Re: MEPBM 4th age opinion

From: Darrell Shieml <Darrell.Shimel@MCI.COM>

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0000

Let me start be agreeing with that there are several things wrong with
the 4th age.
I agree that starting agents are too powerful.  I don't agree with your
reason, just your belief.

When it comes to allegiances, however, I could not disagree more.
Trying to prevent someone from joining an alliance is impossible.  Even
if I can't change my icon, I can still work as part of a team.

T. Walko (Yes I hate spam) wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> And the difference is? Regardless of whether you assassinate or steal or
> whatever, it is still way to easy to eliminate a nation. That's bad game
> mechanics.

The only way to put a nation out easily is to take away his Cities and
MT.  That can be done with emissaries and armies, but not with agents.
Your entire argument that too many nations are eliminated because agents
atart too powerful is incorrect.  6 nations with 3 or 4 starting 60
emissaries is far more useful for eliminating nations than that number
of 90 equilivant agents.

I completly agree with you that agents start way too powerful.  Just not
for your stated reason.  I think that the agents cause the game to be
focused on a character war.  Military and economy become secondary to
who can kill the most enemy characters.  I'd prefer to play just one
game that was an economic and military battle instead of a character
war.

Sure it is armies and emissaries that win the game, but in most 4th age
games the entire challenge is keeping those emissaries and armies around
long enough to do some damage.

>
> > I have, however, seen nations drop after being pestered by assassins.
> > This is a more serious concern in my mind.
>
> I guess that is more along the lines of what I mean. Destoryed / Dropped
> is the same in my book; one way or anothert, someone isn't playing
> beacause of bad game mechanics.

I do not consider dropped and destroyed the same thing.  Dropped is
quit.  Destroyed is beaten.  I've never been beaten.  I dropped once
because I got tired of the character war.  For me this is far more
shameful than losing.

>
> >In fact, I'm trying to put
> > together a game without assassinate or kidnap orders.  It is going
> > really slow.
>
> Well, if you had the ability to take advantage of a situation....you
> know what I mean?

Not really??  GSI has modified game mechanics in the past for grudge
game.  Things like neutrals not being able to change allegiance,
kingdoms not getting area maps of other nations, and other things like
that.  What I'm hoping to do is get the names of 25 players, then tell
GSI we want to play a game where the Kidnap and Assassinate orders are
not allowed.  No one could do it in any situation.

<SNIP>

> Diplomacy, to an extent. But, knowing you are going into a game at a
> distinct disadvantage isnt. Again, bad game mechanics.

I guess I just don't get this line of reasoning.  Are you going into the
game with the plan to not communicate or coordinate with any of the
neutrals or allies.  If so, you are at a disadvantage no matter how the
neutrals go.

Otherwise, your alliance has exactly the same chances of attracting
neutrals as the other.  You are not going into the game at a
disadvantage.

In fact, I have known several people take certain neutrals in the 3rd
age, with the intent of going DS or FreeP.  It is my opinion that in the
4th age, nations take neutral because they want to be able to see how
the chips fall.  They want to be able to join the team that will be more
fun to play with.

<SNIP>
> > >
> > > I would think a more reasonable system of declaring evil/free
> >
> > Any suggestions?  How about the lousy team gets all the neutrals that
> > don't declare first??  Besides, DS and FreeP is just an Icon.  Any
> > nation can have disliked relations to any other.  This means the nation
> > forced to go good could still attack the good.
>
> First nation to go evil/free has a 100% chance of success (or 95% or
> whatever). Next nation to declare to the same side as the first to
> declare evil/free only has a 75% chance...and so on and so on til there
> is an extremely slim chance that 8 out of 10 or 10 out of 10 can go
> evil/free all in one game.

Problem is that you can still work against one alliance and for the
other, even if you can;t change your Icon.  In the 3rd age, you could
declare for the oposite team of what you are working for.  Then your
enemy could not atttack you with armies because you have the same icon
as them.   That is bad mechanics!!!

>
> As for the agent thing, start new characters at 40, maybe a "chance" at
> better scouting/assassinations (as opposed to the guarranty), I don't
> know. As I said, I have only seen what theresults have been, I have not
> actually played a game.

I agree that limiting all starting characters to 50 would be good.  I
don't like the idea that you can buy starting stealth.  I'd also like to
see the +20 kidnap/assass SNA removed.  I think the double scouting is a
very good SNA.  I might even take it in the no Kidnap/Assassinate game,
if it ever happens.

<SNIP>

References

Re: MEPBM What do you suggest?
rwulman@aol.com (RWULMAN)
Wed, 04 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0000
Re: MEPBM What do you suggest?
reklan@aol.com (Reklan)
Sun, 08 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0000
MEPBM 4th age opinion
"T. Walko (Yes I hate spam)" <Tom@nospamjerkstroll.mv.com>
Sun, 08 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0000
Re: MEPBM 4th age opinion
Darrell Shieml <Darrell.Shimel@MCI.COM>
Mon, 09 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0000
Re: MEPBM 4th age opinion
"T. Walko (Yes I hate spam)" <Tom@nospamjerkstroll.mv.com>
Mon, 09 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0000