Re: [mepbmlist] Re: new alignment for grudge games [Archive]

View Full Version : Re: [mepbmlist] Re: new alignment for grudge games

jshushan@...

2nd February 2008, 11:53 AM

In a message dated Mon, 1 Oct 2001 2:32:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ulfang_the_easterling@... writes:
>
> Hmm, I just saw a very experienced DS team crushed by a FP team. They
> had a 4-1 neutral split against them. This was in ME2950. So I'd say
> your opinion is incorrect. The DS have no chance in your setup.
>
> Paul

Gents: Paul's right. I was on that team that got whacked by the split. It can be devastating.

OTOH, if we're looking to vary the setup, how about this.

Make the Duns DS. Give the free the Easterlings. Remove the QA. Evens up the Northwest a bit. Gives the ds a three front war in Mordor. Also creates a new front we rarely see. SG has to play soldier to cover his northwest flank. When's the last time that happened?

Just my 2 cents.

Jonathan Shushan

Middle Earth PBM Games

2nd February 2008, 11:53 AM

Okay game 88 is nearly filled so I would like to set-up the next 1650 as a
12vs12/13. Is there a player base for this? (Or should we keep it for
Grudge games?)

I have seen a few good ideas out there not sure what is concrete though.

Clint
..> Make the Duns DS. Give the free the Easterlings. Remove the QA. Evens
up the Northwest a bit. Gives the ds a three front war in Mordor. Also
creates a new front we rarely see. SG has to play soldier to cover his
northwest flank. When's the last time that happened?

Laurence G. Tilley

2nd February 2008, 11:53 AM

At 03:33 PM 02-10-01, you wrote:
>Make the Duns DS.

Gives the DS 3 double scouting nations. DS throw everything possible at
WW, who already starts as the weakest nation in the game, Woo is
eliminated, and the FP are blind. Sure this happens sometimes in normal
games when Duns declares, but at least Woo has a little time in which the
FP don't know what Duns will do. In many games I've seen Duns declare FP
to "balance" the scouting equation, or play "eqaulizer" because he's seen
Woo knocked out, or nearly knocked out.

>Give the free the Easterlings. Remove the QA. Evens up the Northwest a
>bit. Gives the ds a three front war in Mordor. Also creates a new front
>we rarely see. SG has to play soldier to cover his northwest
>flank. When's the last time that happened?

I like forcing Eas to go free, in normal games he so rarely has the
courage/madness to do so. Don't like dropping QAv for reasons already stated.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

jshushan@...

2nd February 2008, 11:53 AM

A couple of points. Fist of all, giving the ds the Duns was part of a plan, with eliminating the QA, which would keep the DS at 2 double scout nations.

Secondly, this is a 1650 setup I think? No WW. It means WK, Ru and Duns against Ca and Ar, plus help from SG, NE and Dw. Not bad to me anyway.

Just trying to keep the scenario "fresh" with new permutations. Just my 2 cents.

JMS

In a message dated Tue, 2 Oct 2001 12:58:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@...> writes:

> At 03:33 PM 02-10-01, you wrote:
> >Make the Duns DS.
>
> Gives the DS 3 double scouting nations. DS throw everything possible at
> WW, who already starts as the weakest nation in the game, Woo is
> eliminated, and the FP are blind. Sure this happens sometimes in normal
> games when Duns declares, but at least Woo has a little time in which the
> FP don't know what Duns will do. In many games I've seen Duns declare FP
> to "balance" the scouting equation, or play "eqaulizer" because he's seen
> Woo knocked out, or nearly knocked out.
>
> >Give the free the Easterlings. Remove the QA. Evens up the Northwest a
> >bit. Gives the ds a three front war in Mordor. Also creates a new front
> >we rarely see. SG has to play soldier to cover his northwest
> >flank. When's the last time that happened?
>
> I like forcing Eas to go free, in normal games he so rarely has the
> courage/madness to do so. Don't like dropping QAv for reasons already stated.
>
>
> Laurence G. Tilley
>
> http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
>
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
> To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
> Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Richard John Devereux

2nd February 2008, 11:53 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: <jshushan@...>
To: <mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: new alignment for grudge games

> In a message dated Mon, 1 Oct 2001 2:32:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ulfang_the_easterling@... writes:
> >
> > Hmm, I just saw a very experienced DS team crushed by a FP team. They
> > had a 4-1 neutral split against them. This was in ME2950. So I'd say
> > your opinion is incorrect. The DS have no chance in your setup.
> >
> > Paul
>
> Gents: Paul's right. I was on that team that got whacked by the split.
It can be devastating.
>
> OTOH, if we're looking to vary the setup, how about this.
>
> Make the Duns DS. Give the free the Easterlings. Remove the QA. Evens
up the Northwest a bit. Gives the ds a three front war in Mordor. Also
creates a new front we rarely see. SG has to play soldier to cover his
northwest flank. When's the last time that happened?
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Jonathan Shushan

RD: Yes, this could be interesting. It would be better still if, as Kevin
(and I) suggested, Cor was DS and Har neutral, so we might see some naval
conflict as well.

Richard.

>
>
> Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
> To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
> Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Richard John Devereux

2nd February 2008, 11:53 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Middle Earth PBM Games" <me@...>
To: <mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: new alignment for grudge games

> Okay game 88 is nearly filled so I would like to set-up the next 1650 as a
> 12vs12/13. Is there a player base for this? (Or should we keep it for
> Grudge games?)
>
> I have seen a few good ideas out there not sure what is concrete though.
>
> Clint

RD: Still debating as far as I can see. I'm in too many games to commit to
a new one yet, much as I would like to try one with re-aligned neuts. Only
hope is that one of my current games finishes quickly - in victory for my
team of course!

Richard.

> .> Make the Duns DS. Give the free the Easterlings. Remove the QA.
Evens
> up the Northwest a bit. Gives the ds a three front war in Mordor. Also
> creates a new front we rarely see. SG has to play soldier to cover his
> northwest flank. When's the last time that happened?
>
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
> To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
> Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Richard John Devereux

2nd February 2008, 11:53 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@...>
To: <mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: new alignment for grudge games

> At 03:33 PM 02-10-01, you wrote:
> >Make the Duns DS.
>
> Gives the DS 3 double scouting nations. DS throw everything possible at
> WW, who already starts as the weakest nation in the game, Woo is
> eliminated, and the FP are blind. Sure this happens sometimes in normal
> games when Duns declares, but at least Woo has a little time in which the
> FP don't know what Duns will do. In many games I've seen Duns declare FP
> to "balance" the scouting equation, or play "eqaulizer" because he's seen
> Woo knocked out, or nearly knocked out.
>
> >Give the free the Easterlings. Remove the QA. Evens up the Northwest a
> >bit. Gives the ds a three front war in Mordor. Also creates a new front
> >we rarely see. SG has to play soldier to cover his northwest
> >flank. When's the last time that happened?
>
> I like forcing Eas to go free, in normal games he so rarely has the
> courage/madness to do so. Don't like dropping QAv for reasons already
stated.
>
>
> Laurence G. Tilley

RD: Laurence, you're discussing 2950, whilst my proposal (and I THINK the
rest of this thread) was regarding 1650. No offence, but I'm not interested
in 2950.

The latest suggestion for 1650 is: take out QAv, give Har and Eas to FP, and
Cor Duns and Rhu to DS. That way DS still only get 2 nations with double
scouts, but we still get all the new, different strategic choices which was
the reason I proposed a new alignment originally.

Richard.

>
> http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
>
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
> To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
> Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Laurence G. Tilley

2nd February 2008, 11:53 AM

At 08:43 PM 02-10-01, Richard John Devereux wrote:
>RD: Yes, this could be interesting. It would be better still if, as Kevin
>(and I) suggested, Cor was DS and Har neutral, so we might see some naval
>conflict as well.

A pre-aligned game in which only some of the neutrals were
pre-aligned? Mmm... you may have something there. There should be perhaps
a minimum number of turns set before Har is allowed to declare.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

Laurence G. Tilley

2nd February 2008, 11:53 AM

At 09:04 PM 02-10-01, Richard John Devereux wrote:
Quoting LGT:
> >
> > Gives the DS 3 double scouting nations. DS throw everything possible at
> > WW, who already starts as the weakest nation in the game, Woo is
> > eliminated, and the FP are blind. Sure this happens sometimes in normal
> > games when Duns declares, but at least Woo has a little time in which the
> > FP don't know what Duns will do. In many games I've seen Duns declare FP
> > to "balance" the scouting equation, or play "eqaulizer" because he's seen
> > Woo knocked out, or nearly knocked out.
> >
> > I like forcing Eas to go free, in normal games he so rarely has the
> > courage/madness to do so. Don't like dropping QAv for reasons already
>stated.
>
>RD: Laurence, you're discussing 2950, whilst my proposal (and I THINK the
>rest of this thread) was regarding 1650. No offence, but I'm not interested
>in 2950.

Eh? No I was talking 1650. My suggestion was:
A bolstered Rhu DS
All 4 other neutrals FP
What is there in my words that implies 2950? Rhu isn't even in 2950.
Someone else commenting may have been thinking 2950.

>The latest suggestion for 1650 is: take out QAv, give Har and Eas to FP, and
>Cor Duns and Rhu to DS. That way DS still only get 2 nations with double
>scouts, but we still get all the new, different strategic choices which was
>the reason I proposed a new alignment originally.

As I said, I don't like taking out QAv, it's an interesting nation to
play. Thinking some more though, the basic principle of dropping an FP is
promising. And I propose... The Northmen. I think they're weak and
exposed (Woo is weaker but has the protection of the forest). They have
the +20% market SNA but they're rarely able to make much of it due to early
pressure both military and economic. For evidence I cite the fact that in
tweaked startups there's almost someone asking for improved fortifications
for Nor, and IIRC it's often one of the last positions to get filled in
normal games.

So my variation on the suggestion above:
Har and Eas FP
Cor, Duns, Rhu DS
Nor dropped
Which is slightly better, but of course with 11FP and 13DS. So how about
making LoR FP - OWCH, yes, I know that's a heretical change of the Middle
Earth story line, but it would make some fascinating early turns.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

Richard John Devereux

2nd February 2008, 11:53 AM

Richard John Devereux

2nd February 2008, 11:53 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@...>
To: <mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com>; <mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com>
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: new alignment for grudge games

> At 09:04 PM 02-10-01, Richard John Devereux wrote:
> Quoting LGT:
> > >
> > > Gives the DS 3 double scouting nations. DS throw everything possible
at
> > > WW, who already starts as the weakest nation in the game, Woo is
> > > eliminated, and the FP are blind. Sure this happens sometimes in
normal
> > > games when Duns declares, but at least Woo has a little time in which
the
> > > FP don't know what Duns will do. In many games I've seen Duns declare
FP
> > > to "balance" the scouting equation, or play "eqaulizer" because he's
seen
> > > Woo knocked out, or nearly knocked out.
> > >
> > > I like forcing Eas to go free, in normal games he so rarely has the
> > > courage/madness to do so. Don't like dropping QAv for reasons already
> >stated.
> >
> >RD: Laurence, you're discussing 2950, whilst my proposal (and I THINK the
> >rest of this thread) was regarding 1650. No offence, but I'm not
interested
> >in 2950.
>
> Eh? No I was talking 1650. My suggestion was:
> A bolstered Rhu DS
> All 4 other neutrals FP
> What is there in my words that implies 2950? Rhu isn't even in 2950.
> Someone else commenting may have been thinking 2950.

RD: In the original message, you (I thought it was you, apologise if it was
somebody else) mentioned WWi who of course appears only in 2950.
>
>
> >The latest suggestion for 1650 is: take out QAv, give Har and Eas to FP,
and
> >Cor Duns and Rhu to DS. That way DS still only get 2 nations with double
> >scouts, but we still get all the new, different strategic choices which
was
> >the reason I proposed a new alignment originally.
>
> As I said, I don't like taking out QAv, it's an interesting nation to
> play. Thinking some more though, the basic principle of dropping an FP is
> promising. And I propose... The Northmen. I think they're weak and
> exposed (Woo is weaker but has the protection of the forest). They have
> the +20% market SNA but they're rarely able to make much of it due to
early
> pressure both military and economic. For evidence I cite the fact that in
> tweaked startups there's almost someone asking for improved fortifications
> for Nor, and IIRC it's often one of the last positions to get filled in
> normal games.
>
> So my variation on the suggestion above:
> Har and Eas FP
> Cor, Duns, Rhu DS
> Nor dropped
> Which is slightly better, but of course with 11FP and 13DS. So how about
> making LoR FP - OWCH, yes, I know that's a heretical change of the Middle
> Earth story line, but it would make some fascinating early turns.
>
>
> Laurence G. Tilley
>
> http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
>
RD: As would my original proposal, or the revisons proposed by Kev and
Jonathan. There are obviously lots of playable variations, all it takes is
enough people who want to play any one of them.

Richard.
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
> To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
> Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>