Harlequin Games
2nd February 2008, 12:15 PM
>AGENTS ARE STILL OVER-POWERFUL
>
>I'm not saying this just because the Free characters in ME 10 are getting
>slaughtered. I wrote on this subject in the old Allsorts NL, and haven't
>changed my opinion. The vast majority of ME games are won by the Dark
>Servants. The reason is simple: if the game goes the distance, the DS, and
>particularly the Cloud Lord, can churn out so many super-agents that they
>can kill and kidnap with impunity. Any that are captured by guards escape
>the following turn, any that are Doubled can be Countered, or re-doubled by
>allied emissaries.
>
>I don't object to assassins as such. They have their place to play in the
>game like any other characters. What I do object to is the way their sheer
>NUMBERS dominate the midgame and decide the endgame. No nation in history,
>mythology or fantasy ever churned out agents of such power so quickly and
in
>such numbers as the Cloud Lord can in ME. CL can name agents at rank 40,
>plus 20 to assassinations/kidnaps, plus the chance of stealth.
>
>NO other nation in Middle-earth can name new characters capable of carrying
>out Hard orders from the second they are named! This is unfair on ALL
other
>nations, not just the Free. It unbalances the game. Moreover it pushes
the
>Cloud Lord to produce just one type of character. Those characters may be
a
>game-winners, but when you have such HUGE advantages, is playing the
>position really that much fun? So you win a game playing Cloud Lord, big
>deal. Win a game as the Woodmen, then you have achieved something!
>
>I suggest CL should name agents at 30 not 40, with plus 10 not 20 to
>assassinations and kidnaps, but still with the chance of stealth. This is
>the same level of advantage when creating new characters that other nations
>have.
>
>Secondly, something should be done to inhibit the way in which companies of
>up to 9 of assassins can be deployed to hit up to 9 targets in a single pop
>centre. Again, this has no justification in history, mythology or fantasy.
>Assassins were and are SOLITARY killers. Show me a single instance where
>assassins operated as a group. I don't think the word assassin is
mentioned
>ONCE in all Tolkien's writings. So where is the justification for a gang
of
>up to 9 of the bastards in the ME game?
>
>I am against making rules that say: you can't do such-and-such; this
>irritates players who want to know: why not? It's more intelligent to make
>rules reflect history/mythology/fantasy. So what can be done to make
>assassins behave in a realistic, solitary manner? Remember, this has to be
>entered on a computer program!
>
>How about: 1) only a nation's highest-ranking agent can attempt an
>assassination/kidnap? This is explained very easily: the top guy takes
>precedence. Yes, this is true in criminal fraternities as well as
>government agencies!
>2) only one assassination/kidnap order per nation per turn? Explained very
>simply by the need for secrecy, plus the intelligence and logistic
resources
>needed to get the assassin to the right place at the right time, and to
make
>sure he was not intercepted!
>
>Or 3), if a company moves onto an enemy pop centre, the chances of one or
>more members of the company getting discovered could be multiplied by the
>number of people in the company. Those discovered should be arrested by
the
>local militia (with appropriate chance of escape to a neighbouring hex next
>turn). Of course the chance of discovery should also be influenced by the
>loyalty of the pop centre, and any fortifications (therefore guards). So a
>pop centre with very low loyalty would offer little or no resistance, but a
>fortified capital city would be realistically well guarded!
>
>4) allow mages to cast a one-shot Warding spell on a pop centre, or Guard
>spell on a character. Such spells would have to be renewed each turn to be
>continually effective, would only be as strong as the mage's skill rank,
and
>therefore an assassin/kidnapper who was skilful enough or possessed an
>appropriate artifact would still get through to complete his mission.
>
>On a related subject, the Steal gold order should be chucked out
altogether.
>It is ludicrous that a thief, or even a number of thieves, can steal enough
>gold to cripple a nation's economy. As for training your agents by having
>them steal gold from your allies' pop centres, what real-life ally would
>allow that? Stealing artifacts from enemies is one thing, stealing tons of
>gold quite another.
>
>Summary: the Dark servants win too often. This is due almost entirely to
>their superiority in agents. My suggestions are intended to restore
balance
>to the game. If you've any comments or better ideas, send 'em in!
>
>Richard Devereux.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>I'm not saying this just because the Free characters in ME 10 are getting
>slaughtered. I wrote on this subject in the old Allsorts NL, and haven't
>changed my opinion. The vast majority of ME games are won by the Dark
>Servants. The reason is simple: if the game goes the distance, the DS, and
>particularly the Cloud Lord, can churn out so many super-agents that they
>can kill and kidnap with impunity. Any that are captured by guards escape
>the following turn, any that are Doubled can be Countered, or re-doubled by
>allied emissaries.
>
>I don't object to assassins as such. They have their place to play in the
>game like any other characters. What I do object to is the way their sheer
>NUMBERS dominate the midgame and decide the endgame. No nation in history,
>mythology or fantasy ever churned out agents of such power so quickly and
in
>such numbers as the Cloud Lord can in ME. CL can name agents at rank 40,
>plus 20 to assassinations/kidnaps, plus the chance of stealth.
>
>NO other nation in Middle-earth can name new characters capable of carrying
>out Hard orders from the second they are named! This is unfair on ALL
other
>nations, not just the Free. It unbalances the game. Moreover it pushes
the
>Cloud Lord to produce just one type of character. Those characters may be
a
>game-winners, but when you have such HUGE advantages, is playing the
>position really that much fun? So you win a game playing Cloud Lord, big
>deal. Win a game as the Woodmen, then you have achieved something!
>
>I suggest CL should name agents at 30 not 40, with plus 10 not 20 to
>assassinations and kidnaps, but still with the chance of stealth. This is
>the same level of advantage when creating new characters that other nations
>have.
>
>Secondly, something should be done to inhibit the way in which companies of
>up to 9 of assassins can be deployed to hit up to 9 targets in a single pop
>centre. Again, this has no justification in history, mythology or fantasy.
>Assassins were and are SOLITARY killers. Show me a single instance where
>assassins operated as a group. I don't think the word assassin is
mentioned
>ONCE in all Tolkien's writings. So where is the justification for a gang
of
>up to 9 of the bastards in the ME game?
>
>I am against making rules that say: you can't do such-and-such; this
>irritates players who want to know: why not? It's more intelligent to make
>rules reflect history/mythology/fantasy. So what can be done to make
>assassins behave in a realistic, solitary manner? Remember, this has to be
>entered on a computer program!
>
>How about: 1) only a nation's highest-ranking agent can attempt an
>assassination/kidnap? This is explained very easily: the top guy takes
>precedence. Yes, this is true in criminal fraternities as well as
>government agencies!
>2) only one assassination/kidnap order per nation per turn? Explained very
>simply by the need for secrecy, plus the intelligence and logistic
resources
>needed to get the assassin to the right place at the right time, and to
make
>sure he was not intercepted!
>
>Or 3), if a company moves onto an enemy pop centre, the chances of one or
>more members of the company getting discovered could be multiplied by the
>number of people in the company. Those discovered should be arrested by
the
>local militia (with appropriate chance of escape to a neighbouring hex next
>turn). Of course the chance of discovery should also be influenced by the
>loyalty of the pop centre, and any fortifications (therefore guards). So a
>pop centre with very low loyalty would offer little or no resistance, but a
>fortified capital city would be realistically well guarded!
>
>4) allow mages to cast a one-shot Warding spell on a pop centre, or Guard
>spell on a character. Such spells would have to be renewed each turn to be
>continually effective, would only be as strong as the mage's skill rank,
and
>therefore an assassin/kidnapper who was skilful enough or possessed an
>appropriate artifact would still get through to complete his mission.
>
>On a related subject, the Steal gold order should be chucked out
altogether.
>It is ludicrous that a thief, or even a number of thieves, can steal enough
>gold to cripple a nation's economy. As for training your agents by having
>them steal gold from your allies' pop centres, what real-life ally would
>allow that? Stealing artifacts from enemies is one thing, stealing tons of
>gold quite another.
>
>Summary: the Dark servants win too often. This is due almost entirely to
>their superiority in agents. My suggestions are intended to restore
balance
>to the game. If you've any comments or better ideas, send 'em in!
>
>Richard Devereux.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>