Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

New LOTE campaign ideas -

Expand Messages
  • Lorne Colmar
    Guys n gals, This is by way of a straw poll from a potential GM to see how well received a few ideas may (or may not) be: 1.) With an all e-mail game,
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 1, 1999
      Guys 'n' gals,

      This is by way of a straw poll from a potential GM to see how well
      received a few ideas may (or may not) be:

      1.) With an all e-mail game, there's the potential of speeding up
      play with faster turnarounds. I know many of you prefer a more
      leisurely pace, but would a two-week turnaround game be attractive?
      (i.e. results out within a week of submission, deadline for new orders
      a week after that).

      2.) "Standard" v. "historical" start. As opposed to the initial one or
      two territories of the former, starting with larger blocs of more
      established countries along broadly historical lines.

      3.) The option for greater flexibility in the military model, as
      touched upon in recent threads on this list - attractive, or
      introducing additional complexity you could do without?

      Feedback would be welcome. I'd be happy to hear any other comments you
      may have about anything else you feel might add to the fun and reward
      of LOTE (maybe best by private e-mail - don't want to clog up the list
      with too much extraneous guff <g>).

      TIA

      Lorne
    • Matthew S. Taylor
      On 1 Feb 99, at 15:59, regarding [LOTE-L] New LOTE campaign ideas - ... Yes this would be attractive, but not of the cost is GM burnout after a handful of
      Message 2 of 5 , Feb 1, 1999
        On 1 Feb 99, at 15:59, regarding [LOTE-L] New LOTE campaign ideas -
        Lorne Colmar wrote:

        > From: "Lorne Colmar" <lorne@...>
        >
        > Guys 'n' gals,
        >
        > This is by way of a straw poll from a potential GM to see how well
        > received a few ideas may (or may not) be:
        >
        > 1.) With an all e-mail game, there's the potential of speeding up
        > play with faster turnarounds. I know many of you prefer a more
        > leisurely pace, but would a two-week turnaround game be attractive?
        > (i.e. results out within a week of submission, deadline for new orders a
        > week after that).

        Yes this would be attractive, but not of the cost is GM burnout after
        a handful of turns. My preferred pace is results back from the GM in
        1-2 weeks IFTHE GM IS HAVING FUN AT THAT PACE, slower if that is what
        it takes to keep the GM interested. I prefer two weeks to submit
        orders as that allows for better diplomacy and allows time for GM
        questions to be answered at a non-frantic pace.
        >
        > 2.) "Standard" v. "historical" start. As opposed to the initial one or two
        > territories of the former, starting with larger blocs of more established
        > countries along broadly historical lines.

        Historical starts are my preference to the point where I will not be
        joining any more "free-start" games. The land grab phase is
        uninteresting, and the historical games have more to sink your teeth
        into.
        >
        > 3.) The option for greater flexibility in the military model, as
        > touched upon in recent threads on this list - attractive, or
        > introducing additional complexity you could do without?

        A little more flexibility at the operational level would be good -
        things like certain troop types handling difficult terrain better, or
        allowing leader orders such as delay rather than just defend would be
        a definate plus. Trying to introduce tactical elements would be bad,
        as the game scale does not suit it.
        >
        > Feedback would be welcome. I'd be happy to hear any other comments you may
        > have about anything else you feel might add to the fun and reward of LOTE
        > (maybe best by private e-mail - don't want to clog up the list with too
        > much extraneous guff <g>).
        >
        Hapy to pursue the nuts and bolts of my suggestions on list or
        privately as you prefer.

        -------------------------------
        Matthew S. Taylor
        Universities Space Research Association
        email: mtaylor@...
        Phone: 410-730-2656
        Fax: 410-730-3496
      • Joshua C Mehl
        ... I think turnarounds at a rate of 1 to 1 1/2 months are much better for everyone involved. ... One of the big problems with historical starts is that it
        Message 3 of 5 , Feb 1, 1999
          >
          > 1.) With an all e-mail game, there's the potential of speeding up
          > play with faster turnarounds. I know many of you prefer a more
          > leisurely pace, but would a two-week turnaround game be attractive?
          > (i.e. results out within a week of submission, deadline for new orders
          > a week after that).

          I think turnarounds at a rate of 1 to 1 1/2 months are much better for
          everyone involved.
          >
          > 2.) "Standard" v. "historical" start. As opposed to the initial one or
          > two territories of the former, starting with larger blocs of more
          > established countries along broadly historical lines.
          >
          One of the big problems with historical starts is that it takes forever to
          build economies, something which I feel is the key to the game.

          > 3.) The option for greater flexibility in the military model, as
          > touched upon in recent threads on this list - attractive, or
          > introducing additional complexity you could do without?

          I think a trial campaign using these ideas is the only way to know for
          sure.

          --Josh Mehl
        • David Nardone
          ... There have been all email games. The best any GM can hope for is a 4 week turn around. Most opf the time is inputting the orders and builds, then writting
          Message 4 of 5 , Feb 1, 1999
            Dear Lorne:
            >1.) With an all e-mail game, there's the potential of speeding up
            >play with faster turnarounds. I know many of you prefer a more
            >leisurely pace, but would a two-week turnaround game be attractive?
            >(i.e. results out within a week of submission, deadline for new orders
            >a week after that).


            There have been all email games. The best any GM can hope for is a 4 week
            turn around. Most opf the time is inputting the orders and builds, then
            writting the news fax.


            >2.) "Standard" v. "historical" start. As opposed to the initial one or
            >two territories of the former, starting with larger blocs of more
            >established countries along broadly historical lines.


            Not particularly popular with me. It does not allow an even start for all
            players.

            >3.) The option for greater flexibility in the military model, as
            >touched upon in recent threads on this list - attractive, or
            >introducing additional complexity you could do without?


            Success in Lords depends little on military actions. Adding greater
            flexibility will ultimately add work for the GM. Remember -- keep it
            KISS-simple.

            Dave Nardone
          • Charles K. Hurst
            ... Attractive at the beginning, yes, but as my position got larger, probably not. I like to mull over a turn a little (especially in the shower in the
            Message 5 of 5 , Feb 1, 1999
              At 03:59 PM 2/1/99 -0000, you wrote:
              >1.) With an all e-mail game . . .
              > . . . would a two-week turnaround game be attractive?

              Attractive at the beginning, yes, but as my position got larger, probably
              not. I like to mull over a turn a little (especially in the shower in the
              morning), and there have been times when my life was just too busy to
              handle rapid turns (unless the position was very small) and having 2-3
              weeks to get my orders in was a blessing.

              >2.) "Standard" v. "historical" start. As opposed to the initial one or
              >two territories of the former, starting with larger blocs of more
              >established countries along broadly historical lines.

              Problem is that historical starts tend to be extremely polarized with a few
              good positions and a lot of marginal ones. And to be realistic, most Lords
              players dream of greatness, not running a tiny kingdom for years and years
              real-time (though perhaps a tiny kingdom in a very active part of the world
              with lots happening might be tolerable). I've always thought that perhaps
              if you started a campaign with all the large empires of the period run as
              NPC positions and not player-controlled it might be a lot more interesting.
              This might better reflect the lethargy and decay of large empires and make
              smaller positions more interesting (sort of a barbarian tribes versus
              Imperial Rome run by the GM sort of game). Plotting with fellow small
              nations how to take that large empire you all surround out and divide it
              up, all the backstabbing as people turn on each other squabbling over the
              spoils, alliances within alliances and so on. Ah! Now that would be fun.

              >3.) The option for greater flexibility in the military model

              Hmmm, the current system is pretty good, perhaps a few more standard leader
              actions or options to actions added to give some more strategic
              flexibility. I hate writing conditional orders trying to guess what size
              army might be attacking and trying to cover the bases, I'd love an order
              like "Fight Delaying Action" where you let the leader make the intelligent
              decisions to disengage and slowly withdraw in the face of superior enemy
              forces. Lords 1 has this in spades primarily because Thomas treats leaders
              like real people. When I played Wallachia and Kiev attacked, my prince
              with my main army in central Europe quite rightly decided to head for home,
              even though I had sent in no orders to that effect. Of course, the flip
              side is that relying on your leaders' intelligence means dealing with some
              of them being really, really stupid.

              Charles Hurst, charlesh@...
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.