Re: MEPBM, character classes

From: Patrick F. McGehearty <patrick@rsn.hp.COM>

Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0000

In article <34C7F53D.5107@io.com>,
Stanley, the Daredevil Crow! <samcraig@io.com> wrote:
><much snipped>
>
>Patrick F. McGehearty wrote:
>> A 40+ Commander is also needed to change your tax rate.  The order may only
>> be needed once or twice in a game, but raising it to 60 on turn 1 or 2 can
>> be very important.  40+ commanders can also be used for expansion by posting
>> camps.
>
>
>Does the moral of a camp created by a commander suffer? Does the forces
>needed to take/threaten a camp created by a commander increase? Just
>wishful thinking on that second question, but you'd think a camp created
>by a commander would be inherently better fortified.
>
The starting loyalty of a camp is based on 1/2 the natural skill of the
creating character.  So a 40 Commander creates a 20 loyalty camp, as does
a 40 Emissary.  But, since emissaries are specialist in people skills,
they find it easier to create camps.  But that is not absolute.  I've seen
E52's fail and C40's succeed.  My impression is that E's have a 20%
higher success rate than C's given equal skill ranks.

Fortifications are separate.  Only commanders can build fortifications, and
building fortifications is not an automatic order.  I would only try to
build fortifications with less than a C40 if I was desperate.

>>
>> By mid-game, emissaries can double enemy agents (which can be a life saver),
>> and by turn 10, a group of emissaries can take heavily fortified enemy
>> MTowns if the enemy armies can be removed (InfOther order).
>
>This is the main reason i responded to your message; are you saying the
>mid-game starts around turn 10? How many turns does a game usually last?
That is hard to answer, as it varies depending on relative skill levels of
those involved.  I've known of individual nations eliminated as early as
turn 3.  One early game lasted over 100 turns with only three nations
remaining for most of that time (two trying to track down and finish off the
one).  My impression is that the outcome of most games becomes clear between
turn 15 and 25, and then the game may last between 1 and 10 more turns,
depending on whether one or more members of the losing side makes a bitter
end defense or just resigns.  The FA1000 game is limited to 52 turns.  Don't
know how often those games actually last that long.

>
>> >
>> In the end game, Mages are used for locating those new MTowns and tracking
>> the other sides most powerful characters.  But the end game is not a good
>> time to name a new mage.  It takes too long for them to become useful.
>> Now is the time that emissaries are even more powerful as those who have
>> survived are now at the 70+ skill level.  They move in and the popcenters
>> change sides.  If the enemies agents names are known, then the emissaries
>> double them, preventing assassinations.  But just like mages, this is not a
>> good time to name new emissaries as they take a while to be useful.
>
>By that reasoning naming new agents would be a waste because a 30pnt
>agent could "never" assinate a 70pnt Emmisary. Is there any point to
>naming new commanders in the end game?
>

I consider the first 6-10 turns to be early game, with the exact turn count
depending on how the neutrals act and how efficient the nations are at
getting their initial affairs in order.  Team games tend to move faster than
individual games.  As long as most nations are still in play and there seems
to be an overall balance between the sides, I consider that to be mid-game.
When one side seems to have a clear edge, that is the beginning of the
end-game.  If the winning side stays coordinated, the game should be
resolved in less than ten turns, even though it make take longer to finish
off the last nation or two.  So characters named during the end game are not
going to be around long enough to get significant training.  Characters
named during the midgame may, depending on whether a sudden breakthrough
occurs.  Even low rank commanders can recruit troops and fight battles, so
there is always a certain value to having commanders, even in the end game.

My comments have been focused on what characters help your side to win the
overall war.  I should mention another point.  For your nation to win one of
the top three places, you need to optimize popcenters, gold, characters, and
army power.  Optimizing popcenters is not well understood, but popcenter
size and loyalty seems to play a major part.  Large numbers of camps do not
help your popcenter rating.  Gold is obvious, more is better.  Army power
is a matter of following the book formulas.  But recruiting too many troops
will hurt your gold.  Character rating is the total of all natural character
skills of all your characters.  So in the end game, many players name
multi-class characters.  These characters will have very little effect on
game play, but can be training in multiple areas, so they increase the
nation's character point total more rapidly than a single class character.
If you pay too much attention to this goal too early, you may lose the game.

>>
>> >
>> Neutrals can ask permission to steal from others.
>
>This brings up some grey areas. Can allies double agent each other? This
>would increase your agents skill and "insure loyalty" from your opposite
>number, as you would have access to his information. Can allies steal
>from each other?
>
Yes, allies can double agent each other.  The real value of such an action
is that only one nation can have a particular agent doubled at a time.
If S.Gondor has doubled the Noldo's best agent, but suddenly stops receiving
reports from that agent, and the Noldo confirms that the agent is still
alive, then the Noldo can deduce that this agent has just been doubled by an
enemy.
And, yes allies can steal from each other.  It is easier to steal from a
nation that is friendly towards you than from one that hates you.  So agents
barely ready to try stealing will have more success stealing from friendly
popcenters.

>>
>>
>>
>> Your questions indicate a willingness to look past the superficial.
>> I suggest that if you can afford the cost ($25 start, $6.50 per two weeks),
>> sign up for a game and find out more as you play.
>
>Just did; yesterday. Breathlessly awaiting the unabridged rules:)
>
>> Communicate with your
>> teammates and your feel for the game will develop rapidly.  If you mention
>> someone's name when you sign up, they get a free turn or two, so I would
>> not object if you mention mine. :-)  [Or if someone else's advice has had a
>> bigger impact on your decision to start playing, mention theirs.]
>>
>
>Sorry, too late. Wish I'd known, always willing to make a deal for
>someone else.
>(And grease the wheels of diplomacy before the games even begin;)

References

Re: MEPBM, character classes
"Stanley, the Daredevil Crow!" <samcraig@io.com>
Thu, 22 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0000
MEPBM, character classes
"Stanley, the Daredevil Crow!" <samcraig@io.com>
Mon, 19 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0000