Comparisons between 1650 Scenario and 2950 ScenarioThe following are statements pulled from the "Mouth of Sauron" e-zine made by players when the then 'new' 2950 scenario came out. They're as relevant now as they were back then, because they do outline some of they key differences between the two scenarios. Commentary
on the 2950 Game - by Ben Diebold Commentary on the 2950 GameFrom Ben DieboldI had prepared an article whining about what I then felt was the failure of GSI to accurately capture the flavor of 2950 in their new game. My beef then was that the disposition of characters and armies seemed to be not in keeping with what I at least thought it should be. Character-wise, I thought the evils should have the great Nazgul characters, and then a bunch of stiffs to carry out their orders, while the Goods had better average characters, and a few guys as good as the Nazgul. On the army side, I thought the evils should have a couple of cities in Mordor, just spewing out troops, preferably geared somehow to lower and lighter troops types, like men at arms or light infantry, while the goods had many fewer troops, but with better fortifications, more armor and higher training. I wrote three pages along those lines, before stopping to actually take a look at the data. I downloaded the setup info for 2950 from AOL, and entered it into a database (in FileMaker Pro for Macintosh and Windows— a great database!). That enabled me to examine the character ranks for all the kingdoms, and the sides. What I found surprised me a little: the Goods, led by those fabulous elves, actually have pretty good characters. But the Good characters are not well spread out; those fabulous elves really do have the lion’s share of character points, which is probably accurate. My results were the following: By Kingdom: Kingdom Comm Agen Emis Mage Stealth Chal Ranks ----------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------- 1. Woodmen 31/8 14/5 20/3 10/3 15/7 37 64 2. Northmen 32/5 17/3 27/3 20/2 00/0 30 41 3. Riders 38/7 10/1 17/3 40/1 00/0 43 46 4. Rangers 49/7 17/3 15/4 23/7 18/3 59 84 5. Silvan 33/7 15/2 20/2 58/2 25/8 44 77 6. N. Gondor 37/7 15/2 20/3 25/4 25/1 48 59 7. S. Gondor 49/5 20/1 24/5 30/2 00/0 45 56 8. Dwarves 42/8 13/3 15/2 10/1 10/1 45 53 9. Sinda 30/7 13/4 45/2 52/6 21/8 68 104 10. Noldo 46/5 20/2 33/6 59/7 27/7 76 134 11. Witch King 48/4 20/2 48/2 52/6 30/1 64 83 12. Dragon Lord 42/5 30/1 23/3 44/5 30/2 54 74 13. Dog Lord 39/8 30/1 20/2 55/3 30/1 61 73 14. Cloud Lord 33/3 33/4 20/2 28/4 30/2 32 55 15. B. Sorceror 22/7 17/3 20/2 46/7 27/3 55 81 16. Ice King 28/5 23/3 15/2 49/4 35/2 44 63 17. Q. Avenger 21/7 23/3 20/5 30/4 30/2 35 63 18. Fire King 34/6 10/1 20/2 33/4 30/1 39 52 19. Long Rider 40/3 37/5 20/3 18/4 30/2 41 62 20. Dark Lieuts. 39/7 30/4 40/2 68/4 38/2 72 102 21. Corsairs 28/8 17/3 30/1 20/2 00/0 32 43 22. Rhun East. 30/6 15/2 20/3 30/2 00/0 35 41 23. Dunlendings 43/4 16/5 30/1 45/2 00/0 41 46 24. White Wizard 28/6 20/1 50/2 50/2 20/1 39 51 25. Khand East. 27/6 10/2 20/2 33/3 00/0 34 40 By Alignment: Alignment Comm Agen Emis Mage Stealth Chal Ranks ----------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------- Neutrals 30/30 15/13 29/9 35/11 21/1 36 44 Free Peoples 38/66 15/26 24/33 36/35 22/35 49 72 Dark Servants 34/55 27/27 24/25 42/45 31/18 50 71 The chart shows the average skill, stealth, challenge and total ranks for the characters of each kingdom, with the number of characters having the skill following the slash. For example, the Command column for the Dunlendings of 43/4 represents the fact that they have 4 commanders, who between them average 43 in that skill. The 134 in the Ranks column of the Noldo means that their average character has 134 points of skill ranks (which DOES include stealth). The Noldo and the Sinda are pretty dominant, with the Dark Lieutenants a close third. Everyone else is a step or two behind, at least as far as character ranks are concerned. Of course, every kingdom has advantages and disadvantage. Comments:Please note that no weighting is applied, or implied, here; by this mechanism a 10/10/10 is as valuable as a 30, and emissaries are as valuable as commanders. That becomes important when thinking about the implications of the total rank column. As you can see, the Khand, Northmen, and Rhun bring up the rear in total points. They are hurt not only in not having many characters with high skill ranks, but in not having many multi-classed characters as well. The Woodmen, by contrast, have good overall characters (at least, better than I initially gave them credit for), as much because they have so many versatile characters as anything else, plus they have 8 commanders. The neutrals definitely have weaker characters than either the Free Peoples or the Dark Servants. Only one neutral character comes with stealth, and that’s Saruman. Of course, that’s more than compensated for by their generally stronger economies, and relative freedom from molestation. The Corsairs are a very powerful kingdom, perhaps unfairly so, at least in comparison with the poor Rhun. There are a few small beefs I have still. For example, take Beorn. Now, I’ll agree Beorn probably shouldn’t be a great army commander, but a 65 challenge seems a bit low. If there’s anyone in the history of Middle Earth who could challenge, it had to be Beorn. Remember the Battle of the Five Armies in the Hobbit, how Beorn carved through an orc army and ripped up Bolg of the North? Not in 2950; Beorn has to cower and refuse personal challenges if he suspects Bolg is near, because Bolg has 30 challenge points on Beorn. In personal challenges, Beorn should be a +50, and in army combat he should work like an combat artifact. It looks like some measures have been taken to beef the Woodmen up, but they, and the Northmen and the Easterlings, could probably use more. The economies seem very unbalanced, especially when winter comes, but that’s grist for another article I suppose. And I still think the distribution of the points could be a little different. I think having some differentiation between the Nazgul and the rest would be good. No evil non-Nazgul should be more powerful than a Nazgul—Celedhring and Storlaga, for example, should not so completely dominate some of the weaker Nazgul. Of course, the point is arguable; the Nazgul were fearsome in Tolkien, but there isn’t any indication that they were totally dominating all the time. After all, they did sneak into Bree, not conquer it, and some hobbits with torches surprised them on Weathertop. But this chart did cut at least some of my whining off in mid-stream. I was complaining that the Goods needed more and better commanders, and, doggone it, they do. I thought the Evils should have better agents, which they do, too. Anyway, I thought the chart was interesting, and felt like sharing it with the ME-PBM community. I’ve been enjoying the Mouth, and thought I should help out with something.
The 2950 Game - CommentaryFrom Wes FortinMy thoughts on the 2950 Scenario. Like most who have written on the subject, I too am very disappointed with GSI’s performance. The original MEPBM has some balance problems as it is, and these are made worse in the new flavor of the game. In the old game, the Freeps have a huge advantage (collectively) in starting military and economies. Assuming competant play, most Dark Servant teams fight a war of attrition until they can build agents and recruit dragons to offset the Freep advantage. So, during the first 10-15 turns, the Servants typically fight a defensive war. Poor coordination will allow the Freep military to overun Mordor quickly. As the game progresses, those agents the Servants build up (along with Curses Companies) can overwhelm the Freeps if they (the Free) let the agent game slide. Even then, most Servants have a decent chance at Stealth which gives the Servants a definite edge in the agent game. This is what GSI calls play balance. Free advantage in the early game, potential Dark advantage in the mid game, theoretical parity in the long game. We’ve all seen what a delicate balance that is and how either side can get crushed quickly if the balance is not maintained. Now, lets look at the new game. First, all economies have been scaled back. However, Freep pop centers tend to produce a wider variety of goods than those of the Servants. As a result, the Freeps can offset some of the loss of tax-base by production sells. The Servants have no such advantage. Again, the Freeps start with the upper hand in economics. Second, all the militaries have also been scaled back. However, GSI has really unbalanced the game - again, in favor of the Freeps. The Noldo and Rangers face no credible military threat from any Servants. The Witch King is out of Angmar, with the exception of a single town - Mt. Gram, and is now extremely vulnerable in that he fights in Mirkwood AND Gondor. So, both the Noldo and Rangers need only worry about Neutrals and are in a very good position to build characters and economies and basically bankrole thier team. Furthemore, the WK and Dragon Lord, who had rough positions before, are now sitting ducks. Mirkwood has more nations to bring resources to bear against the diminished Dragon Lord, and the WK pop center of Mt. Gundabad. With SEIGE, even the large Servants pop centers can fall quickly. The WK must fight a three front war, or cede one or more fronts. The Dragon Lord fights alone, again, against more nations. Meanwhile much of West Mordor is tied up with the usual blood bath at Osgiliath. With fewer dragons available to boost the military (a "balance" factor I never really approved of - I’d prefer them to be random encounters, not recruitable, or much smaller in effect), the Servants are in a world of hurt in the opening game - still. Third, the character game (which was the original balancing factor for the Servants) is now more equitable. Good for the Freeps, really bad for the Servants. There are more Elves and a higher chance for stealth amongst the Free. This numerical shift (in addition to the relative safety of both the Rangers and Noldo) has offset the usual Servants advantage in agents. In addition, more high powered challengers are part of the Freep arsenal - further degrading the edge the Servants had in the character game. What’s worse, is that many of the Servants start with lots of wimpy mages (I suppose GSI felt that this was some farsical offset of the military and economic advantage the freeps maintained), with the same random assignment of spells. If GSI had, instead, insured decent spells on these mages, that’s fine. Otherwise, the Servants have to spend $2K-$4K gold, per mage, in addition to maintenance for the mage, to get some combat benefit. Let’s not forget what a 30-40 mage is likely to get as a casting percentage on those spells. Frankly, the Servants can’t afford characters that take forever to train, and provide a combat benefit that artifacts provide for free. Overall, the Servants are hosed in the new game. And, as Adam Waters pointed out, Agents are much more valuable than before. They can eliminate armies, bankrupt fragile economies, generate revenue, and are much less expensive than armies. I see the new game as degenerating into Agent wars as nations ditch unproductive and expensive characters for Agents. Since the Freeps have a better chance of holding thier own now in the Agent wars, and can maintain more characters early, it looks bad for the Servants. The only way the Servants stand a chance is to work together (always important), recruit neutrals, and capitalize on Freep mistakes. I am getting into another 2950 game as the Silvan Elves. That will probably be my last 2950 game.
A new player’s perspective on the 2950 gameBy Mark JaedeSeveral writers in the last issue of the Mouth leveled serious criticisms at the 2950 game. Too little has changed from the 1650 game. Too many characters, artifacts, and encounters are the same. The rules regarding troop types have not been improved. Economies are too weak. Play balance has slipped toward the Dark Servants. Agents are too powerful. Bankruptcy strikes too easily. It’s not enough like the trilogy and The Hobbit. Friends, I cannot make comparisons to the 1650 scenario, because I haven’t played it. As of Turn 5, I cannot yet evaluate play balance. In fact, you long-time players may well believe that I have no standing to challenge your wisdom in these matters. But I do. You see, in my ignorance and naivete, I am aware of something you all know, yet seem to have forgotten: Even with its flaws, ME-PBM is a lot of fun. Silly me, I’m having the time of my life with my tiny armies, weak economy, inadequate agents, and overmatched alliance. Who knows? We might even win. But even if we don’t, I am sure I will want to play the 2950 scenario again. I will want to try different positions, or different tactics in the same position. I might try to organize a team among people I know. In short, I will probably do just what you all have done with 1650. Eventually, I want to play a 1650 game, but I may be disappointed. All those troops! All those pop centers! Smashing, conquering, burning— where is the delicate maneuvering, the subtlety of the 2950 game? I suspect it just won’t feel right to me, just as the 2950 game doesn’t feel right to those of you who started out in the earlier scenario. Of course, I will also learn to carp with the rest of you about the lameness of the troop types and the sameness of the encounters. I will have a problem and blame GSI (though they’ve done right by me so far). I will have suggestions for improvements and grumble when they are ignored. But I will play the game. Friends, forgive the 2950 scenario for being imperfect. It didn’t solve all the problems of ME-PBM. It isn’t totally new. What is new may not, in your opinion, be better. It’s still a good game.
My Experiences and Opinions about ME-PBM, c.1650 and c.2950by Greg ReidWith all the clamoring for submissions that I’ve seen in the last few recent Mouths I’ve read I’ve decided to say something. It’s more of a core dump about my experiences with the world of ME-PBM (both the 1650 and the 2950 scenarios). Most of my experience with the world of ME-PBM is vicarious. I’ve been in only three games myself, and those only recently. They are as follows: Game #182: Rhudaur. My first game. (*wince*) I came in to the game prejudiced towards joining the Free Peoples because the most recent WotW that came with my setup had the Dark Servants winning seven or so games to the Free People’s one. So I assumed that the game was balanced towards the DS (or rather, unbalanced in favor of the DS) and made up my mind that, as a neutral, I should do my part towards evening things up. Well, one of my friends (Raven Zachary/Zack Harman) who had been involved in the game for quite some time sent me all 25 of the back issues of the Mouth. After poring over them I realized in horror I was doing the wrong thing. Reports of Harad going good on turn 3 or so caused me to make the decision turn evil so as to prolong the game long enough to make it interesting (my only game at the time) despite the fact that the Witch-king was rather less than competent. Well, I’m so far managing to hold my nation against all-comers and have retaken pop centers in Angmar as well, thanks to some heavy monetary and agent support from the Cloud Lord (Rob Zahn) and Dragon Lord (Rubens Mates). Managing to setup the Free armies in the area where they could be trounced by superior Rhudaurim armies helped my cause as well. I feel like such a backstabbing bastard. Game #194: The Witch-king. Having always been one who loves the underdog (aren’t we all) I decided to give the Witch-king a go in my second ME-PBM c.1650 game (the Dragon Lord was my first choice, masochist I). Despite only two turns having passed some interesting developments have already occurred. Shouldn’t discuss them openly as you never know who reads this publication. Game #26, c.2950: the Corsairs. Having read Tom Walton’s ravings about the awesome might of the Corsairs I decided that they couldn’t possibly have changed too much from my (already) beloved 1650 scenario. I joined as a neutral team with abovementioned friend Raven, who decided that he didn’t have enough time to play when he received the Rhun Easterlings setup. (Can’t say I blame him.) So far the game has been... but I’m getting ahead of myself. In any event having not completed much over ten turns in any one game take my rantings with a grain of salt. Several even. Many of my opinions are colored by the opinions of those I know who have played the game, as well as the people who have written all the fine articles in "From the Mouth of Sauron" (which I have absorbed voraciously—all of the first 25 issues -- and taken some of it to heart, even). To start off with, I will state that, so far, I have had a blast in both ME-PBM c.1650 games that I have joined. As Rhudaur, despite being outnumbered and outgunned from all sides (and feeling rather lonely up there in the north to boot) I’ve had great fun maneuvering my massive armies, preparing strokes and counter-strokes, desperately training my characters up to decent levels, and struggling to keep my economy afloat. In short, it’s been constant action in all theaters—diplomatic, military, and character. It’s one of the things I appreciate most about ME-PBM c.1650: the bang for your buck. You may pay $6.50 a turn for your fun, but with the action you can have, it’s worth it. And obviously there’s never a dull moment while playing the Witch-king. From Turn 1, you’re immersed in the thick of things, battles swirl around your kingdom, you fight constantly to keep alive and prosper. Nearly every position in ME-PBM c.1650 is like this. The proximity of possible enemy nations means that every position (except possibly the Noldor) has to be in it from the very first turn, plotting and planning and maneuvering. Having been in many other PBM games before, I have a deep-seated appreciation for "bang-for-buck"-ness. In many other PBMs the action has been sporadic at best, and when it does come, often anticlimactic. You’ll notice I’ve been very careful to denote "ME-PBM c.1650", not just "ME-PBM", in the above paragraph. There is, of course, a reason for that. My game in ME-PBM c.2950, as the Corsairs, has been anything but exciting. Not that I was expecting fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants excitement here. These were, after all, the Corsairs, and although debatably they’re the strongest neutral power, they ARE a neutral power. So some early-game buildup would be necessary, and even perhaps fruitful. After getting my setup and playing the first few turns, I became deathly bored. Something was missing. The climactic battles, the desperate diplomacy, the fiery play style—it just wasn’t there. Again, granted, I was the Corsairs, the most isolated southern neutral. However, it turned out I wasn’t the only one. The Noldo, the Dunedain Rangers, Dunland, the Khand Easterlings... the only place where action was fast and furious any more was still (as always will be) the Ithil Pass, where Gondor and Mordor were building up the body count (albeit at much smaller rates). Keep in mind that I’ve only played a few turns of the new game, but I’ve identified several factors that seem to lead to its stagnation:
Alas... My disclaimer far above still applies. As I haven’t all 25 nation setups in front of me, some of my analysis may be off-track, dubious, or just plain stupid, in which case I apologize for leading the Gentle Reader astray in my rant against the 2950 scenario. But I think that game #26 will be my last in the new scenario; give me large armies and break-point economies any day. I love the doomed feeling you get playing the Dark Servants. Call me masochistic.
Comments on the Previous ArticleFrom Tom WaltonI think Greg hits the nail on the head, at least for me. The major difference between the 1650 game and the 2950 game is that it takes a very long time to build up to significant action. Even the battles in the Ithilien are simply an exercise in counting bodies, as what’s left of the winning armies isn’t enough to carry the advantage against the enemy’s heavy fortifications. I found playing the Noldo in 2950-22 to be extremely dull. The only target worth hitting anywhere close is Mount Gram, a shoo-in battle if there ever was one (yawn). Unless the Duns go evil, the next closest site is Dol Guldur, which likely will be in the hands of the Free by the time the Noldo build up an economy strong enough to raise a significant army and then move it across half of Middle-Earth to employ it. The 1650 game, on the other hand, allows all nations the opportunity for immediate and telling action. In light of ‘bang-for-buckness’, this makes good sense; it means that your $6.50 you fork out every turn is being used in the way you want it to be used. In the 2950 game, you can literally spend ten turns before your nation is in any shape to do anything worthwhile, which amounts to a wasted $65.00 (at least in my opinion). And, in light of the trilogy, how are the Dark Servants supposed to field the vast armies seen at Minas Tirith or outside the Gates? Their economies won’t allow for it, even if they have good success at camp placement and upgrades. Even in our team game, we found it amazingly difficult to do anything but meet the enemy on the field and slaughter each other’s tiny armies. As you can tell, I’m an action fan. The tiny economies of the 2950 game don’t allow for much action early on, and the reduced number of pop centers cuts the possible strategic options considerably. In 1650, there’s a great deal of room for maneuver and counter-maneuver, with alot of guesswork and shrewd observation counting for the final win. A defeated nation can come back from the dead with a cunning surprise move; not so in 2950. There isn’t any real room, or any real targets, for surprise; it’s fairly obvious what the enemy will do at any point in the game.
Learning to "Think 2950": Some observations for 1650 playersBy David Rossell and Mark JaedeThis article is the result of a series of conversations between a veteran player of ME-PBM 1650 and a first-time player who started in the 2950 scenario. As teammates on the Free side of Game 22 of 2950, we came to the conclusion that many players were strategizing and evaluating the play balance of the 2950 scenario according to the conventional wisdom of the 1650 game. Both of us believe that this is a mistake; the 2950 game demands a fresh look. There are three key changes which force 1650 players to rethink their assumptions: economy, geography, and agents. Most 2950 nations start with very fragile economies, and it is entirely possible to drive them into bankruptcy within the first few turns. One writer in the e-zine The Mouth of Sauron observed this about the Dark Servants, but it is also true of the Woodmen, Northmen, Silvans, and Rangers. Even the mighty Gondors could go broke quickly with the right combination of over-recruiting and gold thefts. The implications of the new economy touch every aspect of play. Each player must be a careful bookkeeper. We heartily recommend projecting revenues and expenses over at least two turns. Allow some slack for limited sales (the initial maximum sale seems to be under 20,000 gold), pop center losses, and just plain errors. Especially pay attention to seasonal changes in production. This is serious. Players who are used to the large numbers of characters and troops of the 1650 game will be in for some unpleasant surprises if they blithely recruit in the style of the old game. Be aware, too, that the capture or destruction even of small pop centers can make a huge difference. A nation running close to the edge cannot afford the loss of a village or a couple of gold-producing camps. On the other hand, large pop centers with fortifications are much harder to take, because no one can afford the armies it would take to storm them. In the absence of large armies, the much-maligned Siege order may prove more popular. Military tactics also must change in a limited economy. Massive assaults against large pop centers are nearly impossible, except perhaps in the later stages of the game. Military actions must be planned and evaluated in terms of rather modest increments of cost vs. benefit. Consider recruiting fewer troops with better armor and weapons. Beef up your armies with artifacts and mages; combat bonuses will be worth proportionally more in this game. Remember that feeding an army might be more cost-effective, since you can get it into combat more quickly. Just as you want to minimize your own expenses, you want to maximize your opponents’ maintenance costs. Look for opportunities to force your foes to keep more troops in the field than you do. This may be done by maintaining interior lines, as in northwestern Mordor, or by threatening several pop centers with a few mobile troops. The latter strategy looks especially promising for the Corsairs against the Gondors (and vice versa) for the Long Rider in Rhovanion, and perhaps for the Witch King in Eriador. In some cases a force may do more harm by staying visible and tying down garrisons than it can do by committing itself to an attack. Remember that your opponents are operating under similar constraints. (Yes, even the Gondors.) When in doubt about the size of the enemy armies you see, don’t assume they contain huge numbers of heavy troops. You may well be looking at a herd of men-at-arms. Even if they are heavy troops, you may rejoice as they draw their fat paychecks from your enemy’s treasury. A tight economy also mandates team cooperation. As important as this was in the old game, it is even more so in the new. Richer and rear-rank nations should be prepared to transfer gold and pop centers to the frontliners, perhaps within the first few turns. The next major change from 1650 is the new political geography. A previous writer in the Mouth noted the disadvantages faced by the Dark Servants, who no longer have a major presence in Eriador. He correctly pointed out that the Witch King is split between Minas Morgul and the ruins of Angmar, while the Dragon Lord faces all or part of the forces of five Free nations. We think, however, that the geopolitical changes are more far-reaching and not so one-sided: Angmar/Arnor—The Witch King, while his capital and crucial characters are in Mordor, has two fewer Freeps to deal with. Cardolan, with its pesky ability to hire armies at no cost, is gone, severely restricting the Free Peoples’ ability to take out Er-Murazor early-on. Here especially a small stay-at-home force coupled with a small cavalry army with food would be very effective in tying down the two Eriador Free Peoples. As in 1650, negotiations with the region’s neutrals is crucial to give the area Free something to think about. Evils should watch out for the tremendous Freep challenge characters in the area. Mirkwood/Riddermark—In one sense, the Dragon Lord in 2950 is even worse off than he was in 1650 (if that were possible). He is surrounded by five Free peoples, three of whom have nothing better to do than to take DL pop centers (Sinda, Silvan and Woodmen). But, with the reduced economies in 2950, the Dragon Lord is much safer. Dol Guldur becomes a virtually impregnable fortress. Goblin Gate is a formidable obstacle, especially without the Dwarven heavy infantry in the area. This is one theater in which the Freeps really have to coordinate pressure on the Dragon Lord using the Sindar’s challenge characters, the Woodmen’s recruitment capabilities and the Silvan’s agents and armies. Lothlorien is more vulnerable here than in 1650. The Dragon Lord’s biggest enemy is his economy, and the Free would do well to implement a gold-theft program against the Dragon Lord ASAP. The Riders of Rohan are a bit of a wild card in the region, and really in all of Middle Earth. Located at a crucial road juncture, equipped with the ability to recruit all heavy cavalry (if they conjure mounts), even blessed with some metals production, Rohan can be, well, the cavalry that rides in at the last minute to save the day. This requires that the Rohirrim are careful to provision their armies and provide armor and weapons for the few troops they can support. But the appearence of 2000 Rohan HC at Dol Guldur could spell the Dragon Lord’s doom, and they can make a valuable contribution as far away as the Sea of Rhun—if the Rohan player is committed to the team. The Dunlendings and White Wizard can shift the balance of power in the region, pin down Rohan troops and generally make nuisances of themselves by plaguing the Free in the area with uncertainty. The Dark Servants need at least one of these neutrals, preferably both. Offer anything and everything, for these neutrals are surrounded by Free, and if they wait until Turn 10 before making a decision, the Free nations in the area will be able to devote most of their attention to them. For the Free, they don’t need the Eriador neutrals on their side, but they do need to keep them from joining the Dark Servants until Angmar is clear. Again, fortifications are very important; Isengard is impervious to army attack early in the 2950 scenario. The Free need to keep up communication with these neutrals. If they can secure their allegience, that will allow Rohan to ride to the assistance of the other Free in Mirkwood, Rhovanion or Ithilien. Rhovanion/Rhun—Here the balance of power has shifted somewhat in favor of the Free. The Northmen can out-recruit the Long Rider, and the Blind Sorceror lacks a massive army to send to Uvatha’s aid. Long Rider pop centers are much more vulnerable, especially the village at 3017. Here, as in the Gondors, the evils need to be careful with their agents lest they lose them. The Northmen will need substantial financial support if they are to recruit enough troops to stymie the Long Rider and Blind Sorceror forces. But it can be done, especially with the Northmen able to draw upon the presence of Silvan and Dwarven troops in the area. The relocation of the Dwarves’ capital to the Iron Hills provides the Northmen with a powerful and much-needed ally. But the Rhun Easterlings are a destabilizing presence in the area, able to recruit a lot of troops. Both Free Peoples and Dark Servants desperately need the help (or at least promised neutrality) of the Rhun Easterlings. If the Long Rider player is not aggressive in the region, the Free might be able to afford a pre-emptive strike against the Rhun. The Evils need to offer the Rhun lots of goodies to win them over quickly. Mordor/Ithilien/Gondor—Much changes while much stays the same. The Evils do not need to fear thousands of Eothraim cavalry bearing down on Morannon, nor do they need to worry about the vast Gondorian levies of the 1650 scenario. Northern Gondor has lost two-thirds of its tax base since 1650. Southern Gondor has lost about half of its pop centers. Militarily, life is good for the Evils. They can keep small armies and adequately defend the gates to Mordor, relying on fortifications to keep pop centers from falling to attack. Economically, life ain’t so good, and if the Evils try to recruit the massive armies they needed to in 1650, they will go bankrupt quickly. Nevertheless, Ithilien is still Middle-Earth’s meat grinder. Evils need to continually send troops into Osgiliath to disrupt Free plans and to try to get the Ithilien pop centers. If the Evils give the Gondors time and peace, the Gondors will be able to combine to take out one Serv capital at a time. Between the two of them, they can comfortably support 4000 heavy infantry, maybe 6000 HI in the short term. These are not the Gondors you know from 1650. Not even close. They still produce a lot of troops and taxes relative to other nations, but not relative to the Mordor fortifications. The Gondors must do their best to keep Ithilien in Free hands and wait for their Mirkwood allies to polish off the Dragon Lord and head south. Without the Eothraim to worry about, the Dog Lord can afford to help the Long Rider in Rhovanion, confident in the Ice King’s ability to defend northwestern Mordor. The Corsairs and the Khand Easterlings play much the same role in 2950 as they did in 1650. The Corsairs will have little fun raiding Mordor’s nonexistent coastline, so they will be heavily inclined to join the forces of Sauron. Like the Corsairs, Khand has compelling geographic reasons to turn evil. As with the economy and political geography, the agent balance in 2950 mandates new thinking. Actually, not all of this has to do with the new scenario. The recent upgrade of the guard function in both scenarios has caused some confusion for those who were used to a highly aggressive agent game. Nevertheless, the presence of some agent artifacts among the Free in 2950 makes the DS agent position that much more difficult. There are, however, some ways for the DS to work around their agent limitations. One is to train agents with guarding and gold thefts before taking on the Free army commanders. Another is to look for unguarded targets. Secondary pop centers and recruiting army commanders are much less likely to be guarded than front-line commanders (unless, of course, the Free have read this article). A third approach is to locate and steal the very agent artifacts which are causing the trouble. Generally, the DS should concentrate somewhat less on stopping the large Free armies (which are just not as large as in 1650) and more on actions which bring in cash, tie down Free resources, and generally cause confusion. Be unpredictable. Remember that guards can’t be everywhere, and they cost money while producing nothing. The Free, on the other hand, should look for opportunities to set up guard traps for the DS. The Free have no choice but to name agents and guard whatever they can. The Free should also look for opportunities to put their artifacts to use in modest offensive actions as soon as they are ready. These three changes—economies, geography, and agent rules—cannot help but affect the balance of play. Several commentators have suggested that the changes seriously unbalance the 2950 game. They do not, however, agree on who benefits. One writer notes that, compared to 1650, the Free took a much bigger economic hit than the Servants. Another says that the new geography, agent mix, and character balance make the Evils’ position untenable. We believe that all such evaluations are premature, and contaminated by "1650 thinking." Much of the perceived imbalance may disappear as players cast aside 1650 assumptions and develop strategies and tactics which work in the new scenario.
MEPBM 2950By Jeff HolzhauerI join those who are disappointed with the 2950 scenario. I understand the reasons why some people like it, and do not begrudge them their opinion, but ....... I was hoping for so much more. GSI had the opportunity to create a whole new game dynamic based on a proven system. They took this opportunity and wasted it. So little has changed. The nations are almost all the same. The locations are all nearly the same. Almost all of the hidden pop centers are the same places. The nation advantages are unchanged. Saruman gets 40 point commanders!?! Where the hell did that come from? I don’t seem to remember being impressed by the brilliance of Saruman’s commanders in the books. Shouldn’t Theodan have started as a double agent? What happened to all of the orcs in the Misty Mountains and Mirkwood? Most of my disappointment was due to high expectations, caused, in part, by The Mouth of Sauron. Brian and Tom’s ideas for the new nations were so much better than what actually happened. Imagine if the Fire and Ice Kings had moved to the Misty Mountains. Suddenly Eriador and Mirkwood are major battle areas. As it now stands, unless Dunland and the White Wizard go evil, there should be no Dark Servant troops west of the Rhovanian and Ithilien by turn 10, at the latest (barring brain dead or dropped free peoples). With good free people play, make that turn 6. That part of the game’s a blowout. After that, I imagine it would be pretty damn boring for the western free peoples. Which brings me to my main complaint about 2950: It’s boring. Greg Reid and Tom Walton summed this up nicely in Mouth 31, but let me add my piece. I’m playing the Woodmen (which may be my sole problem, but I don’t think so). The Woodmen start with 250 points of command ability (5,000 gold a turn). This is very exciting for me, considering I can’t field an army, worthy of its name. I have my tax rate at 59% and have added three villages and a town to my starting position. With a big 100 man army, I have to sell food every turn to keep from going under. Now that I’m allowed 17 characters, I’m finally up to 12. If I had been playing a two week game, I would have had to fire a character to make it through winter. (Sudden thought: imagine winter in a one-week game!) I think we’re winning, and my agents and emmissaries are at effective levels, but I’m bored. Some people may like this type of scenario, but I don’t. I like ME-PBM because it’s so fast moving. If I wanted to play a slow moving game, there are many other PBM games out there with much greater depth. ME-PBM’s strengths are as a wargame. As a building game, it leaves a lot to be desired. The system is just not detailed enought to be a satisfying builder. ME 2950; Is it disappointing?I am of two minds when I think about ME 2950. The idealist in me is mightily disappointed with what was done with the new scenario. GSI took the broad, sweeping canvas and colorful palette of Middle Earth and composed a quick charcoal sketch. Most of the differences between ME 1650 and ME 2950 are so small as to be cosmetic. The only changes that are significant are the ones to each country’s starting pop centers and armies. But those changes give the 2950 scenario a new flavor, at least for the first 15 turns. The pragmatist in me sees a successful product that has been altered enough to rekindle the flagging interest of some of the customer base. If you were Bill Feilds, would you do a massive rewrite of one of the most popular PBM games on the market? The investment in time and dollars to bring a PBM game to market is substantial. Perhaps, for various reasons, he was not willing to significantly alter a popular design and risk the investment needed for a redesign. I don’t know, I am not defending GSI, but neither will I deride them. ME-PBM is not perfect, but it is a fun, playable game. PBM designers vary in their responsiveness to players’ suggestions. GSI does not seem to be very responsive at all. Again, from a pragmatic standpoint, it may be too expensive to change ME-PBM to reflect players’ ideas no matter how insightful or clever they are. Even the companies that are responsive to player input often can’t hold my attention long enough to implement changes. I find that I play PBM games for about three years, sometimes less. It has been like that since Crane I. By the time I have played a game enough to thoroughly understand it and be able to offer meaningful design tweaks, my fuse is down to 18 - 24 months. Even if the company could evaluate my proposals and implement them in six months, I’m almost done playing the game anyway. I not saying that critiquing game designs and offering PBM designers feedback is futile, or wasted effort. I’m just telling you why I don’t really dabble in that for games that are already released. I much prefer to do that in the playtest stage. As to Jeff Holzhauer’s comment that he found the Woodmen position boring, I would ask Jeff this; Do you find the Woodmen position boring or is your FP team lacking in coordination and thereby making it boring? I am playing in several games and the two that I am enjoying the least are games in which I joined alone and the FP are not well organized. The other games I am in are all team games and they are very exciting. IMHO, ME-PBM is a team game and if your side does not start as a team or evolve into one, you will probably lose and it will most likely be boring. In the FP team games I am in the Woodmen are fighting the Dragon Lord and the Witch-king tooth and nail. And in all three the DS in Mirkwood and the Misty Mountains are in deep kimchi. Of course, the other FP are helping considerably. Gold, material, armies, characters, timely use of the Mantle of Doriath, FP curse squads. In one of these games the FP are financing a Woodmen army of 2000 HI. Frankly, I’m having a ball in those game and the Woodmen seem to be too. Of course, biting your fingernails up to your elbows is exciting for some and stressful for others.
Comments on the 2950 GameFrom Mike HunnersenLastly, A comment on 2950 vs. 1650. I have never played 1650 but in from what I have heard, I may not do so. 1650 seems to me to be far to heavily military oriented. The military system employed by GSI is very basic, often unrealistic, i.e. nothing special. The fact that fortifications are meaningless in most games - (The Sinda taking out Dol Goldur by turn 4 is almost a mockery). Armies should be expensive to maintain, and to take out Dol Goldur Should require a massive effort by several nations. My point is, 2950 is a character game. Agents, as your say are vital; However, so are Emis and mages. As well numerous commanders for running around with small raid type arnies can be helpful. In 2950, you have to concentrate on characters. By turn 3 you should have 12. And then stay at them maximum allowed for the rest of the game. Armies need to be well trained and well equiped before you use them. Your need to acquire as much information as possible. If one thinks characters first and military second, then 2950 will be very enjoyable. If the reverse is true, then 2950 will likely turn out to be boring. The only problem I see is that, with only 2 turn orders a character, you can be left with an unfulfilled feeling at times. GSI should consider, at some point, allowing more characters or something, to put more punch in the character game, that is 2950. |