Laurence G. Tilley
2nd February 2008, 12:10 PM
At 14:28 13/11/2002, Middle Earth Games wrote:
>As requested here it is again.
LGT: Thanks for this, and sorry I missed it the first time. I have to say
that I agree almost entirely with Richard's comments re your selection of
nations. I thought you were a little dismissive of him in your reply,
perhaps because you had allowed yourself to be come ruffled by his use of
the slightly strong word "horrified". For example, he told you that the
Sinda have a command shortage at game start, and you waved this off with
"all nations have a shortage of commanders". He was telling you that Sinda
have a very specific shortage of commanders, and that this is more of a
problem for them than it is for any other nation. He is thinking in terms
of the first few "chess moves" in which there are practised ways to hurt
Sinda badly, unless Sinda knows the countermoves.
I don't need to add more to what he said on nations. But I like the
document as a whole, and just have some minor technical suggestions on your
introduction below:
>Advice for selecting Nations for new players
>
>When joining a game:
>
>? Choose either 2950 or 1650. 2950 has a slower build up to 1650 which is
>very aggressive and active from the game start. Players perfering a slower
>start should pick 2950 to 1650 games. 2950 games are more character based,
>but lower economic base to 1650.
LGT: Plain English suggestion: Replace "economic base" with "economy"
throughout - it's not as specifically accurate, but it reads better, and is
appropriate to a simpler document.
LGT: Replace last sentence with "2950 games have some nations with stronger
characters but the nations do not start mobilised for war - economic
development is an early priority."
>? After choosing a scenario (1650 or 2950). Send me a list of the nations
>from the following list that you are happy to play (the more nations you
>choose the easier it is to create a balanced game). We strongly advise
>players choose these nations over any of the others available as they are
>particularly good for new players to the game.
>
>In order or preference of ease and suitablility of play for new players.
>Choose Free People in preference to Dark Servants unless you have a strong
>preference for Dark Servants. They are easeier to play and more independent
>as a general rule. Dark Servants in Mordor need a lot of diplomacy and
>organisation to offset the Free Peoples military advantage at game start.
>
>In addition the Dark Servant economic deficit (around 1/3 the income and
>recruiting base of the Free) is a major hurdle to overcome and often leads
>to bankruptcy or under-recruit and you get swarmed to by the FP hordes of
>armies. DS have a strong agent and character advantage and are mostly
>defende by the Mountains of Mordor.
LGT: Grammar suggestion: say "under-recruitment" instead of "under-recruit"
>Neutrals: All Neutrals will need to join a side at some time. Their major
>advantages are that they are not under threat by other aligned nations at
>game start as they are Neutral. Neutral nations can sometimes attack other
>Neutrals - be warned! All have a strong economic base and all will need to
>chat to their aligned adjacent nations if they want to not be attacked by
>them. From a learning the game perspective it is often better to join a
>team and learn from your more experienced team-mates. As a Neutral you will
>have minor ot no assistance in learning the new game.
LGT: Add: If you do play a neutral, you will need to communicate regularly
with players of the aligned nations, though you would do well not to
advertise the fact that you are a new player - to the military aggressor,
it might suggest you are a soft target!
Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
>As requested here it is again.
LGT: Thanks for this, and sorry I missed it the first time. I have to say
that I agree almost entirely with Richard's comments re your selection of
nations. I thought you were a little dismissive of him in your reply,
perhaps because you had allowed yourself to be come ruffled by his use of
the slightly strong word "horrified". For example, he told you that the
Sinda have a command shortage at game start, and you waved this off with
"all nations have a shortage of commanders". He was telling you that Sinda
have a very specific shortage of commanders, and that this is more of a
problem for them than it is for any other nation. He is thinking in terms
of the first few "chess moves" in which there are practised ways to hurt
Sinda badly, unless Sinda knows the countermoves.
I don't need to add more to what he said on nations. But I like the
document as a whole, and just have some minor technical suggestions on your
introduction below:
>Advice for selecting Nations for new players
>
>When joining a game:
>
>? Choose either 2950 or 1650. 2950 has a slower build up to 1650 which is
>very aggressive and active from the game start. Players perfering a slower
>start should pick 2950 to 1650 games. 2950 games are more character based,
>but lower economic base to 1650.
LGT: Plain English suggestion: Replace "economic base" with "economy"
throughout - it's not as specifically accurate, but it reads better, and is
appropriate to a simpler document.
LGT: Replace last sentence with "2950 games have some nations with stronger
characters but the nations do not start mobilised for war - economic
development is an early priority."
>? After choosing a scenario (1650 or 2950). Send me a list of the nations
>from the following list that you are happy to play (the more nations you
>choose the easier it is to create a balanced game). We strongly advise
>players choose these nations over any of the others available as they are
>particularly good for new players to the game.
>
>In order or preference of ease and suitablility of play for new players.
>Choose Free People in preference to Dark Servants unless you have a strong
>preference for Dark Servants. They are easeier to play and more independent
>as a general rule. Dark Servants in Mordor need a lot of diplomacy and
>organisation to offset the Free Peoples military advantage at game start.
>
>In addition the Dark Servant economic deficit (around 1/3 the income and
>recruiting base of the Free) is a major hurdle to overcome and often leads
>to bankruptcy or under-recruit and you get swarmed to by the FP hordes of
>armies. DS have a strong agent and character advantage and are mostly
>defende by the Mountains of Mordor.
LGT: Grammar suggestion: say "under-recruitment" instead of "under-recruit"
>Neutrals: All Neutrals will need to join a side at some time. Their major
>advantages are that they are not under threat by other aligned nations at
>game start as they are Neutral. Neutral nations can sometimes attack other
>Neutrals - be warned! All have a strong economic base and all will need to
>chat to their aligned adjacent nations if they want to not be attacked by
>them. From a learning the game perspective it is often better to join a
>team and learn from your more experienced team-mates. As a Neutral you will
>have minor ot no assistance in learning the new game.
LGT: Add: If you do play a neutral, you will need to communicate regularly
with players of the aligned nations, though you would do well not to
advertise the fact that you are a new player - to the military aggressor,
it might suggest you are a soft target!
Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk