreme advantage 8-9 downgrades plus more military flexibility.
So playing Nuetrals as friends/team of even just 2 players is suicidial. The players in todays 4th age are just plain to smart and even paranoid that everytime a Nuetral team does form they are somehow the frontrunners to win the game.. The Nuetral team win percentage even if they form would be considerably less than the aligned sides.
To make matters even worse there is no way to prevent nuetrals pretending to want to be on nuetral team from joining usergroups and using the information to destroy any chance of success.. Even if the usergroups didn't form until turn 12 that gives FP and DS of 12 turns to learn to work well as a team..
Even if Nuetrals given the right to camp mountains in the future. They still have the downgrade/upgrade disadvantage if played well by the opposition gives Nuetrals vulnerability to aligned sides no matter how long they have been allowed to build. This I speak from having played Nuetrals many times.

Terry

[Bakta]

I have to agree with the above and add one minor point.

Should a neutral starts to work with a faction, whichever it is, against another neutral, it means 2 downgrade before said neutral is safe from an emmy strike even with troops in, and one more before being able to hit back. The cost in Capital Comm orders is quite dire.

[Grizzly]

There's been some 3way games but they're generally not very popular. The latest game filling is now 6 away though.

I attempted to get a 3 way going some time ago and couldn't even get the game 1/2 full so that it could be posted. If anyone else wants to give this a shot I'd certainly be interested.

GB

[Sverre]

FA is the best game! The only ME game where you can still get surpriced and where your opponents dont know everything about you before you starts.
Best of all you can design you own nation. So you never get bored.
The new set-up is very good.

I miss a navy order that would allow you to land an army from sea where you are not allowed to enter at the current rules for the price of one turn delay.
Probably 2 difrent orders. One works like transfer ships/troops. One likes split army. Both orders should requirer that the navy is at a hex next ,(but not at) the landhex where it wish to land an army and it should work so that the navy is forced to remain at its posistion (not allowed to move while issuing this order) and so that the "landed" army cant start moving before in the following turn.
A kind of an amfibie-operation if you like.
With this order armies can be landed at any landhex next to a sea-hex, but if there is no harbor/port/or suitable terreng then the operation will take longer time.

Speaking of which, The extra gold you get according to the new set-up for having harbour and/or port(s), what if you have both a port and a harbour? Will the extra gold be added together or will you only get the "port-gold" ???

Sverre

[Clint]

Cumulative for Harbour/Ports so if you get both then you get both bonuses. That's clarified in the new rules.

Clint