|
Post by davshar on Sept 2, 2006 22:23:14 GMT 1
This is my first post, other than to ask questions, so let me warn readers (if there are any) that it is fairly long, as I wish to analyze and criticize one of the key elements of the game design. I didn't know whether to put this in House Rules, Strategy or General, but decided on the last for reasons that will become apparent. I'll state my thesis at the start: The use of Victory Points as a means of winning the game is utter nonsense, both from a military point of view and from the standpoint of violating the spirit of Tolkiens's books. That said let me add that I have played war/simulation/boardgames for almost 50 years and WotR is probably the single most brilliant game design I've ever seen. I love the game and consider it, in the area of game design, to be a work of genius. But even genius is not perfect; Einstein has been shown to have been wrong on some of his hypotheses. So I would like to discuss what I consider to be the single worst flaw in the game design. My comments are those of a wargamer and student of military history. I have read Tolkien's trilogy several times but am no expert. I have played the game 25-30 times and am no expert; also, I have great admiration for those on this forum who have such a wealth of experience playing and knowledge of the game. But this is, after all, The WAR if the Ring and perhaps one looking at it from the perspective of a wargame can offer a few new insights. I should ad as a corollary to this that Tolkien was many things, both as a person and a scholar, but military historian was not one of them; he was fundamentally ignorant of the basics of war, strategy, tactics and logistics. Now Victory Points, those awful chimeras! The FP need take only two SP strongholds and she wins the game; M.t Gundabad and Dol Guldor or Umbar would do it. The SP need amass only 10 VP, which is only slightly less riduculous. Consider, this would be like designing a game based on WWII and starting in 1941 and saying that if the Allied player recaptures Norway and Greece then Nitler would have lost heart, his people abandoned him and the war would be over. Preposterous. Yes, this was a real life event and not a war on a fantasy world, but the 'real life' of the War of the Ring is Tolkien's trilogy and these victory conditions violate the spirit and letter of his novels completely. The War of the Ring is a war to the knife, which will be fought to the extermination of one side or the other. If Sauron losses he knows he will die; if the Free People lose they know they face genocide and/or slavery. So what if the FP loses settlements worth 10VP? Those remaining, people of the caliber of Aragorn, would just throw down their weapons and say, 'we give up, come and slaughter us'? And if Sauron loses two strongholds on the outskirts of his empire his vast armies are going to dissolve in hopelessness and terror? Sauron, like Hitler and Saddam and others of that ilk would have had a core of elite killers who would have started in on his own armies the minute they started to desert. And, the Power of the Ring holds his armies in the field, in spite of any defeats. Again, untrue to the spirit of the books. I don't want to sound pompous or lecturing (something I know right well I can sound like) but I am not sure how much crossover there is between people who play war/simulation games and people who play Fantasy Flight types of games; I suspect that there is some but not overwhelming. Let me illustrate my thesis with one final historical analogy. During the second Persian Invasion of Greece during the early 5th century BCE (a vast army pours out of the East to kill and enslave Western Civilization - sound familiar?) the Persian army alone was larger than the entire population of the Athenian city-state. Knowing they could not meet the Persians on land the Athenian Themistocles convinced his people to evacute the entire population of their polity and take to their fleet and the Persians occupied Attica and the city of Athens (in WotR the Persians would win here on VPs). The Athenians and their Greek allies then smashed the Persian fleet at the Battle of Salamis and re-occupied their city-state. And, note, it was a city-state, not just a single city of a larger nation; the Persians had occupied the entire territory of the Athenian polity, every inch of land and almost all of the possessions the Athenians had and still the Greeks did not surrender. You do not surrender when that means genocide and slavery; might as well take some with you. Now, having stated the problem (only as I see it - I know many players, perhaps most, are happy with the VP system and to them I say right on; there is no reason we all have to play WotR using the exact same rules) let me offer some solutions. These do fall under House Rules.
A) No one wins with VP. The SP wins when there is not a single FP military unit left on the board and no FP settlements uncaptured to produce more. The FP wins when the Ring is destroyed or she captures all SP strongholds and destroys all SP military units on the board.
B)I am NOT saying that the capture of important Strongholds and cities, which have great strategic and mustering value, is without importance, just that people who don't military history usually overestimate the importance of taking real estate. Therefore, and some or all of the following can be used:
b1)when you capture an enemy stronghold you immediately get 2 elite or 4 regular or a combination because of the surge of hope and pride caused by the victory (the same principle might be applied to battles involving a total of 14 or more units.
b2) when you capture an enemy city you get 1 elite or 2 regular or one leader (the exact mix of all this can be adjusted to fit your personal tastes or by experience to find the correct play balance).
b3)when the FP takes the second Sauron stronghold the SP units destroyed in battle are henceforth eliminated PERMANENTLY, or Variant: only the Easterling and Southron units are eliminated permanently, as they are human and can go home families and be fairly sure that the humane Free Peoples will not exterminate them if SP loses the War. Variant: and this is my favorite; henceforth the FP's battle loses may be replaced in the same way as the SP. Or let the FP replace loses from the start of the game and lose this ability if they lose so many VP. Or, let FP replace only every other other lost military unit. Variant: any combination of all or parts of the above.
Now, I know that there will immediately be two criticisms made of all this; I will answer these in advance and then shut the hell up, if anybody is still reading. First, will these changes not lead to very long games, compared to the average current length of a game? Yes. And this is to the good. Wargamers are used to games that go on for dozens or hundreds of hours. It seems to me that a game of WotR has barely started and it is over. Because the game is so good I want more of each individual game. Second, won't this increased length give the Ringbearers enough time to always get to Mordor and end the game in the same amount of time anyway? No. IF rules are used to increase the length of the wargame aspect of WotR then rules should be added to increase the length of the Fellowship aspect. For example, it could take the Ringbearers 2 or 3 or more turns to transit one region. As a final thought on this problem I ask myself why the designers choose to use VP at all. I believe that the answer is that they wanted a game that was not too long, that could be played in one sitting. And this leads me to conclude that the title of this post is too strong; it is not that VP are absurd but simply that they reflect an approach to gaming different from my own. The designers, and probably most of the players of WotR, see it as a Boardgame, to be played in a sitting or two, with a clearcut and quick winner. I, and probably those players who have a background in wargames, see it as a wargame/simulation in which very long games are a joy, not a drawback. The different is conceptual, not absulute. So, in spite of our differences, to the designers of War of the Ring, all glory and thank you. If anyone gets through all this I will appreciate any arguments, agreements, suggestions, corrections, excommunications. If all I have written is redundant because others have covered it elsewhere I can only plead a newness to the forum and the literature on WotR and hope that in time I will not be saying what has been said before. Thanks all.
|
|
|
Post by magicgeek on Sept 3, 2006 5:03:34 GMT 1
A worthy post, welcome aboard.
It is silly to take Umbar & Mt Gundabad and expect the Free to win. It is also silly to expect the Free to actually be able to take 2 Strongholds. Free Military Victories are vanishingly rare. They borderline don’t happen against wary Shadows, the threat of them is what makes them worthwile. Expecting the Shadow to take more than 10 VP is also silly, but far less silly than forcing the Shadow to kill the last elite hiding out in a corner of the board.
I do not believe you have actually play tested your ideas to see what effect they would have. If you did, I feel you would radically change your mind. I agree that VP’s are not a great solution, unfortunately you have not actually provided a different solution. I cannot go play your game with my friend to find out if it works. The base game already can stretch the physical components of the game. If you extend the game past what it is now, the game breaks on too many levels, in too many ways. Both sides can run out of cards. The Free can completely run out of units to muster. Both sides do hit their counter mix limits. In a standard game of WAR, the Free muster pools of a number of nations can run out. Sure, change the game so Blue pieces can be regrown, if you like, but I really quite like the fact that there are limitless hordes of Orcs, and only a limited number of Free. Your example of Norway and Greece being conquered is wrong. No wargame I have played has Axis pieces coming from Greece. The ‘Free’ Greek or Norwegian units can be built when that country is liberated though, in almost every WWII wargame I have played. A better example would be losing Munich and Frankfurt, which actually seems kinda reasonable. I have lost a WWI Variant of World in Flames because I lost Kiel in the first turn and could not retake it. In Iraq, Saddam fell when tanks drove through Bagdad, they didn’t conquer all of Iraq, or all of Bagdad, just the middle bit and made certain everyone knew about it. Sounds like there was 1 VP in Iraq to me.
During the Invasion of Lorien from the East one game, the entire Elven population ran from the golden wood after warnings from their scouts. The Elves ran East, conquered Dol Guldur, demoralising the occupying shadows into surrender. Sounds similar to the Athenians, No?
A) Removing VP and making it a fight to the death means that in a balanced game the last 6 turns are often really boring as the shadow is forced to hunt down scattered, fleeing refugees. The Free will never win this way. It just isn’t their style, and it aint what they would do in the books.
B1+2) Where do these bonus units come from? Where do they get placed? Which force pools can they come from? How does me killing you train more soldiers? It does seem a reasonable game balance idea, it just doesn’t ring true to the story. Attacking with extra large stacks just to get more toys seems a tad silly too. B3) ‘when the FP takes the second Sauron stronghold the SP units destroyed in battle are henceforth eliminated PERMANENTLY’ This seems a bad Idea. The free will not hold those 2 strongholds long enough for it to matter. The Free really are hard pushed to EVER get 2 strongholds, let alone hold them for an extended period of time, the payoff just isn’t there, besides, do all the units get removed, or just the last soldier that died on the last attack, not the 12 HP that died in the first 4 battles?
B4) ‘Easterling and Southron units are eliminated permanently’ This is how the base game should have been.
|
|
|
Post by mrweasely on Sept 3, 2006 5:24:14 GMT 1
I welcome the "out of the box" thinking.
While we're at it, in the "historical" outcome, the Shadow had at its high water mark 2 victory points: Pelargir and Dale. Pelargir was recaptured by Strider. Nevertheless, the impression was that Minas Tirith was hold-at-all-costs for the Free Peoples. In the game, the consequences of losing Minas Tirith are almost nothing. Unless, of course, you put Gandalf inside the stronghold, and thus endanger your 5th die - but in the books it wasn't about assasinating Gandalf.
Minas Tirith should be more important than "1/5th of what you need to take to win the game". As the leading capital of Men perhaps it should have some "Voice of Saruman" style logistical ability. Or maybe, since Sauron expects to find a Ring-bearing rival appearing there, it should have an ability to divert eyes. Something like The Last Battle but a bit more practical.
|
|
SevenSpirits
Nazgûl
PlayTester
Sauron meant no harm. He only wanted to draw the extra cards...
Posts: 283
|
Post by SevenSpirits on Sept 3, 2006 19:45:17 GMT 1
An interesting look at the game, and clearly provoking of some thoughtful discussion.
I think your post contains some unwarranted assumptions. In history, the goal of the warring parties it traditionally to gain wealth, power and land. But in the Lord of the Rings, the sides had different goals, I think.
The Free peoples wanted to beat Sauron (by destroying his Ring), and to avoid destruction of Middle Earth.
Sauron wanted to not have his Ring destroyed (and in fact recover it), and conquer Middle Earth.
This leads us to the victory conditions:
1) If the Ringbearers are corrupted, Sauron gets his ring. He clearly wins.
2) If the Ringbearers destroy the Ring, Sauron clearly loses.
3) If Sauron takes 10 VPs (half of all FP VPS), Middle Earth is in ruins. FP lose. Therefore, Sauron wins.
4) If the FP take 4 VPs... um... actually, this is not a victory condition. This is the rules saying that Sauron does not leave his strongholds undefended. But theoretically, it thematically represents Sauron's attention being completely diverted by the Free Peoples, so that the Ring is easily destroyed.
Or, to summarize, WotR casts the VCs as "can Sam and Frodo save Middle Earth before there's nothing left to save?"
But why have the Shadow stop at 10 VPs? Shouldn't they have to literally destroy all of Middle Earth? I don't think so.
Very, very few games actually follow an entire process down to the end, and the ones that do tend to suck. Most games assume that, after a certain point, the outcome is practically a foregone conclusion. A good game does this right at the point where, if you kept playing, it wouldn't be a tense neck and neck race any more, but would be a boring blowout.
In this case, if the FP are down 10 VPs, they have had half their lands destroyed and conquered. More are sure to follow, even if the Ring is destroyed. If I were the FP, I think I would call that "losing".
From a more practical standpoint, it would be boring as heck to play until every last FP unit is destroyed. It's most definitely inappropriate for the Shadow to have conquered all of Middle Earth, except that the FP have one contingent of foot soldiers out in the middle of nowhere, running away from the hordes of orcs pursuing them.
"You may have conquered all our lands, but we still have a hundred guys with spears. You haven't won yet!" No.
If might be reasonable, if you wanted a longer game, to play until the Shadow has, say, 14 VP. Frankly, I think the threshold is arbitrary. At what point do the FP consider it a lost war? When half their lands are destroyed and conquered? Two thirds? I can't imagine they could consider all of Middle Earth but the Grey Havens being conquered to possibly be called a "win". So I don't think 20 or even 18 is a fair threshold. Personally, I would choose 12 as a fair number, but the game is balanced enough as is that I wouldn't want to change it.
|
|
|
Post by davshar on Sept 4, 2006 1:04:28 GMT 1
To those who took the trouble to wade through my post, much thanks. As always I am impressed by the knowledge and experience of those on this forum. Let me answer each of those who were good enough to reply in turn.
First, to Magicgeek. You had many differences with my argument and said why specifically; you countered my historical analogies with ones of your own. This is the way to have a discussion. You, too, state that VP are not a very good condition for winning but, and I infer this, that they are better than any alternatives offered. Possibly. I had a great friend, dead now, who always used to end any argument he was making by saying, "I may be wrong, I have been before". Everyone in the world should have this stamped on there foreheads.
Actually I have tried some but not all of the House Rules and Variants I mentioned; these were not meant to be a comprehensive list of alternative rules but just a meditating on possible expansions of the diameters of the games. The one that lets the FP resurrect (remuster might be a better word) works quite well, even if all the other rules of the basic game is used. Using this method the FP will still suffer a constantly declining pool of replacement units but the extra units available for a while makes the military aspect of the game more interesting. It is not just that the SP has such an overwhelming advantage in number of units and unlimited replacements but the army cards contain a number that ad to this. In my last game, playing the FP, I had both Dol Guldur and Mt. Gundabad under siege with at least some chance to taking them and the SP drew an Orc Multiplying again card that put three units into each of these strongholds. Does not the SP have enough hordes without this sort of thing?
While speaking of cards, if the game is extended by increasing the difficulty of the SP victory conditions and the number of FP replacements then the cards will have to be reshuffled and used again; forgot to list this.
You are correct that my analogy of Norway and Greece was a bad one in that they were conquered nations whereas Dol Guldar and Mt. Gundabad start as integral parts of Sauron's empire. But accepting your own analogy of Munich and Frankfurt I believe my argument still holds; had the Allies, by some military miracle, managed to take these cities in 1941 it would not have ended the War. Indeed, in 1945 when the Allies took Hamburg and all the Rhineland and the Russians had taken all of old Prussia it did not end the War; only the death of Hitler did that, as only the death of Sauron would end the WotR.
But it seems to me that what we are discussing here is as much a preference of games tastes or styles rather than absolutes. You, and probably most others, would find it boring to have to hunt down every free unit as SP to win game or pointless as FP to simply keep fighting as long as possible after there is no chance of victory. I suppose I am just more cantankerous. I actually enjoy fighting to the bitter end as the FP and seeing how long I can keep going and how may accursed orcs I can take with me, and as the SP I enjoy taking everything. But I can see that this is not everybody's cup of River Anduin water.
Actually, the VP serve the same function as a resignation in chess, albeit a forced one; why drag out a foregone conclusion. I can only answer this as an old grognard; because the process is as much fun as the conclusion.
Your analogy of the Elves fleeing Lorien to ambush and take Dol Guldor and win is very interesting but not quite apt. Fleeing Lorien, gathering a larger army through the expanded reinforcement variant and then retaking Lorien would be more on the mark. Or, had they fled Lorien in your game and then taken Barad Dur, Ok! I would give you than because that would gut the heart of Sauron's empire, not one of its outlying strongholds.
In answer to your questions regarding variants b1 and b2, the bonus units come from the replacement pools or, if the FP, the eliminated units and are placed in any settlement or stronghold that units can be placed in by regular muster. The rational for them is that a big victory, the taking of an enemy stronghold or large city, may not cause a mad dictator like Sauron to surrender but it will raise the morale of your own peoples and cause more of them to join the colors (unless we are to assume that literally every able bodies person between the ages of 12 and 75 is already in the FP armies at the start of the war). Or perhaps it would make the females of the FP demand to be allowed to fight. That women cannot fight effectively in war has been disproven by so many examples from real history that I will not list them. Come to think of it, why don't women, facing the genocide Sauron has in store for them, fight in the Lord of the Ring books? Because Tolkien was an old Oxford don sexist. At Helm's Deep the women huddle in fear in the cavern, cowering in terror. In our own Middle Ages during sieges women were up on the battlements hurling boiling oil and rocks onto the enemy. But I digress.
Finally, let me say that a large part of this discussion borders on the eternal tension of all simulation games: realism to the subject matter vs. balance and playability. I admit I am being inconsistent in advocating more realism on the large level (VP elimination) and more playability and balance on the lower (more FP units). Given time I think I can justify this but I have run on so long that I will post this now because I think I'm running out of the time I signed on for and dont want to lose this.
I will come right back on to answer the others who replied to my original post.
Thank you, Magicgeek, for your knowledgeable and interesting critique.
|
|
|
Post by davshar on Sept 4, 2006 1:22:01 GMT 1
Let me now reply to Mr.Weaseley.
I thoroughly agree that, if VP are to be used, the various Strongholds and cities should be weighted as to value. This would have been easy for the games producers to do simply by printing the victory value of each on the board.
Also, you enlighten me by pointing out that, in the 'reality' of the books that Shadow took only 2 VP. Yet Sauron had huge numerical advantages in the books. How does this speak for the realism of the game? There is a great disconnect here that I had not thought of; it calls for much thought. It is on the same level as the fact that in the books Lorien seems, because of magic, to be impregnable to the attacks of Sauron; he doesn't even try. Yet in the game Lorien is one of, maybe THE, most vulnerable FP strongholds on the map, even with the addition of Galadriel and Trebuchets. But that is the subject of a whole post in itself.
I also agree with you that Minas Tirith should have some special mustering ability for men and the fact that it does not points again to something I mentioned in my original post of VP; many aspects of the game are 'homogonized'; the equal value of all strongholds and of all cities is an excellent example, as are the one size fits all combat rules with elite units counting as one die rolled the same as regular, as is the rule that makes crossing any region, regardless of its size and terrain cost the same amount of movement. The reason for all this simplification can only be that the designers wanted a game that can be played at one sitting. Why aren't FP units more powerful than SP units, as they were in the books? Why is it easier to storm a Stronghold successfully in the game than it actually would be in preindustrial warfare ect. Same reason.
You have, Mr. Weaseley, put your finger on a most important dicussion point. Now, I am a hopeless old fud with all connected with computers so I am posting this before I run out of time. Is this correct? If I sign on for an hour and am in the middle of writting a reply when that hour runs out will I be cut off? Help from the computer knowledgeable please.
|
|
|
Post by davshar on Sept 4, 2006 1:59:31 GMT 1
This reply is to Seven Spirits, who, as a playtester, has about ten planets more knowledge of this game as I do, so I reply to him, as to all you more experience players, with trepidation and gall (another contradiction)
Can you answer the question arising out of Mr. Weaseley: why is it that in the books Sauron is able to take only two cities but in the game the SP hordes can sweep across the board knocking over many cities and strongholds? Does it perhaps simply come down to this: the VP is not a very good one but no better alternative has been suggested? And, my suggestions aside, is not the great quest of making the game as good a one as possible a question of precisely this; finding a better alternative to VP?
And I must beg to disagree with you definition of the goals of warring parties. What you described was the goals of parties in a limited war. But WotR is a total war, a war of extermination and there is no point in surrendering if the enemy is not going to abide by Fair Play Standards of the United Nations and St. Thomas Aquinas' definition of a Just War but is just going to cut your throat the minute you put down your weapons.
Perhaps, and again, I may be wrong here, I have been before, an answer lies in keeping VP but raising the number for the FP and awarding the FP VP for how long he can keep armies in the field, or hold onto several key strongholds or any number of possibilities.
One reason I argue for more units for the FP and an expanded game is that manuever warfare is much interesting than siege warfare. Sauron's numerical superiority is so great and not compensated for by any qualitative superiority on the part of the FP that the FP strategy, if it can be dignified with such a name, tends to reduce to getting into strongholds and holding on long enough for the Ringbearers to have a chance at Mt. Doom. Yes, this would be 'unhistorical' but is it not unhistorical that Sauron's armies do so much better in the game than in the books.
Also, those more familiar with the books than me please help here, but in the battle before Minas Tirith, in the books, as opposed to the movies, did not armies of Dwarves and Elves and Men of the North show up to assist the Rohirim in raising the siege and winning the pitched battle? Has anyone been able to do this in the game? I have not. The reason is partly the gigantic numbers of the SP and the peculiar military geography of Middle Earth (which I hope to comment on in a future post on Grand Strategy).
So, if the wargame aspect of the game is 'unrealistic' anyway, why not make it unrealistic in a way that makes for a more exciting and interesting wargame, one in which manuever is as or more important that sieges.
But, Seven Spirits, let me yield to you and Magicgeek on the question of my House Rules and variants being the solution to this vexing question; they are not. They can make for simply that; fun variants for those who prefer more of a wargame but I suspect that what we really need someday is a second edition of rules that, as W.C. Fields once, "The time has come, my dear Blubber, when we must grasp the bull by the tail, and face the situation", that deals with this core problem, not with a few rule changes but with a shifting and balancing of many elements and rules to get to this Heart of Darkness.
In the meantime let us all enjoy this superb game, regarless of what, if any, House Rules we use. I am a grognard, Seven Spirits, and grognards grumble; it is what we do. You and the other testers did a most excellent joy. Thank you for that and for you reply to my post.
|
|
|
Post by mrweasely on Sept 4, 2006 4:21:47 GMT 1
The only North to South assistance on the Free People's side was the Grey Company, which joined Aragorn just prior to the siege of Helm's Deep with about 30 Dunedain. (This is represented by the Grey Company card). In the movies this was changed to 100s of elves from Rivendell.
Also, Rohan assisted in the breaking of the siege of Minas Tirith.
Homoginization is, by and large, the thing that makes War of the Ring so good. Most of the little quirks are offloaded into event cards.
|
|
SevenSpirits
Nazgûl
PlayTester
Sauron meant no harm. He only wanted to draw the extra cards...
Posts: 283
|
Post by SevenSpirits on Sept 4, 2006 5:12:11 GMT 1
Hey, thanks again for the interesting discussion.
The fundamental problem with making a game that follows the events of books is that it wouldn't reflect the actual situation in them. Because frankly, Sauron in the books just sucked. He did practically nothing right. The other thing in the books is that the Free Peoples got ridiculously lucky, because Tolkein wrote it that way. He could hardly even kill off any of the main characters! The result in the books of course was a blowout victory for the Free Peoples. They got both a ring victory AND a military victory! Meanwhile the Shadow got just a few VPs, although Frodo was very corrupted.
I'm no expert, but I think that the way the game plays out is more realistic given the situation than the way the story goes in the books.
There are a significant number of strange things that happen in the game, though. The victory conditions, IMO, are not one of them. Another way to look at the Shadow military victory is, the Shadow got FIVE times as many points as in the book! Surely the FP lose that one! But I won't try to convince you; I think your viewpoint is actually valid as well.
The strange things to me are:
1) How absolutely terrible it is for the FP to fight in the field. 2) How companions move. I can get every companion through Moria to Minas Tirith in as little as two actions (with a card), but if they take Sam and Frodo along it takes 8 actions and several of them die along the way? The game also makes it impractical to move companions other than Strider around, so they usually stand still. sometimes the Fellowship breaks, and Gandalf, Legolas and Pippin just stay exactly where they are. 3) The comparative strategic unimportance of MT. If the FP is playing a military game, it's actually pretty critical, as it should be. But in most games, it has little strategic importance. 4) In the books, Sauron held back from attacking because he wanted to attack everywhere at once. But in the game, the best strategy is to subjugate one nation at a time, with concentrated force. Maybe this is actually more realistic, but it kind of feels wrong. 5) The way the hunt works. In the books, I keep remembering Gandalf saying stuff like "we have to go faster, or they will find us". But in the game, going faster makes you increasingly likely to be found. The only way to not be found is to stand completely still! You can stand still in Minas Morgul, with 10 orcs and all the nazgul there, and nothing will happen to you! Of course, the way it works in the game is great from a game mechanic perspective, as it keeps strategies towards moderation (moving fast is already good for other obvious reasons).
One more thought on the victory conditions. (Actually, it's just a rephrased version of a previous thought - sorry.) Say Frodo destroys the ring, but much of Middle Earth has already been pillaged. I would say that if some amount of it is conquered, the Shadow would call it a win. But if some lower amount than that threshold is conquered, then the FP would "win". There has to be a line somewhere, and my opinion is that it isn't at "every last guy exterminated". At some point, dunking the ring is going to be a pretty hollow gesture. Is it when half the lands of the Free are destroyed? Really, that seems like a decent estimate to me. They're not dead yet, but they're pretty screwed.
|
|
|
Post by jimchris on Sept 4, 2006 6:46:47 GMT 1
Thanks for the post, for my part as well. Your points are well thought-out, even though personally I might not agree with all of them. Mainly, there are three points I'd like to make - they won't touch on all the issues you've presented, but hopefully they can be of some use.
First, as far as I can recall from the early days of WotR, the point of VPs is not to describe or establish military dominance. Rather, VPs have to do with the search for The Ring, and what Sauron does with his near-limitless power. If FP does well enough militarily (takes 4 VPs, which is impossible most of the time), Sauron will have to forget about the ring for a while and turn to commanding the armies, making the Quest much like a walk in a park. Likewise, if the Shadow armies take 10 VPs, Sauron can leave the 'mop-up' completely to his servants and concentrate in finding the ring, making virtually impossible to hide it. The point of the VPs is that while they don't make military sense, there is no reason they should. I think there was some kind of official word about this being the story, but I can't find it now.
Secondly, while I can see the sense of longer wargames (Empires in Arms being one of the best boardgame experiences I can remember) I don't think the right way to make WotR into one is by prolonging the battles in every corner of middle-earth. For that purpose, I'd much rather see a tactical combat system (a sub-game of sorts, perhaps) used to fight battles, more varied ways to hunt the Ring, etc. Hunting down stray armies in every corner of the map would be a lot less fun than adding depth (and length) by making tactical decisions on cavalry charges, volleys of archer fire and use of skirmish infantry.
Thirdly, one of the 'great immutables' of Tolkien's work is that the situation is an unbalanced one. One of the most important ways this is shown is the muster pool - the pools are, simply, how many able-bodied men there are within the FP nations who can be put to fight the Shadow. Giving the FP the ability to muster armies after armies again and again would be nothing short of ludicrous, to my mind, and very un-Tolkienesque.
Finally, one small trivia point about Tolkien - while I don't know the background of all the esteemed individuals contributing to this forum, I wouldn't be surprised if Tolkien had had better awareness about tactics, logistics and warfare in general than most of us. He served as a communications officer in the front lines between 1916-1917, including the Battle of the Somme, and was hospitalised until the end of the war. He definitely knew about warfare, and how armies of his day operate.
Finally, I welcome the thought and the initiative. I'd very much welcome a way to play WotR as a longer game (even though I'm not sure if the game would be better for it); however, abolishing current military objectives is not, to my mind, the way to do it - at least as long as there is a good reason for the VPs, having to do with the hunt for The Ring.
|
|
|
Post by madwoffen on Sept 4, 2006 10:53:29 GMT 1
Hellooow,
just to mention one or 2 points out of my memory. I didn't read the books anymore since a dozen years or so but from what I remember:
- most of the orcish army of Sauron was in the south. I think it was Denethor who said to Gandalf something like: "the Sauron army that is besieging Minas Tirith is just a finger from his left hand". He was well aware of Sauron's armies thanks to the Palantir altough he may have been deceived by him but I think not. - the surviving army of men was not enough to sustain another blow from Sauron's army, they just gained some time. Despite a better quality army, victory on the long run was totally impossible for humanity.
So was Sauron a strategic moron ? No I don't think so. He was maybe just to cautious (he must had some bitter memories from th epast), knowing that the time was in his side...militarly speaking. His main error was to ignore that the real plan of the humanity and elves was to destroy the ring, something he never thought of, so sure he was from the ring's power (after all, it was his own lifeforce/soul trapped in the ring).
A destruction of the ring, means the absolute diminution of Sauron to a simple haunting ghost (and his last "incarnation") with no more power than a poltergeist. That means no more cohesion in Sauron's army, no more black clouds to protect the armies of darkness from the sun and the stars (don't forget that even stars lights are a pain for the orcs)...Sauron was an absolute dictator, no ring, no Sauron, no Nazguls, no cohesion. The cleaning of Middle Earth would take some years if not some generation but it would be possible for mankind. Rulers of the Easterling and Southrons would not anymore be misguided/seduced by Sauron's plans, they probably had their own problems to tackle afterward.
So...is the FP victory condition good with the destruction of the ring ? Yes Is the 4VP condition good ? Hmmm, maybe. A capture of these strongholds would have alarmed Sauron and he would have to plan next moves accordingly...leaving too much time for the ringbearer to accomplish his mission that would have become a certain success. Is the 10 VP for Shadow good ? Maybe not so good...I would say it depend which region fell or not. The loss of Rohan and Gondor would have been a total loss for humanity...in terms of civilization I mean. A return to the dark ages for the mankind, pocketed in the north with a wild wide southern region filled with orcs and other dark creatures that is...if the ring is destroyed. It would also have become easy regions to invade for Southrons and Easterlings (yeah, they have their own problems but catching some rich abandoned lands would resolve this). So maybe we can consider that even with the ring destruction, humanity was doomed to live some centuries of Dark Age and incertainty...and maybe disapear. Now 10 VP with the DEW line and the North only...dubious. Once the ring would be destroyed, "easy work" for a full garisoned Gondor and Rohan to clean the mess. Victory by corruption of the ring ? That would be a total victory for Sauron. The ring would get back to his hand. Nothing would be able to save the humanity...except the direct intervention of the Valars.
In the light of this, my only house rule would be that for the 10 Shadow VP be valid, at least the 2 fortress of Gondor falls to Shadow ?
|
|
|
Post by davshar on Sept 5, 2006 23:50:52 GMT 1
Excellent replies all! Before I answer let me say that, amazing as it may seem in this wired world, I don't have regular internet access so it may sometimes be a few days before I reply or I might break off in middle of a reply. But I will always try and answer everyone who was kind enough to reply.
Now, having read all your comments and objections and thought about them and would like to say, you are right and I was wrong; VP are not absurd and should not be abolished. They are an imperfect answer to an extremely difficult game design problem. I don't have the answer to better victory conditions but I hope someone else does come up with some in the future because I do believe the VP are imperfect. The only tad of my argument I won't yield is that I believe the FP should be able to re-muster every second or third casualty. This would represent, if nothing else, the use of women in the army when the FP run out of men, for remember, in the books the Free People don't let any women fight in their armies so there is a large pool of potential warriors.
But, having retreated on this front, I advance on another. I have another scheme (profound observation might be a more dignified term) which I expound in the post 'What the Hell! The Core Reason for the Imbalance in WotR'. This grew out of thinking about something that you, Mr. Weasley, pointed out so perhaps you might like to take a look.
I did find it interesting that those of you who disagreed with my attack on VP (most of you) did so for a variety of reasons, which tends to show that the VP is really a kind of abstract, a mandala to which those who support them attach their own attitudes towards war and its resolution.
Some took the stance given in the rules book that the loss of 10VP so demoralizes the FP they give up or lose the coherence to fight with any effectiveness. Some looked upon the VP loss as the destruction of so much of the civilization of Middle Earth that even if the FP fight on and hold out it isn't worth it; much as some argued during the Cold War that even if we won a nuclear war life would be so degraded it would not be worth it. Others saw it in terms of logistics; the 10VP are half (?) of the total so this represents the destruction of the FP infrastructure for waging war and victory is inevitable for the SP at this point so why continue; kind of like a resignation at chess. One saw VP as having to do with the search for the Ring and not the War itself. But that people see VP in different terms from each other and from the designers is a fascinating thing.
Now to work. To Mr. Weasley, thank you for correcting me about the armies from the north. You have a deep knowledge of the books indeed if you can keep track of 30 warriors amid and the armies. I have no idea where all those armies of Dwarfs and Elves came from, save my faltering memory. But come to think of it why weren't there any of them at Minas Tirith and the last battle?
To Seven Spirits, I agree with all your points. The Companions are not given enough to do and are hard to move when they can do something. This would be greatly ameliorated by the suggested change I offer in my above mentioned post. Your points 1,3 and 4 I will answer in combination with an answer to jimchris, who is also right on a point on which I was wrong; the best way to extend the length of the game is not strategically but tactically. It is terrible for FP to fight in the field precisely because the over simplified tactical system does not account for the fact that the FP were, man for orc, better soldiers than the SP and their leaders far better. The FP get more leaders and this helps a bit but not enough.
What is needed is a new and more realistic tactical combat system; one that allows for more choices on the part of the players and that accounts for the qualitative superiority of the FP armies.
Also, Seven Spirits, your comment that in the books Sauron did practically nothing is on target and I have a deal to say along this line in my other post. But though I concede the VP argument I don't agree with those who argue that it abstracts a situation where the FP would be so damaged that nothing would be worthwhile, that they would have no future. In one of the most fascinating but lesser known wars of our modern ear, The War of the Triple Alliance, fought between a coalition of Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay against Paraguay!!(talk about disparity of numbers and resources) from 1866-1871 Paraguay fought until 90% of the entire male population was dead. But I bet the 10% who survived were glad they did. A huge percentage of the women and children died too. That's about as demolished as you can get. And yet - we tend to underestimate the recuperative powers of individuals and societies - by 1932 Paraguay had recovered to the point where it was able to fight and defeat a much larger and better armed Bolivia in the Chaco War. But I digress.
I have gotten the sense from a number of other posts that many people feel like you, Seven Spirits, that the Companions are under-developed, need more individuality and perhaps more and more distinct abilities.
Overall I get the impression that many players would like most of the aspects of the game to be more complex, more specific and a bit less abstract.
Jimchis, as I said above your point about the tactical battles is most well taken and made; the battles are simply too generic and quick. I get the impression here, too, that the game designers are rushing us, smoothing out the rules in order to quicken the game. They just gave us very complex systems for the Helms Deep and Minas Tirith tactical additions in the expansion but did not add anything to the combat system for the basic game. I find this puzzling; it wouldn't take big new boards or more game pieces, just more complex and subtle rules.
Re Tolkien's knowledge of war. I did not know that he fought in WWI but this, in itself, means nothing as to a knowledge of the history of war and of strategy and tactics. Millions fought in that war who didn't ever know anything about war except the chaos immediately around them. But it is interesting that he fought in a war that was essentially a gigantic double siege with no manuevering; perhaps this is why sieges figure so prominently in the books.
I may be wrong and be slighting Tolkien; he could have been well versed in war. But I tend to doubt it for two reasons. First, it was not his field of study and modern scholars tend to specialize; there is so much to read in their own field they don't have time for much else. Second, there is no evidence I can see in the novels of any sense of strategy or operational awareness much above the level of Beowulf (a subject in which Tolkien was an expert).
Also, a appreciate your objection to limitless re-muster for the FP and I now oppose this too; I don't want to give the impression that I think there should be some kind of parity between the two sides. The SP should have a big superiority but I don't see that a minor replacement ability, about every third killed FP unit available for re-muster, would jeopardize this greatly.
To madwoffen: you are quite that the loss of Gondor and Rohan would be the greatest disaster to Middle Earth civilization and this is another reason, aside from the strategic one, why Mr. Weaseley and you are correct in arguing that these two areas should be worth more than others. But I disagree with you about Sauron; he was a strategic idiot. Or perhaps just a moral coward like Gen. George McClellan. His failure to unleash his armies for so long is simply inexplicable, except in the realm of the abnormal psychology of Dark Lords. Militarily it is simply incomprehensible.
I hope I answered everybody and I hope the game designers are listening; before we need any more new boards and pieces we need a more sophisticated version of the basic rules.
Thanks all, you pointed out many things I had not thought of and probably never would have.
|
|
|
Post by mrweasely on Sept 6, 2006 19:43:42 GMT 1
Incomprehensible in the context of the game. But Sauron wasn't playing this game. Maybe he was playing the SPI war of the ring or some other, not yet invented JRR Game.
That the game fails to create a system wherein his moves seem sound, isn't Sauron's problem. For example, in the base game, it is strategically foolish to attack Rohan before the endgame. Now that the expansion has come out, with Galadriel and Hillmen, it is not as clear that attacking Rohan early is foolish. Some might even give it a new name: Galadriel Denial.
That Sauron's actions don't seem rational is the fault of the game, not the fault of Sauron. _____________________________________________________________________
I don't wish the game had more complexity. I don't wish the companions were more three-dimensional. I don't think unit attributes are necessary.
Quite the opposite: I think the game needs a better intro version.
About the only added complexity I want are huge event card decks, on the order of 100 cards each.
|
|
|
Post by madwoffen on Sept 6, 2006 22:48:31 GMT 1
Concerning Sauron... I don't know precisely the psychology of a Dark Lord but when you die many times and that each times it is a pain in the ass to get a new incarnation and lose a lot of power doing this too), it might be possible that this Dark Lord might be a bit... over-cautious. Sauron was one of the most powerfull lieutenant of Melkor when he was Sauron, the Lord of Werewolves, I'm translating from french version (and still out of my memory ). He was killed...by an elvish kind of dog ? Can't remember his name right now (kind of gaellic/celtic name). He also had to kill himself to insure the destruction of Numenor and he died again when he lost the ring. That's the important point:each time he dies, he lost power, a lot of it. The only solution he found was to create the One ring, trapping in it most of his lifeforce/soul and coupled it with other rings to insure some influence in other races. So...we have here a Dark Lord tired of being killed, reincarnating, dying, etc,... The Ring became is life insurance. Problem...he lost it! Should I attack...or not, fully ? Wait, what if they trap me again ? Let be cautious here until I find the Ring, I have time, ringbearer is getting corrupted, my orcs are endless, humanity is divided...I have time... Over cautious ? Yes. Coward ? I think it was mentioned by Tolkien somewhere. Stupid strategist ? Maybe not so, hard to say in fact. He used only 1/10 of his army or less to capture Minas Tirith and almost succeeded. Not really his fault because he wasn't expecting the Ents ruining Sarouman's life and army...making the Rohan able to rally. And he wasn't expecting some ghost army also... Another note about Tolkien vs strategy: true, it was not his domain (in fact he was a tree hugger, a real one) but he was also a latinist, a perfect one, speaking it fluently since he was a teen (I think he even made improvised latin poetry with group of friends). As latinist, I doubt he never read any book about the big battles of the ancient times. I guess he was a bit more aware on this subject than most of other fantasy author. Not a wargame hardcore but some knowledge to the least... PS: and again, don't forget he wasn't aware of the rule of the game as Goodgulf presented it. The One Ring wasn't to be destroyed but to be used and get corrupted by it.
|
|
SevenSpirits
Nazgûl
PlayTester
Sauron meant no harm. He only wanted to draw the extra cards...
Posts: 283
|
Post by SevenSpirits on Sept 7, 2006 0:05:30 GMT 1
These are good points. I guess the fundamental flaw of the game, then, is that hunting for the ring to the extent that Sauron did, by putting lots of eyes in, isn't very good. So a more realistic version of the game would have to reward putting in multiple eyes.
|
|