Is this game too difficult?

[danielvictor]

Thanks again ! I was playing Aragorn,but I was a total beginner,and was relying on the other players for advice/help.

[Remkar]

Thanks again ! I was playing Aragorn,but I was a total beginner,and was relying on the other players for advice/help.

No problem, hope some of it is helpful!

Ok, onto Boromir/Gimli.
My initial thinking had been using Boromir for 4 actions and Gimli for 1. If Gimli hadn't been pulled to Rivendell, I may have considered using him for 4 to start mustering (3 musters and a sword token probably) to start shoring up the defense against the Rhovanion troops, then just have Boromir muster once.
Since Gimli is in a bad place now, I likely just use 1 action for Dwarven craft, and then probably send boromir with 1 troop to Pelargir to battle and pull the eye away. This also sets Boromir up for multiple options next turn including mustering to establish some lone defensive troops in important locations later or capturing Umbar if it makes sense.

Stepping through your team's actions...
Boromir JUST musters in Minith Tirith. This keeps the eye with Frodo, doesn't help defend Dol Amroth/Grey Havens, puts you out of range of capturing Umbar next turn, and shores up forces in Minis Tirith which isn't in any short term danger.

Shadow cards...
-More troops heading towards where Gimli should be
-Drums of War which is fine


On to Legolas/Eomer
I probably just walk silently with Legolas... even though I'm a little worried about him defending the NE without Gimli.
Eomer is interesting here. If Gimli were in Erebor, and Boromir had gone to Pelagir, I think Eomer should:
-Move to Helm's with his troop
-Move to Fords of Isis with probably 3 troops
-Attack with 3 dice
-Attack with as many dice as possible
-If troops aren't all dead, attack a 3rd time, if they are all dead, move to Isengard
Other options are to start Eomer heading NE to help with those armies approaching Mirkwood/Dale or sending him down to move Boromir and some of his troops (probably 3) out of Minis Tirth southward.

Stepping through your team's actions... ok, replay bugged out and restarts here, but I'll check the game log.
Legolas - one action to walk silently which is good.
Eomer
-heads to Helm's Deep (good)
-heads to Fanghorn (why? should have gone to Isen)
-heads to Isengard (shouldn't be going here, no major threat there anymore, and you don't have the swords to conquer it... plus, by going through Fanghorn and not Isen, you just wasted a cloack for no good reason)
-attack in Isengard (if you were going here, that's fine, but you shouldn't be here, should be taking out more troops in Isen)
-skips final action (this could have been another attack in Isen)


Hard to look too far ahead after that with replay broken, but a couple things to note in the next handful of turns.
-You guys waste the Palantir for no good reason
-You seem to move EVERYONE from Rivendell in a big ball. This is hard to tell because it doens't name character, just gives a number. You should have left Arwen in Rivendell to defend the NW and send Elves out from there with her special ability. Dragging her along doesn't do you any good.


Questions (if you remember):
-Did you end up losing Woodland Real or Erebor (or waste a lot of time/cards/tokens trying to defend it?
-Did you end up losing Dol Amroth or any of the NW Havens?

[danielvictor]

I'll try to get my friend to answer those questions.

[Rondom]

Questions (if you remember):
-Did you end up losing Woodland Real or Erebor (or waste a lot of time/cards/tokens trying to defend it?
-Did you end up losing Dol Amroth or any of the NW Havens?

We lost the woodland realm, which precipitated our loss.

We did not lose Dol Amroth or any NW havens.

[Legatron]

If it's true that this demo is used for advertising, I think the developers will be sorely disappointed with their return. This has only been available for a short while, it has been promoted on the front page of BGA, and still the game is totally dead. I think its difficulty and complexity alienated way too many people.

[Remkar]

Questions (if you remember):
-Did you end up losing Woodland Real or Erebor (or waste a lot of time/cards/tokens trying to defend it?
-Did you end up losing Dol Amroth or any of the NW Havens?

We lost the woodland realm, which precipitated our loss.

We did not lose Dol Amroth or any NW havens.

Thanks. I figured the odds were good at least one of those areas would fall.

I also noticed you guys lost Helm's Deep early due to a combination of not having Eomer attach the Ford early, and then having Eowyn abandon Helm's Deep with no defense with troops right next to it.

It also looks like you made a huge group of most of your characters and over a dozen troop units and kept them together for a long time. That almost always is really inefficient.

[danielvictor]

Ok,it' is inefficient,but surely it would have reduced the chances of us losing battles,and losing a battle is what actually lost us the game ?

[Remkar]

Ok,it' is inefficient,but surely it would have reduced the chances of us losing battles,and losing a battle is what actually lost us the game ?

No, by inefficient, I mean it's inefficient at defending against the enemy movements and protecting your havens.

You have a probabilistic idea of where enemy troops will be heading, but it's rare you only have one area to worry about. Plus, with skies darken and new cards you haven't always seen coming from the deck, you have to be tactically flexible.

Also, having 13 troops isn't generally better than having 6 troops in a battle that you initiate (you still roll 3 dice). And having 8 troops isn't better than having 1 troop in a non-have region that you are defending (against a single enemy grouping... 3 dice are still rolled by the enemy). I rarely have more than 4-6 troops in a single group, and that usually doesn't last long (it's often right after a big muster by Boromir/Gimli/Eowyn/Arwen), and I usually pretty quickly start dropping some of them off in defensive positions (which is usually a much more efficient use of them than carrying them all around with you).

Also, having your characters spread out gives you more opportunities for doing rerolls/valor/special abilities during battles, let's you get places faster, and gives you more opportunities to pull the eye where you want it.

At MOST, you could make a case for one grouping of characters (never more than 1 from each player pair) hanging together at certain times with a moderate size army so that you can use that army pretty much every turn, but that would be pretty game/board specific. It's only efficient if something big is happening in a pretty small area involving multiple enemy armies.

If that's not making sense, I'd probably have to talk through a specific board situation and "do the math" to help show how it's less efficient.

[danielvictor]

I haven't studied the combat system,but even if it doesn't change the attrition rate,having more troops in a battle improves your chances of winning/not losing it,as Pyrrhus proved. It also gives you more time with maximum dice.

[Remkar]

I haven't studied the combat system,but even if it doesn't change the attrition rate,having more troops in a battle improves your chances of winning/not losing it,as Pyrrhus proved. It also gives you more time with maximum dice.

Sure, but this game is so tight, that amassing troops in one location means you're NOT doing other things elsewhere. Is always a give and take as you can't do everything.

And consider a single defensive troop left in a good location. That troop on average will defeat more than 2 enemy troops on average without even costing you any actions. And leaving defensive troops means you don't have to return to those locations with your army as often (or ever, depending on the game situation), which can leave a bunch of extra actions to do other more useful things.