Re: New NKA Forming - suggest some modifications

[marc_pinsonneault]

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Keith Kendall <gnashrak@y...> wrote:
> I'm gathering players for a new NKA game (no kidnap or
> assasination orders permitted). Eight players are
> already signed up. Once I get at least 10, I'll submit
> the list to Clint for posting in the game lists.
>
> If interested, email your name, email address, and
> allegiance preference to theduck@n... Once I
> submit the list to Clint, I'll ask everyone to email
> their account number to him directly.
>
> Keith

I did one NKA game and would not do so again.
If you do want to do this, I'd strongly suggest that
you try some modifications to deal with some of the
serious flaws that we encountered.

In particular:

1. Ban anyone from starting with or building cities or major towns in
the mountains. The movement rules make it far too much of a pain to
take them down without agents to clear them off for emmys or armies.
I'd also extend this to the handful of hexes (e.g. 2430) that are
effectively impossible to reach. Starting with a capital in 4215, for
example, is currently legal in NKA but really violates the spirit of
the game (an effectively invulnerable capital).

This is the single most crucial flaw that has to be addressed.

2. Geographic balance: character movement is fast but army movement
is slow. If you want a lot of army action make sure that the
alliances don't set up on opposite corners of the map. We had all of
the freeps but 1 in the SE and all of the dark servants but 1 in the
NW. The neutrals were scattered all over. They took out the DS and
then faced an incredibly boring middle game of basically shipping big
armies across the map from the far NW to the far SE.


cheers,

Marc

[ulfang_the_easterling]

> I can see why kidnapping/asassination are part of the game. In
>addition to a war game, it's also a character game about the quest
>to find and dispose of the One Ring. As such it does make sense to
>have kidnapping and asassination as part of the game. However, to
>this outsiders point of view, they have far too dramatic an effect
>on the wargame portion of the game. Killing 7 or 8 individuals (no
>matter how important they are shouldn't have the effect of wiping
>out a countries entire millitary and economic capacity.

Hmm, so if we kill Sadaam Hussain, it would have no effect on the
Iraq situation?

If you go back even a few hundred years (War of the Roses), when the
noble leading an army was captured/killed, then the army pretty much
disappeared into the countryside.

I have no real problem with this concept in the game. But as I said,
many years ago, to the designer of MEPBM, I completely disagree with
all the assassinations in something called MIDDLE EARTH. They simply
didn't occur in any JRRT writing. His response was something like
assassination doesn't mean they are killed just removed from the
scene of action and no longer influence events... yada yada yada.

I think the game would be better if assassination was removed but
kidnap remained. If there was a % chance of escape every time a
prisoner was moved (to prevent people from just moving prisoners
around each turn), then you'd have to actually use the imprison order.
It would certainly add another layer of strategy into the game,
trying to rescue your characters.

Paul

[pdeglopper2000]

> I did one NKA game and would not do so again.
> If you do want to do this, I'd strongly suggest that
> you try some modifications to deal with some of the
> serious flaws that we encountered.
>
> In particular:
>
> 1. Ban anyone from starting with or building cities or major towns in
> the mountains.
>
> This is the single most crucial flaw that has to be addressed.

Based on my experience with game 46 (NKA #2 I believe) I think there
are a few other points to be addressed:

1) If it's going to be another two-side game, make sure the neutrals
know this from the beginning. I gather a number of players in game 46
didn't expect to have enemies starting from turn 1.

2) Again if it's a two-side game, consider setting up a predefined
victory condition such as a certain ratio of active nations on each
side. Two neutral nations in the far SE corner of the map dragged
game 46 out for a good six turns past the point at which the game was
decided, until the FP managed to arrange a strategic pop center victory.

Arguably the strategic pop center victory rules already fill this
need, so this might not be necessary. And maybe the FP were just
unlucky not to have a weakness nation ready to whittle away the army
commanders. But it seems like the security of far corners of the map
is a much greater asset when you know your commanders are safe from
agents.

I think I'll probably pass on future NKA scenarios anyway in favor of
standard or limited agent scenarios. I think NKA offers a bit too
much of an advantage to the FP, and too little of one to the DS -
which encourages two-sided games, which are awkward given the FP's
wider range of races and placement options and the raw power of the
twin kingdoms.

-Peter

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

>1) If it's going to be another two-side game, make sure the neutrals
>know this from the beginning. I gather a number of players in game 46
>didn't expect to have enemies starting from turn 1.


*** I had contacted them and put the information in the Front
Sheet. Players have to read such things I am afraid.

>2) Again if it's a two-side game, consider setting up a predefined
>victory condition such as a certain ratio of active nations on each
>side. Two neutral nations in the far SE corner of the map dragged
>game 46 out for a good six turns past the point at which the game was
>decided, until the FP managed to arrange a strategic pop center victory.

*** That's upto the players. I have tried to implement this as a generic
concept but players don't seem to like it. Just saw a game run to heavy
turn numbers where the FPs were just chasing a single DS down. War of
Boredom...

I think I'll probably pass on future NKA scenarios anyway in favor of
>standard or limited agent scenarios. I think NKA offers a bit too
>much of an advantage to the FP, and too little of one to the DS -
>which encourages two-sided games, which are awkward given the FP's
>wider range of races and placement options and the raw power of the
>twin kingdoms.


*** Note we will run these if there are enough players. Players call. At
present we have something like 10 players for the next game.

Clint