Dominions 3, first impressions
James D Burns
more. The 300 page manual covers just about everything, so I'll refrain from
discussing the details of the changes and instead talk about how my first
foray into the game is going. Of course being a glutton for punishment I
dove right in and created a huge 3200x2400 pixel map with 1500 provinces on
it.
I got about 6 years in and my turns became marathons of 20-30 minute
execution phases and I finally gave up at that point deeming 1500 provinces
unplayable due to the ssslllooowww execution phase of the game. I can't help
feeling the coding needs some streamlining somehow. I mean 20+ minutes to
execute a turn on a P4 with 1 gig of RAM, what in blazes is going on under
the hood?
I am currently happily playing a game on the large 480 land province map
(over 100 sea provinces) that comes with the game, and I may have found my
first nearly unbeatable race strategy.
Play the Giant Niefelheim race in the early era. For your pretender choose
the monolith and put him in jail. Then give him +3 cold +1 Order and +3
growth. For magic picks give him 10 nature, 4 astral and 4 fire, and you
should end up with no points left to spend.
The Astral pick lets you cast archaic recode later in the game so you can
find all the gem sits and the fire pick allows you to forge fire armors for
your giants to negate their inherent weakness to fire. Taking picks of 4
instead of 2 or 3 lets your blessed troops gain a bonus from the picks. +1
Magic resist for 4 astral and +2 attack skill for the 4 fire.
The 10 in nature gives your blessed troops 20% regeneration and +2 berserk
which will make you Niefel Giants almost invulnerable in combat. They will
have a regeneration of 14 hit points a turn once blessed with the above
nature mod and it takes a real special enemy troop type or overwhelming
numbers to cause any kind of real damage at all to them once blessed.
I then do absolutely nothing for the first 10-15 turns and save up my gold
until I have at least 4,000 on hand. Then I queue up 20 Niefel Giants and 1
Niefel Jarl leader. I then build three more Niefel Jarl leaders over the
next few turns while my giant troops are being built and I end up with an
army of 4 Jarl's and 20 sacred Giants. The Jarl's themselves are also
sacred, so my entire army is sacred and all troops will benefit from the 20%
regeneration buff along with the other buffs.
Give your Jarl's (bless, bless, attack closest) orders and you should get
all of you giants blessed in about 90% of your fights. The giants should
have (hold and attack) orders and be set up near the back of the battlefield
to keep enemy missile fire inaccurate while your busy blessing your troops.
Once in a blue moon one or two will fail to get blessed and you'll take a
loss. But in my current game with neutrals set to level 9 (the max), I've
only lost 3 giants and 1 Jarl while capturing in excess of 40 neutral
provinces.
These armies are almost unstoppable, I've seen them defeat regular armies
with more then 200 normal troops in them without taking a single loss. The
above army can capture 1 province a turn and once you have 2 or 3 armies
going you can dominate the province rush part of the game.
By not doing anything for the first 10-15 turns of the game, it seems to
make the AI players less aggressive towards you. I've gone without being
attacked for almost 50 turns. But once I started to close in on the leader
(the player with the most provinces) I was then attacked (they declared war
but not all invaded) by about 1/3rd of the AI players. But by then I had
three of the above armies in operation and easily pushed back any incursions
into my territory.
I'm not saying this is the best race or anything, it's just a very winning
strategy with this particular race. I tried a nature bonus of 10%
regeneration, but ended up losing quite a few giants (too expensive to make
it a winning strategy). There is a big difference between 6 hit points
regenerated a turn and 14 in tactical combats.
I'm sure I'll experiment with lots of other races in the future, but this is
my first at bat strategy and it's been very fun to play. The AI has two
nations still ahead of me on provinces, but I feel confident I'll be able to
hold my own whenever I finally come in contact with them.
Jim
--
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving
safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in
sideways - Brewski in one hand - cigar in the other - body thoroughly used
up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride"
eddys...@hotmail.com
James D Burns wrote:
> Dominions 3 is a lot of the same goodness we saw with Dominions 2 and much
> more.
Excellent first impressions.
Unfortunately mine are a bit different. Well, actually they're quiet
the same : magic - there's too much of it - resulting in a magic
overdose for me. But I do see why this game has so many fans - I'm
having an IRL game tomorrow where there will be a couple of guys
present who love this magic stuff [Zeus knows why, they're pretty
normal otherwise] - I'll burn a couple of cd's with the demo on it for
them as a token of gratitude towards Shrapnel for producing a demo in
the first place so I now *know* this game is not for me.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Frank E
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>James D Burns wrote:
>> Dominions 3 is a lot of the same goodness we saw with Dominions 2 and much
>> more.
>
>Excellent first impressions.
>
>Unfortunately mine are a bit different. Well, actually they're quiet
>the same : magic - there's too much of it - resulting in a magic
>overdose for me.
Here's a little trick to get over the hump when it comes to being
overwhelmed by magic. Go with a nation that's specialized in one type
of magic and take a pretender with about 6 gems in that level.
Early Age Panagea is a good example, they get powerful nature mages,
and a lot of nature gems. Take a nature 6 pretender and research
'Mother Oak', construction 4 and then go into Conjuration. With the
cheap (dormant) pretender you have a lot of design points for your
troops and few spells to worry about. If you do it right, it can even
be competitive in multiplayer. They made magic a lot less powerful (in
the short term) in this version.
Rgds, Frank
eddys...@hotmail.com
eh, "nature mages", "gems", "mother oak" <sound of me running away
screaming AAAAARGH>
Somehow I can live with brightly coloured spaceships that destruct with
a loud KABOOM in deep space, but I've become a bit allergic to the
stuff mentioned above. To appreciate a game like that you need to get
immersed in it, live and breath this new world you're exploring and
trying to conquer. Well, I fail to get immersed, there's no hook to
grab me. I didn't encounter any irritants while playing the demo so
it's not the game's fault, it's just me.
It's again one of those games I can safely recommend to people who are
into this stuff, but fail for me on a personal basis.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > Early Age Panagea is a good example, they get powerful nature mages,
> > and a lot of nature gems. Take a nature 6 pretender and research
> > 'Mother Oak', construction 4 and then go into Conjuration. With the
> > cheap (dormant) pretender you have a lot of design points for your
> > troops and few spells to worry about. If you do it right, it can even
> > be competitive in multiplayer. They made magic a lot less powerful (in
> > the short term) in this version.
>
> eh, "nature mages", "gems", "mother oak" <sound of me running away
> screaming AAAAARGH>
>
> Somehow I can live with brightly coloured spaceships that destruct with
> a loud KABOOM in deep space, but I've become a bit allergic to the
> stuff mentioned above. To appreciate a game like that you need to get
> immersed in it, live and breath this new world you're exploring and
> trying to conquer. Well, I fail to get immersed, there's no hook to
> grab me. I didn't encounter any irritants while playing the demo so
> it's not the game's fault, it's just me.
Nah. It's me, too, and a lot of other people.
I translate Frank's paragraph as:
"NonExistent-Country-34 is a good example, they get powerful Character-
Name-27s and a lot of Inventory-Item-9s. Take a Character-Level(6) and
research Weapon-Item-12 and then go to Conjuration-Subroutine(4). With
the Character-Level(6) you have a lot of design points to enter into
Build-Subroutine(). If you do it right, it can even be competitive when
Multiplayer==true."
Yeah. Whew. What fidelity.
Or, what hogwash. When your game is "modeling" something that's wholly
divorced from reality, it becomes an exercise in arbitrary, jargon-
jacking bullshit.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Two thousand five hundred French policemen have been injured in clashes
with those vague, indistinct French 'youths' who rise up like wraiths of
steam from the grates, throw rocks, then evaporate, leaving reporters
unable to describe them."
- James Lileks
Frank E
<jburn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm gonna burst your bubble here, at least when it comes to
multiplayer. <g> The single player AI still seems about as bad as
ever.
>Play the Giant Niefelheim race in the early era. For your pretender choose
>the monolith and put him in jail. Then give him +3 cold +1 Order and +3
>growth. For magic picks give him 10 nature, 4 astral and 4 fire, and you
>should end up with no points left to spend.
I think I'd prefer order-3, productivity -1 growth-0 instead but it's
a matter of taste. My scales give you more gold income per province
and some extra resources which would help since you're building
everything in one province. Possibly try nature 9 instead of 10 and
see if you can get better scales. Order-3, prod-3, growth 1 would be
ideal for them imo.
>The Astral pick lets you cast archaic recode later in the game so you can
>find all the gem sits and the fire pick allows you to forge fire armors for
>your giants to negate their inherent weakness to fire.
SInce you have lvl 1 astral mages, there are relatively easy ways to
get to acashic record anyway. Earth 4 would be nice for their
pretender if you can swing it, useful bless for the giants and you
can make dwarven hammers which come in handy when you forge gear for
all those Jarls.
>The 10 in nature gives your blessed troops 20% regeneration and +2 berserk
>which will make you Niefel Giants almost invulnerable in combat.
... against independents.
> They will
>have a regeneration of 14 hit points a turn once blessed with the above
>nature mod and it takes a real special enemy troop type or overwhelming
>numbers to cause any kind of real damage at all to them once blessed.
... or about 15 cheap astral mages with an infantry screen.
... or anyone with a heat scale. Given that your pretender isn't on
the map to push your dominion, you'll spend a lot of time fighting in
other people's dominion.
... or someone with a minor death blessing. You don't have to kill the
giants, just give them a couple of afflictions in one battle and
they'll be crippled from then on out.
... or, well you get the idea. <g>
Nothing against that design, it should work well but there's good
reason to take some cheaper units along, at least in multiplayer. It
keeps the enemy from automatically targetting your high value units.
>I then do absolutely nothing for the first 10-15 turns and save up my gold
>until I have at least 4,000 on hand.
Your starting army is good enough to take many indies and taking some
adjacent territories will give you more resources to build troops in
your capital. Holding in place for that long is probably deadly for
multiplayer but if you do, you can set your intial troops to
patrolling and up your tax rate to about 130%. You'll get more gold
early and it won't cost you much long term.
>Give your Jarl's (bless, bless, attack closest) orders and you should get
>all of you giants blessed in about 90% of your fights.
You can make one of your Jarls the prophet and I think he'll have
divine blessing which covers all your troops. That way you don't have
to issue a hold order for your troops (annoying when they stand there
acting as pincushions).
Rgds, Frank
Frank E
<giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Somehow I can live with brightly coloured spaceships that destruct with
>> a loud KABOOM in deep space, but I've become a bit allergic to the
>> stuff mentioned above. To appreciate a game like that you need to get
>> immersed in it, live and breath this new world you're exploring and
>> trying to conquer. Well, I fail to get immersed, there's no hook to
>> grab me. I didn't encounter any irritants while playing the demo so
>> it's not the game's fault, it's just me.
>
>Nah. It's me, too, and a lot of other people.
>
>I translate Frank's paragraph as:
>
>"NonExistent-Country-34 is a good example, they get powerful Character-
>Name-27s and a lot of Inventory-Item-9s. Take a Character-Level(6) and
>research Weapon-Item-12 and then go to Conjuration-Subroutine(4). With
>the Character-Level(6) you have a lot of design points to enter into
>Build-Subroutine(). If you do it right, it can even be competitive when
>Multiplayer==true."
>
>Yeah. Whew. What fidelity.
>
>Or, what hogwash. When your game is "modeling" something that's wholly
>divorced from reality, it becomes an exercise in arbitrary, jargon-
>jacking bullshit.
I think that's the reason I prefer games like Stars and Dominions for
multiplayer. It seems to me that any time you have more than 2
players, historical considerations start trumping balance and
interesting game design. I much prefer sci-fi or fantasy for those
games, it's easier to balance units when you don't have to worry
about the fact that they're Sherman and Tiger tanks.
Rgds, Frank
Gandalf Parker
news:l5mWg.4$el...@newsfe04.lga:
> I got about 6 years in and my turns became marathons of 20-30 minute
> execution phases and I finally gave up at that point deeming 1500
> provinces unplayable due to the ssslllooowww execution phase of the
> game. I can't help feeling the coding needs some streamlining somehow.
> I mean 20+ minutes to execute a turn on a P4 with 1 gig of RAM, what
> in blazes is going on under the hood?
Its still mostly a multiplayer pbem game under the hood.
One of the things they added was that independents are susceptable to
everything that the players are. Old age, random events, etc. Checking
thru 1500 provinces can make things pretty nuts. But it does add some
very interesting game situations.
On the other hand, Ive played games of 1500 provinces and 79 players in
the game (mostly AIs). The hosting was at 25 minutes on turn 75 and some
huge armies fighting battles. For games that big I figure that they arent
going to be blitz games anyway. More like a 24 hour turnaround. 25
mintues to host each game during the wee hours of the night allows for
some very nice server support. I can easily fit a number of large games
onto my servers.
Gandalf Parker
eddys...@hotmail.com
> Or, what hogwash. When your game is "modeling" something that's wholly
> divorced from reality, it becomes an exercise in arbitrary, jargon-
> jacking bullshit.
The thing with fantasy world-creation is that it's very hard to get
right, that is : making sure it's not containing internal logical
fallacies that make the fantasy gamer go "hmmm". And he does go "hmmm"
just like we'd go "hmmm" if a Sherman survived three hits in the rear
from a Tiger and then manages to take it out with a shot through the
Tiger's frontal armor.
Short : you need internal consistency. The model needs to be
"believable". Very tricky to get right. Star Wars failed completely in
this regard while the Tolkien universe is more consistent.
I can't judge if the Dominions 3 world achieves this consistency, but
from what I hear that might be the case. Good news for those guys into
fantasy gaming I'd say, but not my cup of tea.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> Short : you need internal consistency. The model needs to be
> "believable". Very tricky to get right. Star Wars failed completely in
> this regard while the Tolkien universe is more consistent.
All these made-up-from-whole-cloth "universes" are stuffed to the
gunwales with *deus ex machina* nonsense which appears if and only if
the script is currently calling for it - and at no other time when it
might make a helluva lot more sense.
For example, at http://www.allscifi.com/Board.asp?BoardID=7163, you'll
find this five-paragraph treatment of THE LORD OF THE RINGS:
******************************************************************
"Gandalf burst into Bilbo's hole.
'Quick, Frodo, give me the ring!' Gandalf takes it, thrusts it into the
fire. Pulling it out with tongs, he sees the writing. 'So it is the one
ring!' he says.
'Gandalf, what-' says Bilbo.
'No time, must go,' said Gandalf. Putting the ring into a pouch, he goes
outside where a giant eagle is waiting. 'You know where we're going,' he
tells the Eagle. 'It will only take a few days, but we'll fly at night
just on the safe side. Since the enemy is years away from knowing that
the ring still exists, they won't be looking for us.'
Three days later after near continuous night flying, Gandalf tosses the
ring into Mount Doom. Sauron melts. The end."
******************************************************************
If you're going to put "Giant Eagles" into your story, you kinda need to
carefully explain why the Good Guys didn't just get handed the fantasy
equivalent of a C-17.
eddys...@hotmail.com
Very, very good point - as I said I'm not much into fantasy to start
with and maybe there are loopholes as big as a panther's hunting ground
in everyone of those created worlds but there are gradations : in some
movies I can let <insert silly plot loophole> slide and in others I'm
inclined to grab the main character by his jacket, slap him and yell
"you idiot, just do <this> and everything will be solved in a snap" but
then I remember that movies are meant to be entertainment, and so are
games :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Andy Brown
> multiplayer. It seems to me that any time you have more than 2
> players, historical considerations start trumping balance and
> interesting game design. I much prefer sci-fi or fantasy for those
> games, it's easier to balance units when you don't have to worry
> about the fact that they're Sherman and Tiger tanks.
Agreed. I play Relic's Dawn of War, set in the Warhammer 40k
science-fantasy universe. I don't play it often but I enjoy it when I do.
However, I can't handle Company of Heroes which is an improvement of the DoW
game engine but with a WW2 theme.
Andy
Oleg Mastruko
<jburn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Give your Jarl's (bless, bless, attack closest) orders and you should get
>all of you giants blessed in about 90% of your fights. The giants should
>have (hold and attack) orders and be set up near the back of the battlefield
>to keep enemy missile fire inaccurate while your busy blessing your troops.
Where's the Historic Wargaming Grognard Police (HWGP) squad when
you need them?? Couple days ago some of us got slapped on the fingers
for discussing Defcon, which is ultra-historic grog-fest compared
to..... ......this.
Paulo Vicente
pseudo-ecologist,natural hocus-pocus".
Now, I have a couple of questions for the Dominions fans in the group:
1- Is this thing playable in single-player? Can you have a fun game
with the A.I.?
2 - I believe that the game gives you a huge number of options when you
create your "civilization", how easy it is to make "wrong" choices,
that is choices that will give you a big disadvantage during the game?
Giftzwerg
says...
> >Give your Jarl's (bless, bless, attack closest) orders and you should get
> >all of you giants blessed in about 90% of your fights. The giants should
> >have (hold and attack) orders and be set up near the back of the battlefield
> >to keep enemy missile fire inaccurate while your busy blessing your troops.
>
> Where's the Historic Wargaming Grognard Police (HWGP) squad when
> you need them?? Couple days ago some of us got slapped on the fingers
> for discussing Defcon, which is ultra-historic grog-fest compared
> to..... ......this.
So killfile anything to do with that dumbass game. I'm just about ready
to do the same.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"[T]here will be NO hurricanes this year. None. We've gone through the
season and not one single hurricane has touched the United States."
- Neal Boortz
"Oh, well, better luck with your crackpot theories next year, moonbats."
- Giftzwerg
Oleg Mastruko
<giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
>So killfile anything to do with that dumbass game. I'm just about ready
>to do the same.
No way I am going to killfile this man, I'd miss absolutely
hilarious stuff like:
>> >to keep enemy missile fire inaccurate while your busy blessing your troops.
If I'd have to pick funniest line of the day on this group, this
would be my choice.
Bloodstar
> you need them?? Couple days ago some of us got slapped on the fingers
> for discussing Defcon, which is ultra-historic grog-fest compared
> to..... ......this.
Dominions is great game, you petty mortals! :o))))
Gifty, Eddy and Oleg - Dominions 3 have big price and I am having alot of
fun flaming on Shrapnel Games forum (I am against this price but this is not
a point here.).
But this game is great (I am still waiting for Dom 3 to arrive so I am
talking about Dom 2)... Programming is excellent and game is fun.
Anybody who don't see greatness in this game is not really a gamer blah :)
Ah...
Mario
Gandalf Parker
news:1160430837.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
> Now, I have a couple of questions for the Dominions fans in the group:
> 1- Is this thing playable in single-player? Can you have a fun game
> with the A.I.?
Ive been hooked on Dominions since day one and Im almost entirely a solo
player. Even more so with Dom3. In Dom 1 and 2 the emphasis was so
strongly multi that I felt left out. With Dom3 there was definate
attention to the solo play. The AI has improved a ton, they added alot
more random events, and a random map generator.
> 2 - I believe that the game gives you a huge number of options when you
> create your "civilization", how easy it is to make "wrong" choices,
> that is choices that will give you a big disadvantage during the game?
Actually fairly easy but I consider that a plus more than a minus. I dont
like games where the programmer leads you down what they consider the
"right" way to do things. This one allows for very surprising tactics.
The nations are all pretty unique. One with giants that are costly and
eat alot and are better for defense than as huge armies, one with
centaurs and dryads that you can build stealth armies with, one with lots
of magic, one with very little magic but lots of armored troops, etc etc
etc. The only way to do really well in the game is to figure out which
combination of nation, god, powers, will allow you to best play the way
YOU play. My son like Ulm (low magic, lots of armor) and I like Pangaea
(stealth armies). I think that most playing styles are represented.
Gandalf Parker
Vincenzo Beretta
> to do the same.
Have you actually tried Defcon or is this another "informed opinion" by
Giftzy? :o)
eddys...@hotmail.com
Bloodstar wrote:
> > Where's the Historic Wargaming Grognard Police (HWGP) squad when
> > you need them?? Couple days ago some of us got slapped on the fingers
> > for discussing Defcon, which is ultra-historic grog-fest compared
> > to..... ......this.
>
> Dominions is great game, you petty mortals! :o))))
>
> Gifty, Eddy and Oleg - Dominions 3 have big price and I am having alot of
> fun flaming on Shrapnel Games forum
Having flaming fun there and forgetting your friends in here <sob>
>(I am against this price but this is not
> a point here.).
Huh, what happened ? - are you feeling ok ? :)
> But this game is great (I am still waiting for Dom 3 to arrive so I am
> talking about Dom 2)... Programming is excellent and game is fun.
>
> Anybody who don't see greatness in this game is not really a gamer blah :)
That clinches it - this game is not for me :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Bloodstar
:))) what do you want link? I think that is easy to find :)
Anyway it was like a Usenet, almost all against me... but now it is cooled
down... it was fun, I called one Finish guy - Nokia maker :)) There was not
many insults as ussually on Usenet and bars like this :)
>>(I am against this price but this is not
>> a point here.).
>
> Huh, what happened ? - are you feeling ok ? :)
I am OK :) Just told them my opinion. But, in fact no big deal and not much
to argue there, they just got the message I think.
>> But this game is great (I am still waiting for Dom 3 to arrive so I am
>> talking about Dom 2)... Programming is excellent and game is fun.
>>
>> Anybody who don't see greatness in this game is not really a gamer blah
>> :)
>
> That clinches it - this game is not for me :)
Strange... As you are programmer and Linux freak (?) I would have think that
you would love Dominions but fantasy setting puts you down I guess. Game is
just briliantly designed and programmed with those two guys.
My friend, who is also programmer (a very good one!), see
http://www.vrspace.org/ it's his stuff... will maybe love this game...
Mario
eddys...@hotmail.com
> Strange... As you are programmer and Linux freak (?)
2 out of 3 :) Every year or so I take a good, hard look at Linux and
decide it's an inferior OS compared to MS for the desktop. We've got
some Linux database server boxes running here at work and they're more
than ok for that, but Linux on the desktop is for people who don't want
to play games on their machine and like to jump through hoops every
time they want to install <name any piece of hardware less than 6
months old>. On top of that : on the same hardware the various UI
shells are slower than the MS GUI.
<Insert Linux-head claim that command line Linux is faster> Sure, so is
command line Windows aka DOS - what's your point ?
> I would have think that
> you would love Dominions but fantasy setting puts you down I guess.
Exactly, and it's completely OT here, just like the Linux stuff above,
the political rants and most of the rest that makes this a fun place to
hang out :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Bloodstar
>
> 2 out of 3 :) Every year or so I take a good, hard look at Linux and
> decide it's an inferior OS compared to MS for the desktop. We've got
> some Linux database server boxes running here at work and they're more
> than ok for that, but Linux on the desktop is for people who don't want
> to play games on their machine and like to jump through hoops every
> time they want to install <name any piece of hardware less than 6
> months old>. On top of that : on the same hardware the various UI
> shells are slower than the MS GUI.
>
> <Insert Linux-head claim that command line Linux is faster> Sure, so is
> command line Windows aka DOS - what's your point ?
I agree with your view on Linux... Well, I had just a feeling that Linux
freaks would love this game (I think that it can be played on Linux as
well). Not just because of OS compatibility or not, something in the game is
hmmm linuxish :)
About Linux you can ask Oleg Mastruko, he is notorious by his flames on
Croatian Linux group :)
In fact Microsoft did "bought" me so many years ago... Guys sent me Combat
Flight Simulator 1 for review and included a JOYSTICK with that game. And
not ordinary joystick but Sidewinder Force Feedback :)
From that time on, I have ceased my attacks on Microsoft, monopoly etc...
Now, put American anthem behind. lol That's why I respect Americans. They
send joysticks with games for review :)
> Exactly, and it's completely OT here, just like the Linux stuff above,
> the political rants and most of the rest that makes this a fun place to
> hang out :)
putting American anthem behind (maybe by Jimi Hendrix?) :)
:)
Mario
Vincenzo Beretta
>
> Or, what hogwash. When your game is "modeling" something that's wholly
> divorced from reality, it becomes an exercise in arbitrary, jargon-
> jacking bullshit.
Uhm, *every* single immaginary world must have his own inner logic (yeah,
even David Lynch movies), which, after being presented, must be fully
respected. If fire is good vs. undead but cold leaves them... well, cold,
then acquiring "Cold Storm" at XXVIII level should not make you an undead
hunter in the game - or it would become fully "not realistic". This is not
different from a game where a pistol bullet destroys Tigers tanks.
[Talking of games, another good example of a fantasy game with a very strong
underlying logic is "Magic: the Gathering"]
Of course, in all fairness:
"When your game is "modeling" something that's wholly divorced from reality,
it becomes an exercise in arbitrary, jargon-jacking bullshit."
...Applies perfectly to Fox News, so there is a grain of truth in what you
say. :o)
eddys...@hotmail.com
> Of course, in all fairness:
>
> "When your game is "modeling" something that's wholly divorced from reality,
> it becomes an exercise in arbitrary, jargon-jacking bullshit."
>
> ...Applies perfectly to Fox News, so there is a grain of truth in what you
> say. :o)
Admit it, you're actually enjoying flamewars, don't you ? :)
True wargamer's reaction to the words "Fox News" : some new Rommel
documents were found ?
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Vincenzo Beretta
They are, at the same time, writing exercises, mental gymnastic, strategy
games, and, yes, fun. However, disparaging Fox News is only the latter :o)
> True wargamer's reaction to the words "Fox News" : some new Rommel
> documents were found ?
True RPG gamer reaction to same words: "Let me check the manual, there must
be a rule against this..."
Oleg Mastruko
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>than ok for that, but Linux on the desktop is for people who don't want
>to play games on their machine and like to jump through hoops every
<enters room>
Defcon will have native Linux version to be released soon!
<runs away>
Giftzwerg
rec...@hotmail.com says...
I have not tried DEFCON nor DOMINIONS3. I'm not interested in either
(a) click & twitch shoot-em-ups with nukes, or (b) games where wizards
shoot magic at each other.
Do you find anything especially "uninformed" about this characterization
of either game?
Giftzwerg
rec...@hotmail.com says...
> > Yeah. Whew. What fidelity.
> >
> > Or, what hogwash. When your game is "modeling" something that's wholly
> > divorced from reality, it becomes an exercise in arbitrary, jargon-
> > jacking bullshit.
>
> Uhm, *every* single immaginary world must have his own inner logic (yeah,
> even David Lynch movies), which, after being presented, must be fully
> respected.
Except that, in every such piece, "inner logic" is promptly chucked out
the window the moment it interferes with telling the story in progress.
Example. In the "Dune" series of books, we're told that laser weapons
aren't much good, and thus seldom used, because if the beam strikes a
shield - which are very, very common - the resulting nuclear explosion
will destroy both the target and the firer.
Inner logic? I dunno about you, but give me 15 minutes and a $50 coupon
at Radio Shack, and I can build you a weapons system that will make
*shields* completely obsolete.
> If fire is good vs. undead but cold leaves them... well, cold,
> then acquiring "Cold Storm" at XXVIII level should not make you an undead
> hunter in the game
...unless you're a princeling mage from EasternTide Wood, who's acquired
the +7/11 Jewel Of Frozen Slurpees, whereas it's clear that it
*automatically* makes you an undead hunter.
Or an unthirsty one. Or something.
> - or it would become fully "not realistic". This is not
> different from a game where a pistol bullet destroys Tigers tanks.
Yes. It is. The crucial difference is that a wargame that *needs* to
come up with a pistol that can destroy a Tiger tank can't take a detour
to the Big Bin Of Star Trek Jargon and justify it so the episode can be
resolved in seven minutes.
Fantasy games do this almost continuously.
> ...Applies perfectly to Fox News, so there is a grain of truth in what you
> say. :o)
<takes a long, cool sip of the usual lefty fury at Fox News>
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. That always hits the spot.
Giftzwerg
eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > Gifty, Eddy and Oleg - Dominions 3 have big price and I am having alot of
> > fun flaming on Shrapnel Games forum
>
> Having flaming fun there and forgetting your friends in here <sob>
Yeah, but his idea of "flaming" on SZO consisted of sobbing like a
little girl until the moderators banned the opposition and deleted their
posts.
Whew. Epic victory, that.
Vincenzo Beretta
> (a) click & twitch shoot-em-ups with nukes, or (b) games where wizards
> shoot magic at each other.
>
> Do you find anything especially "uninformed" about this characterization
> of either game?
Regarding "Defcon", it is no more "click and twich" than, let's say, CotA
(it can even be played in total real time: the day of armageddon lasting a
day in real life too), and it is as realistic as, let's say, Panzer General
for WWII, in potraying the realities and geopolitical logics of a nuclear
war in the Cold War era (control of the Barents Sea, use of long range
bombers, placement of air bases and radar sites, etc.) As I wrote, it
portrays nuclear war at the "President" (AKA Dr. Strangelove) scale, where
the important fact is that USSR bombers are crossing US airspace over
Alaska, and you must decide here and now what to do with your Carriers
positioned in MidAtlantic - not the minutae of what are the differences
between a Backfire and a B-1. If anything, Defcon shows what a nuclear
exchange *really* could have been - more than TOAW itself.
Re: Dom3 you are actually a God, but I agree that there are wizards and
magic in it ^__^
Giftzwerg
rec...@hotmail.com says...
> > I have not tried DEFCON nor DOMINIONS3. I'm not interested in either
> > (a) click & twitch shoot-em-ups with nukes, or (b) games where wizards
> > shoot magic at each other.
> >
> > Do you find anything especially "uninformed" about this characterization
> > of either game?
>
> Regarding "Defcon", it is no more "click and twich" than, let's say, CotA
> (it can even be played in total real time: the day of armageddon lasting a
> day in real life too), and it is as realistic as, let's say, Panzer General
> for WWII, in potraying the realities and geopolitical logics of a nuclear
> war in the Cold War era (control of the Barents Sea, use of long range
> bombers, placement of air bases and radar sites, etc.)
Come now. Right outta the gate, DEFCON takes a giant shit on realism
simply by depicting a half-dozen equal nuclear powers instead of the
actual bipolar Cold War.
This is more like a PANZER GENERAL game where the sides aren't Axis and
Allies, but Axis, Allies, African Alliance, South American League, Pan-
Oceanic Confederacy, and Cislunar Alien Coalition.
Sure, they needed more sides for multiplayer - but that doesn't mean
that this isn't just horseshit because of it.
> Re: Dom3 you are actually a God, but I agree that there are wizards and
> magic in it ^__^
The point, though, is that I hardly need to buy / play / immerse myself
in a game about, say, wizards and witches to conclude that I'm not
interested in games that *are* about wizards and witches. Thus my
"review" is completely and precisely "informed" about the obvious
unsuitability of either game for my own purposes.
Vincenzo Beretta
> simply by depicting a half-dozen equal nuclear powers instead of the
> actual bipolar Cold War.
So what? Play only with Russia and the US, or, for a more interesting game,
with Russia, Europe, the US and China. Africa and South America are options
added so to allow up to six players in MP.
> This is more like a PANZER GENERAL game where the sides aren't Axis and
> Allies, but Axis, Allies, African Alliance, South American League, Pan-
> Oceanic Confederacy, and Cislunar Alien Coalition.
Actually in Panzer General you had Axis regiments in one scenario and *the
very same units* as Axis division in the previous/next one - so if you want
to talk about "unrealism" the book on PG is big. But if you want to talk
about presenting history using calculated abstractions (an "impressionist
portrait" of historical issues, as someone would call it) then both games
are in the same league.
Bartow W. Riggs
"Bloodstar" <george.w...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:egeh7e$c7h$1...@sunce.iskon.hr...
Depends on what you like in a game and why you play. Some play to socalize,
some play for "history", some play to compete, some like a "fantasy epic"
and some play to enjoy a great, deep game system...which in my opinion
Dominions is...
I think many years ago I read a variation of the above by Redmond S. in
moves or S&T...
Vincenzo Beretta
> aren't much good, and thus seldom used, because if the beam strikes a
> shield - which are very, very common - the resulting nuclear explosion
> will destroy both the target and the firer.
>
> Inner logic? I dunno about you, but give me 15 minutes and a $50 coupon
> at Radio Shack, and I can build you a weapons system that will make
> *shields* completely obsolete.
No, this is only an example of a book that doesn't follow his own logic -
thus becoming "unrealistic". As Umberto Eco put it "If you state that a
princess' kiss transforms a frog in a prince, then her kiss cannot all of
sudden transform armadillos in prices. *But* if you state that a princess'
kiss removes a curse, then she can lift the curse from a prince transformed
in an armadillo. Both are examples of coherence within the rules the
creative mind set for his own 'fantastic' reality".
>> If fire is good vs. undead but cold leaves them... well, cold,
>> then acquiring "Cold Storm" at XXVIII level should not make you an undead
>> hunter in the game
>
> ...unless you're a princeling mage from EasternTide Wood, who's acquired
> the +7/11 Jewel Of Frozen Slurpees, whereas it's clear that it
> *automatically* makes you an undead hunter.
If it is in the rules then it is so - but it must be in the rules and must
respect the inner logic of the world: if a princeling KNIGHT from
EasternTide Wood does the same without explanation then the game is broken.
> Yes. It is. The crucial difference is that a wargame that *needs* to
> come up with a pistol that can destroy a Tiger tank can't take a detour
> to the Big Bin Of Star Trek Jargon and justify it so the episode can be
> resolved in seven minutes.
...The Star Trek episodes resolved by tecnobabble being the weakest ones,
and justly so...
> Fantasy games do this almost continuously.
*Bad* fantasy games/novels/TV shows do this almost continuosly, I agree.
>> ...Applies perfectly to Fox News, so there is a grain of truth in what
>> you
>> say. :o)
>
> <takes a long, cool sip of the usual lefty fury at Fox News>
Call it "outsider's amazement".
Giftzwerg
rec...@hotmail.com says...
> > Come now. Right outta the gate, DEFCON takes a giant shit on realism
> > simply by depicting a half-dozen equal nuclear powers instead of the
> > actual bipolar Cold War.
>
> So what? Play only with Russia and the US, or, for a more interesting game,
> with Russia, Europe, the US and China. Africa and South America are options
> added so to allow up to six players in MP.
"What" is because this is only the first massive grogan lays on reality.
Are weapons differentiated and historically correct? How about
political differences? Or is it pretty much a laughable exercise in
SIDE1 vs. SIDE2?
No sale. If I want generic crap, there's always AH's NUKEWAR.
> > This is more like a PANZER GENERAL game where the sides aren't Axis and
> > Allies, but Axis, Allies, African Alliance, South American League, Pan-
> > Oceanic Confederacy, and Cislunar Alien Coalition.
>
> Actually in Panzer General you had Axis regiments in one scenario and *the
> very same units* as Axis division in the previous/next one - so if you want
> to talk about "unrealism" the book on PG is big.
Yup. Which is why I'm not a big fan of that, either.
Oleg Mastruko
<giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
>I have not tried DEFCON nor DOMINIONS3. I'm not interested in either
>(a) click & twitch shoot-em-ups with nukes, or (b) games where wizards
As Vicenzo said Defcon is no more click and twitch than COTA. In
fact it is very slow paced and in multiplayer most often plea is for
slowest player to "please speed up" (as in COTA multiplayer, game
plays using the slowest speed set by any of the players).
"Office mode" is so slow it plays for many hours (while you
work) and game informs you if something happened via tray popups. That
is about as far from "click and twitch" as I can imagine.
Defcon presents what I think is very realistic set of options
and strategic dilemmas from a - fortunatelly fictional, but "almost
real" - conflict. It does so better than any other game I know of.
Abstraction mechanism works very well and is not any worse or
more abstract than say GG WaW. Just about the only thing that is
screwed (from a historical perspective) is the "OOB" in that all 6
sides have same inventory (done for gameplay reasons, and forgivable
IMO).
One more thing - MP lobby and game arrangement is so smooth and
elegant that many wargame designers could learn a lot from it (games
supporting direct TCP/IP net play like COTA and GG WaW).
O.
Giftzwerg
rec...@hotmail.com says...
> > Example. In the "Dune" series of books, we're told that laser weapons
> > aren't much good, and thus seldom used, because if the beam strikes a
> > shield - which are very, very common - the resulting nuclear explosion
> > will destroy both the target and the firer.
> >
> > Inner logic? I dunno about you, but give me 15 minutes and a $50 coupon
> > at Radio Shack, and I can build you a weapons system that will make
> > *shields* completely obsolete.
>
> No, this is only an example of a book that doesn't follow his own logic -
> thus becoming "unrealistic".
That's my point. Show me a book and I'll show you any number of
divergences from "internal logic."
> As Umberto Eco put it "If you state that a
> princess' kiss transforms a frog in a prince, then her kiss cannot all of
> sudden transform armadillos in prices.
...until such time as the author *needs* her to have this capacity, and
then all she need do is - Presto! - find a long-lost, Elven text of
armadillo-alchemy and consult the Dread Orc-Sybil Of Mount Batshitopus
and she'll be popping out princes left and right.
> *But* if you state that a princess'
> kiss removes a curse, then she can lift the curse from a prince transformed
> in an armadillo. Both are examples of coherence within the rules the
> creative mind set for his own 'fantastic' reality".
Exactly. But when these "rules" are arbitrarily defined by the author,
*not carved in the stone of history*, they can - and do - change from
moment to moment whenever some faux drama is required, you're bound to
find expedient authors painting themselves into corners ... and painting
themselves right back out again.
Witness Gandalf's "death" in Moria; it's *precisely* identical to Yukon
Cornelius's "death" in the puppet version of Rudolph The Red-Nosed
Reindeer - and sure enough (Presto!!!), when we need either Gandalf or
YC to return, why ... there he is!!!
"Bumbles^h^h^h^h^hBalrogs *bounce*!!"
> >> If fire is good vs. undead but cold leaves them... well, cold,
> >> then acquiring "Cold Storm" at XXVIII level should not make you an undead
> >> hunter in the game
> >
> > ...unless you're a princeling mage from EasternTide Wood, who's acquired
> > the +7/11 Jewel Of Frozen Slurpees, whereas it's clear that it
> > *automatically* makes you an undead hunter.
>
> If it is in the rules then it is so - but it must be in the rules and must
> respect the inner logic of the world: if a princeling KNIGHT from
> EasternTide Wood does the same without explanation then the game is broken.
Nice try, but in that seemingly innocuous little phrase "without
explanation" is contained all the bullshit in Middle Earth. Replace it
with "without hasty, arbitrary, capricious changing of the rules
whenever it suits the author's dramatic needs," and you'll see my point.
Sure, when Geordi decides that the Enterprise-D really *can* go back in
time without using the long-established slingshot-round-the-sun
technique, he first he "explains" by *changing the rules* with something
like, "What if we employ reversed-phase internal tachyon pulses from the
main deflector dish?!?"
"Wow! Funny we never thought of that obvious technology with vast,
overarching, universe-changing implications for galactic history,
politics, and power structure ... which we'll have forgotten completely
by next week's show! Make it so!! Engage!"
> > Yes. It is. The crucial difference is that a wargame that *needs* to
> > come up with a pistol that can destroy a Tiger tank can't take a detour
> > to the Big Bin Of Star Trek Jargon and justify it so the episode can be
> > resolved in seven minutes.
>
> ...The Star Trek episodes resolved by tecnobabble being the weakest ones,
> and justly so...
>
> > Fantasy games do this almost continuously.
>
> *Bad* fantasy games/novels/TV shows do this almost continuosly, I agree.
But - again - show me some "good" fantasy and I'll show you just as
many, "Dude. What the fuck. Why don't they just <action> and the quest
will be over?" moments.
Writers almost *never* consider fully the implications of the shit they
spew. The best ones get a little further, but in the end it's all just
violation after violation of whatever piffling amount of "internal
logic" they started with.
Vincenzo Beretta
>> thus becoming "unrealistic".
>
> That's my point. Show me a book and I'll show you any number of
> divergences from "internal logic."
Show me a wargame and I'll show you any number of divergences from
"reality". Are we saying something? Both medium try to portray realism -
within their context - with truthfulness, if you accept their limits. Of
course where these "limits" are can be debated, but not the idea "per se".
So, if in "Dune" a sandworm falls into water and it becomes an happy dude,
then a big screw up just happened - because the exact relationship between
the worms and the water not only had been clearly described, but it is one
of the keystones of the whole "Dune" universe.
>> As Umberto Eco put it "If you state that a
>> princess' kiss transforms a frog in a prince, then her kiss cannot all of
>> sudden transform armadillos in prices.
>
> ...until such time as the author *needs* her to have this capacity, and
> then all she need do is - Presto! - find a long-lost, Elven text of
> armadillo-alchemy and consult the Dread Orc-Sybil Of Mount Batshitopus
> and she'll be popping out princes left and right.
A bad author will do that, yes, but not a good one - or you will lose your
public *very fast*. Try to pull that stunt with a 5 years old child and even
he will protest: "Hey, the magic kiss DOESN'T do that!!" What the public
wants is an engaging story/game/whatever is that the main characters must
work around problems in their world like everybody else does in his own:
i.e. ye olde: "What will he do now??? Ahhh! THAT was cool!"
> Exactly. But when these "rules" are arbitrarily defined by the author,
> *not carved in the stone of history*
These rules are carved in stone in the first part of your story - the one
known as (for those into the three act structure) "Presentation". We define
the characters, the setting, the unique rules of the world etc. In this part
*almost* everything is permitted, i.e. we discover that Indiana Jones has a
fear for snakes but not for spiders. Good. After that, you must follow them.
When Indy sees that the vault where the Ark is hidden is full of snakes he
cannot shrug them off.
Actually, often an immaginary world has stricter rules than the real one. In
the real world it may happen that someone with a phobia is able to shrug it
off if needed; in (good) fiction you are much more limited by what you
created before.
> Witness Gandalf's "death" in Moria; it's *precisely* identical to Yukon
> Cornelius's "death" in the puppet version of Rudolph The Red-Nosed
> Reindeer - and sure enough (Presto!!!), when we need either Gandalf or
> YC to return, why ... there he is!!!
>
> "Bumbles^h^h^h^h^hBalrogs *bounce*!!"
Uhm, no. Gandalf *dies* in the Mines of Moria; but he is a Maja, an immortal
spirit, and he is brought back by the Valar to take the place of Saruman -
who betrayed the Council; in the book he clearly explains that "he is now
Saruman, in a certain sense". Actually Gandalf's return is very logical,
both in the book context and in Tolkien's universe at large: In Tolkien's
writings both who the Valar are and the real nature of the five Wizards are
clearly explained, and the chain of events following Gandalf's death in
Moria is quite sound.
> Nice try, but in that seemingly innocuous little phrase "without
> explanation" is contained all the bullshit in Middle Earth.
Uhm, no. This is a commonly made fumble, the pinnacle of which is the old
"why they didn't used the Eagles to bring the Ring to Mount Doom?" Some
critics needed to have knee surgery after fumbles like these, since you only
have to read the book to find the answer to this question. If anything
Tolkien worked a lot to mantain internal consistency in his creations, but
of course you have to know what he wrote to see this.
In the movies' context, however, this is a lecit objection, since in the
script the Eagles' nature is not explained - and the parodies out there are
justified.
> Replace it
> with "without hasty, arbitrary, capricious changing of the rules
> whenever it suits the author's dramatic needs," and you'll see my point.
I see your point daily in unskilled (or lazy) writers.
>> *Bad* fantasy games/novels/TV shows do this almost continuosly, I agree.
>
> But - again - show me some "good" fantasy and I'll show you just as
> many, "Dude. What the fuck. Why don't they just <action> and the quest
> will be over?" moments.
>
> Writers almost *never* consider fully the implications of the shit they
> spew.
I see that you do not know many writers :o)
Vincenzo Beretta
Argh. I answered to this one before discoverng this post.
Anyway, Giftzy has a knack for pulling out of the hat objections that were
debunked - like - in the '50s :o)
bimbo...@yahoo.com
people come into a thread and post crap when they don't even play the
games....if you don't have anything constructive to say...stay
away..jeesus......no one wants to hear your bs all the time....... I
could say crap about HTTR but I dont as that wouldnt contribute
anything....usually, I can deal with your drivel but in this case
no....get the F*(K out of the thread.
On Oct 10, 5:19 am, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com>
wrote:
> In article <v_LWg.22221$pp1.10...@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
> reck...@hotmail.com says...
>
> > > I have not tried DEFCON nor DOMINIONS3. I'm not interested in either
> > > (a) click & twitch shoot-em-ups with nukes, or (b) games where wizards
> > > shoot magic at each other.
>
> > > Do you find anything especially "uninformed" about this characterization
> > > of either game?
>
> > Regarding "Defcon", it is no more "click and twich" than, let's say, CotA
> > (it can even be played in total real time: the day of armageddon lasting a
> > day in real life too), and it is as realistic as, let's say, Panzer General
> > for WWII, in potraying the realities and geopolitical logics of a nuclear
> > war in the Cold War era (control of the Barents Sea, use of long range
> > bombers, placement of air bases and radar sites, etc.)Come now. Right outta the gate, DEFCON takes a giant shit on realism
> simply by depicting a half-dozen equal nuclear powers instead of the
> actual bipolar Cold War.
>
> This is more like a PANZER GENERAL game where the sides aren't Axis and
> Allies, but Axis, Allies, African Alliance, South American League, Pan-
> Oceanic Confederacy, and Cislunar Alien Coalition.
>
> Sure, they needed more sides for multiplayer - but that doesn't mean
> that this isn't just horseshit because of it.
>
> > Re: Dom3 you are actually a God, but I agree that there are wizards and
> > magic in it ^__^The point, though, is that I hardly need to buy / play / immerse myself
Giftzwerg
rec...@hotmail.com says...
> >> No, this is only an example of a book that doesn't follow his own logic -
> >> thus becoming "unrealistic".
> >
> > That's my point. Show me a book and I'll show you any number of
> > divergences from "internal logic."
>
> Show me a wargame and I'll show you any number of divergences from
> "reality".
Sure, and reviewers should positively *hammer* a designer who decides to
jigger reality to suit his game design instead of making his game design
reflect reality. Fantasy-fiction authors are as likely as not to take
the first out.
> Are we saying something? Both medium try to portray realism -
> within their context - with truthfulness, if you accept their limits.
The difference, of course, is that a game designer is constrained by the
context of a history *he cannot affect* - while the fantasy-fiction
author is constrained only by whatever bullshit he makes up from whole
cloth. And even there, he can simply re-jigger the whole cloth he makes
up to retcon whatever he'd like.
> > Exactly. But when these "rules" are arbitrarily defined by the author,
> > *not carved in the stone of history*
>
> These rules are carved in stone in the first part of your story
...which the author is, of course, perfectly able to re-write at any
point, or simply ignore, whenever it suits him.
> > Witness Gandalf's "death" in Moria; it's *precisely* identical to Yukon
> > Cornelius's "death" in the puppet version of Rudolph The Red-Nosed
> > Reindeer - and sure enough (Presto!!!), when we need either Gandalf or
> > YC to return, why ... there he is!!!
> >
> > "Bumbles^h^h^h^h^hBalrogs *bounce*!!"
>
> Uhm, no. Gandalf *dies* in the Mines of Moria; but he is a Maja, an immortal
> spirit,
...oh, how *convenient, eh? Bet it took a whole five seconds to cobble
together a little fake drama based on this silly "explanation."
And here the ignorant reader is thinking there was actual *drama*
involved with Tolkien killing off a major character - when it was all
just a meaningless charade.
Oh, happy day!
> and he is brought back by the Valar to take the place of Saruman -
> who betrayed the Council; in the book he clearly explains that "he is now
> Saruman, in a certain sense". Actually Gandalf's return is very logical,
> both in the book context and in Tolkien's universe at large: In Tolkien's
> writings both who the Valar are and the real nature of the five Wizards are
> clearly explained, and the chain of events following Gandalf's death in
> Moria is quite sound.
"See, if you connect the retro-particle generator to the emitter diode
of the tricorder, you'll cause a phase-feedback loop in the Romulan
disruptor-field and we'll be able to beam up!!!"
"Golly! That's very logical and clearly explained and quite sound!!"
Dude. The "Valar" are as made-up as anything else in this fictional
tale. There mere fact that Tolkien takes the time to retroactively
bullshit-up an explanation for Gandalf's magical rebirth is entirely
irrelevant. Oh, it *sounds* better than just having the Balrog be made
of a bouncy substance (like the Abominable Snow Monster) so Gandalf just
boings his way back into the tale like a tennis ball, but it's really
the same thing.
> > Nice try, but in that seemingly innocuous little phrase "without
> > explanation" is contained all the bullshit in Middle Earth.
>
> Uhm, no. This is a commonly made fumble, the pinnacle of which is the old
> "why they didn't used the Eagles to bring the Ring to Mount Doom?" Some
> critics needed to have knee surgery after fumbles like these, since you only
> have to read the book to find the answer to this question. If anything
> Tolkien worked a lot to mantain internal consistency in his creations, but
> of course you have to know what he wrote to see this.
>
> In the movies' context, however, this is a lecit objection, since in the
> script the Eagles' nature is not explained - and the parodies out there are
> justified.
<laughter>
Nice try, kiddo, but implying that the question is "old" or that
something in the book simply settles this Paris Hilton-sized hole in the
plot looks a little weak considering the vast amounts of argument that
surrounds this very issue. Google on "tolkien eagles ring mordor" and
you'll find that the affair is by no means beyond debate - even the guys
on your side disagree on what - exactly - prevents this.
And the real truth is that the "nature" of the eagles only stops them
from doing <useful thing here> when Tolkien doesn't feel like having his
story end on Page 14.
Which is about par for the course. The transporter never works when
Captain Kirk is deep in the glue.
> > Writers almost *never* consider fully the implications of the shit they
> > spew.
>
> I see that you do not know many writers :o)
By their writings, I know better than ten thousand of them. And most of
them (including Tolkien) fall firmly into the Geordi LaForge school of
drama.
Giftzwerg
rec...@hotmail.com says...
<laughter>
Perhaps you'd like to "debunk" it again? Or just link to the
"debunking" that you happen to like.
Or maybe the "debunking" didn't settle things the way you imagine?
Bloodstar
> Yeah, but his idea of "flaming" on SZO consisted of sobbing like a
> little girl until the moderators banned the opposition and deleted their
> posts.
>
> Whew. Epic victory, that.
Wow... And what is other idea, sobbing like a little girl on Matrix and
Shrapnel forums...
You wanted to destroy SES and they didn't even destroyed a one title. Really
heroic act! Blah.
Coward.
Mario
Bloodstar
Giftzwerg
george.w...@microsoft.com says...
>
> > Yeah, but his idea of "flaming" on SZO consisted of sobbing like a
> > little girl until the moderators banned the opposition and deleted their
> > posts.
> >
> > Whew. Epic victory, that.
>
> Wow... And what is other idea, sobbing like a little girl on Matrix and
> Shrapnel forums...
I have no idea "what is other idea." On anyone's part. I've never
posted to any of these lame forums.
> You wanted to destroy SES and they didn't even destroyed a one title. Really
> heroic act! Blah.
Yeah, but I don't need anyone's help to work my evil magic.
Vincenzo Beretta
> jigger reality to suit his game design instead of making his game design
> reflect reality.
Looking forward to your review of TOAW where the use of HEXES and turns is
hammered - since both do not happen in RL :o)
>> Are we saying something? Both medium try to portray realism -
>> within their context - with truthfulness, if you accept their limits.
>
> The difference, of course, is that a game designer is constrained by the
> context of a history *he cannot affect* - while the fantasy-fiction
> author is constrained only by
...The context of a history and a world that, after having been explained to
the reader, he cannot affect.
> And even there, he can simply re-jigger the whole cloth he makes
> up to retcon whatever he'd like.
You are simply milling dead water here - read the posts before this.
>> These rules are carved in stone in the first part of your story
>
> ...which the author is, of course, perfectly able to re-write at any
> point...
...Until you publish it...
> or simply ignore, whenever it suits him.
Never: if you need to ignore something you stated then you failed in giving
coherence to your world.
>> Uhm, no. Gandalf *dies* in the Mines of Moria; but he is a Maja, an
>> immortal
>> spirit,
>
> ...oh, how *convenient, eh?
No: Boromir dies and he is dead. Theoden dies and he is dead. Even Saruman
dies and he is happly retired. Many people in the book die and stay dead.
But Gandalf is not a "normal guy": this is stated from the beginning.
> Bet it took a whole five seconds to cobble
> together a little fake drama based on this silly "explanation."
Actually Gandalf's nature as an immortal spirt and his relationship with the
Valar and Saruman are well detailed by Tolkien. There is a whole tale about
them. These ideas then became the foundation for what happened in Moria.
> And here the ignorant reader is thinking there was actual *drama*
> involved with Tolkien killing off a major character - when it was all
> just a meaningless charade.
It is a key plot-point: on the long run, is marks the moment when Saruman is
officially fired as the head of the Council. Again, major characters are
killed in the book left and right, and NONE returns. As it happens, the only
one to return from the dead in the whole book is an *immortal* spirit - not
something that strikes me as astounding.
> Dude. The "Valar" are as made-up as anything else in this fictional
> tale.
Really? The "Lord of the Rings" is a fictional tale? The amazing discovery!
> There mere fact that Tolkien takes the time to retroactively
> bullshit-up an explanation for Gandalf's magical rebirth
...Shows how he is willing to *work* on his writings to mantain consistency.
> Oh, it *sounds* better than just having the Balrog be made
> of a bouncy substance
Getting there, I see :o)
> so Gandalf just
> boings his way back into the tale like a tennis ball, but it's really
> the same thing.
If so then it would have been simpler to describe Gandalf as a tennis ball.
But this is not what happens: they do fall in "deep waters", and the Balrog
flame is extinguished (you know, water that extingushes fire.... that
fantasy stuff). The monster (which, BTW, is a Maia too, and so on the same
league as Gandalf) is now weaker, so he flees. He runs for the highest
mountain peak over Moria, chased by Gandalf. When the Balrog reaches the
peak he flares again (because he dried up, I think ^__-), and *only then* he
faces again Gandalf. They do battle and they both die - which is a logical
result given that - as we said - they were on the same league.
> <laughter>
>
> Nice try, kiddo, but implying that the question is "old"
No, that the *fumble* is old.
> or that
> something in the book simply settles this Paris Hilton-sized hole in the
> plot
...AKA: that it is not a plot-hole at all, since something in the book
settles it...
> looks a little weak considering the vast amounts of argument that
> surrounds this very issue.
The Lord of the Rings was first published in the '50s, you made this fumble
today. I see no reasons why you should be the only one in history. It is
actually a very common fumble between those that --->
> Google on "tolkien eagles ring mordor"
...instead of, you know, reading the book. And for many reasons - among them
the fact that in the movies the plot point is, actually, shaky. One could
point to the fact that with the Nazguls flying air superiority over Mordor
showing up in the full glory on an Eagleback would have had been like
pointing a big holographic arrow over the Ring-bearer position - but since
the Eagles, in the movie, hold their own against the Nazguls in the final
battle even this justification is debatable.
> And the real truth is that the "nature" of the eagles only stops them
> from doing <useful thing here> when Tolkien doesn't feel like having his
> story end on Page 14.
The nature of the Eagles in the Lord of the Rings is that they are NEUTRAL.
They cannot and will not help the people of the Middle Earth doing stuff for
them, end of the story. Even the Wizards themselves are sent by the Valar to
inspire the peoples of Middle-earth to help themselves *not to do the job
for them*. Notice how, in the book, the Eagles help *Gandalf* to escape from
Saruman's tower, not a common mortal, restoring the balance between higher
ups when one betrayed another. And at the end they go to Mout Doom to save
Frodo and Sam - maybe as a way to honor them for their efforts - BUT (and
here the Eagles' behaviour becomes logical) they do not do "their stuff" -
i.e. give a claw in destroying the Ring.
The problem, here, as Stanley Kubrick once stated, is that before jumping to
"interpretation" you should consider *what* someone put in his work and
*why* (*). Why put in the Eagles at all? Not even raising this question is
the first crack in the ice under the "informed critics". In the Council of
Elrond they do discuss many ways to get rid of the Ring, including throwing
it in the depths of the ocean - and for each one of them there is a caveat
(the one for throwing it in the ocean is my favourite, since there is an
hint at Lovecraft in that passage). So, Tolkien's characters discuss at
lenght what to do with the Ring: the final decision is neither an easy one,
nor is reached without debating all the possibilities.
Also, it is well known that Tolkien, while writing "The Lord of the Rings"
went to such lenghts as to consult army's manuals to see how much a company
of men could travel in a day in a given terrain. So, why to create an
arbitrary problem only to "show off" giant eagles? Just cut the Eagles,
change some scene and there you go: no more plot-hole, right? Right. But why
do that if the plot-hole was only in the eyes of some "informed" critics
(**)?
Actually, and I feel that this is the most important lesson form the sad
"Eagles, blah blah..." fumble, is that it is one of the doubts re: "The Lord
of the Rings" that do need a little research to be answered. Interestingly
enough, it is also the one that is bragged around the most by people talking
about "the plot holes in the book". The most famous "plot-hole" among
detractors is both the most "Googled" one and the one that is not plainly
and patently explained, but asks you to read the book and use your head.
Now, this is a funny epitaph :o)
(*) Re: Stanley Kubrick. Pauline Kael had blasted "2001" on the NYT (showing
that she had not even grasped what happens in the first scene, but I
digress), and the NYT decides to allow to Kubrick to answer. First lines of
the interview:
NYT: The plot of 2001 hinges on man's eventual discovery of intelligent
beings elsewhere in the Universe. Is this fantasy, or probability?
STAN: Actually, they discover us.
http://www.archiviokubrick.it/english/interviews/content/index.html?main=1968love
(**) One could go to great lengths in discussing how the presence of the
Eagles in the book is a strong element because they underline the
unwillingness/impossibility by higher spirits to meddle with the lives of
the people of the Middle Earth, and how those doing that, Saruman and
Sauron, fall, and how this could reflect Tolkien's Chatolic beliefs
regarding Free Will - buy I think that this is beyond the point (and the
grasp) of Googling critics, who, as we speak, are now Googling for bugs in
Starcraft.
eddys...@hotmail.com
Vincenzo Beretta wrote:
> One could
> point to the fact that with the Nazguls flying air superiority over Mordor
> showing up in the full glory on an Eagleback would have had been like
> pointing a big holographic arrow over the Ring-bearer position
The Nazguls at that point were not flying on dragons, they were on
horseback.
>Just cut the Eagles,
> change some scene and there you go: no more plot-hole, right?
Right - a good editor would have thrown them out :)
> Right. But why
> do that if the plot-hole was only in the eyes of some "informed" critics
That's retro-active reasoning - for all we know Tolkien never realized
the plot-hole or only created the eagles either as a Deus ex machina or
because he wanted to weave another line into the story not realizing
this would create a plot-hole in some piece of the story he wrote years
before. Who knows ? Writers aren't perfect :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
I just re-bunked them :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
rec...@hotmail.com says...
> > Sure, and reviewers should positively *hammer* a designer who decides to
> > jigger reality to suit his game design instead of making his game design
> > reflect reality.
>
> Looking forward to your review of TOAW where the use of HEXES and turns is
> hammered - since both do not happen in RL :o)
This "reasoning" is both fallacious and beneath contempt. Actual human
experience doesn't play out in little marks inscribed on the pages of a
book, either, but we don't criticize the author of a book because he
reduces human experience into little marks in a book.
> > The difference, of course, is that a game designer is constrained by the
> > context of a history *he cannot affect* - while the fantasy-fiction
> > author is constrained only by
>
> ...The context of a history and a world that, after having been explained to
> the reader, he cannot affect.
Of course he can affect it. When an author explains *after the fact*
that something previously undisclosed to the reader is occurring which
changes some aspect of something the reader has already had "explained"
to him, he's "affecting" things he already explained (or, more
precisely, allowed the reader to assume).
We've used the example of Gandalf's fakey little faux dramatic demise in
Moria. You assert that Tolkien explained his return quite carefully.
But *when* did he explain about the Valar, and Saruman, and the X
wizards? Yup. You guessed it. *AFTER* Gandalf returns. Essentially,
Tolkien "affects" what he'd previously explained to the reader (that
Gandalf was dead) to resurrect him.
Now, Tolkien is a little better at it than Rick Berman, but what's going
on here is exactly the same as what happens when Captain Picard -
thought "dead" in a shuttle explosion - was actually caught in a trans-
dimensional rift, which was luckily reversed at the seven-minute mark by
Geordi's brilliant application of the ship's warp-drive.
> >> Uhm, no. Gandalf *dies* in the Mines of Moria; but he is a Maja, an
> >> immortal
> >> spirit,
> >
> > ...oh, how *convenient, eh?
>
> No: Boromir dies and he is dead. Theoden dies and he is dead. Even Saruman
> dies and he is happly retired. Many people in the book die and stay dead.
> But Gandalf is not a "normal guy": this is stated from the beginning.
Oh? Where - *exactly* - is it explained (prior to his "death") that if
Gandalf were to "die," he would / could / might not be dead at all, but
resurrected automagically at some later time?
Of course Tolkien doesn't explicitly mention this *before* Gandalf dies;
that would drain all the drama out of his fight - and death - at the
hands of the Balrog. If Tolkien had told us this *before* Gandalf died,
then his subsequent death would have little more meaning than when your
FPS character gets knocked off.
Ooops. Reset. Reload. All Better.
> > Bet it took a whole five seconds to cobble
> > together a little fake drama based on this silly "explanation."
>
> Actually Gandalf's nature as an immortal spirt and his relationship with the
> Valar and Saruman are well detailed by Tolkien. There is a whole tale about
> them. These ideas then became the foundation for what happened in Moria.
And when is this tale told?
> > Dude. The "Valar" are as made-up as anything else in this fictional
> > tale.
>
> Really? The "Lord of the Rings" is a fictional tale? The amazing discovery!
The point is that you refer to them as though they were some sort of
immutable historical figures, instead of something that came out of the
same imagination that the rest of the tale did.
> But this is not what happens: they do fall in "deep waters", and the Balrog
> flame is extinguished (you know, water that extingushes fire.... that
> fantasy stuff). The monster (which, BTW, is a Maia too, and so on the same
> league as Gandalf) is now weaker, so he flees. He runs for the highest
> mountain peak over Moria, chased by Gandalf. When the Balrog reaches the
> peak he flares again (because he dried up, I think ^__-), and *only then* he
> faces again Gandalf. They do battle and they both die - which is a logical
> result given that - as we said - they were on the same league.
"Then if the shuttle explosion was actually only the physical
manifestation of the trans-dimensional rift which appeared in *our*
universe, then the shuttle - and Captain Picard - might simultaneously
exist in all other universes at once. And if *our* Captain Picard was
interdimensionally trapped when the rift closed, then it might be
possible to reopen the 'door' by channeling the high-energy plasma from
the warp engines through the main deflector dish!"
How logical! Make it so!
> > And the real truth is that the "nature" of the eagles only stops them
> > from doing <useful thing here> when Tolkien doesn't feel like having his
> > story end on Page 14.
>
> The nature of the Eagles in the Lord of the Rings is that they are NEUTRAL.
...except when it would be expedient to have them do a little dust-off
for Gandalf. Then dooooown they come!
> They cannot and will not help the people of the Middle Earth doing stuff for
> them, end of the story.
...until such time as they need to oh, so helpfully participate in a
battle. See "Hobbit, The."
> Even the Wizards themselves are sent by the Valar to
> inspire the peoples of Middle-earth to help themselves *not to do the job
> for them*. Notice how, in the book, the Eagles help *Gandalf* to escape from
> Saruman's tower, not a common mortal, restoring the balance between higher
> ups when one betrayed another.
Notice how, in the book, Tolkien employs eagles when it suits him, and
ignore them when it suits him. Gawrsh.
> And at the end they go to Mout Doom to save
> Frodo and Sam - maybe as a way to honor them for their efforts - BUT (and
> here the Eagles' behaviour becomes logical) they do not do "their stuff" -
> i.e. give a claw in destroying the Ring.
Logical? This is mere assertion. Once again, the eagles do their stuff
when Tolkien needs a little airpower, and are ignored when he wants to
tell a story where flying characters would be dramatically stifling or
inconvenient.
> The problem, here, as Stanley Kubrick once stated, is that before jumping to
> "interpretation" you should consider *what* someone put in his work and
> *why* (*). Why put in the Eagles at all? Not even raising this question is
> the first crack in the ice under the "informed critics". In the Council of
> Elrond they do discuss many ways to get rid of the Ring, including throwing
> it in the depths of the ocean - and for each one of them there is a caveat
> (the one for throwing it in the ocean is my favourite, since there is an
> hint at Lovecraft in that passage). So, Tolkien's characters discuss at
> lenght what to do with the Ring: the final decision is neither an easy one,
> nor is reached without debating all the possibilities.
Nicely dodged, but if Tolkien were being "logical," this is the point
where someone should have brought up those amazing flying machines that
could have dumped the ring in the ol' volcano in 24 hours.
Yes. Indeed. They discuss a lot of ways to rid themselves of the ring
- except the most obvious and logical one, which every 12 year old comes
up with the moment he reads LOTR.
> Actually, and I feel that this is the most important lesson form the sad
> "Eagles, blah blah..." fumble,
You keep calling it a "fumble" - as though you'd actually recovered it
and were running for the goal line. The point is that nowhere does
Tolkien propose nor answer this painfully obvious question *to the
satisfaction of his readers*, who propose it again and again!
> is that it is one of the doubts re: "The Lord
> of the Rings" that do need a little research to be answered. Interestingly
> enough, it is also the one that is bragged around the most by people talking
> about "the plot holes in the book". The most famous "plot-hole" among
> detractors is both the most "Googled" one and the one that is not plainly
> and patently explained, but asks you to read the book and use your head.
It's neither plainly nor patiently explained. In fact, the question is
never even proposed, during the Council of Elrond or at any other point.
Desperate fanboys, with their pet book under fire, keep asserting that
the point is explained somewhere ... but it's not.
Else you'd simply point to it. Which you don't. Because there's no
passage where simply flying the ring to Mt. Doom is discussed,
dismissed, or alluded to.
> (**) One could go to great lengths in discussing how the presence of the
> Eagles in the book is a strong element because they underline the
> unwillingness/impossibility by higher spirits to meddle with the lives of
> the people of the Middle Earth, and how those doing that, Saruman and
> Sauron, fall, and how this could reflect Tolkien's Chatolic beliefs
> regarding Free Will - buy I think that this is beyond the point (and the
> grasp) of Googling critics, who, as we speak, are now Googling for bugs in
> Starcraft.
To continue the Star Trek analogies, the trouble with introducing
"eagles" was that in doing so Tolkien fell victim to the "Transporter
Mechanism" problem.
The transporter is a great way to simplify your storytelling by simply
"beaming" your characters into trouble week after week, but it's a
troublesome dramatic tool when you continually have to have the thing
break down to avoid the viewer saying, "Hey, why don't they just beam
away from those <threats>?" and sucking all the drama out of every
situation.
All Tolkien really forgot was the part where Picard asks, "Why not
simply fly the ring to Mordor via Eagle Express," and Geordi patiently
explains, "Eagles cannot penetrate the warp-shield generators that The
Enemy has set up around the perimeter of Morder."
Or similar jargonistic batshit.
Vincenzo Beretta
Or maybe it did settle them in a way you don't like? :o)
Vincenzo Beretta
>> change some scene and there you go: no more plot-hole, right?
>
> Right - a good editor would have thrown them out :)
Uhm, are you referring to the movies? Because, as we said, in the movies the
point *is* shaky.
>> Right. But why
>> do that if the plot-hole was only in the eyes of some "informed" critics
>
> That's retro-active reasoning - for all we know Tolkien never realized
> the plot-hole
No: more precisely, we do not know for sure what Tolkien thought of the
matter. But we know a lot of things: the Eagles were described as part of
the Middle Earth since "The Hobbit". The "Lord of the Rings" was composed
over 14 years and read to a lot of people before being published: family,
friends, Tolkien's editor... No one ever objected to this plot point (notice
how if Giftzy theories about writing are true then ol' J.R.R. only needed tu
pull off his ass some "anti-Eagle field around Mordor" explanation and go
on).
More importantly, within the context of both Tolkien's cosmology and poetic
the non-intervention of the Eagles makes sense. If anything, one could have
argued that having them go to Mordor with the Ring would have been a plot
hole - like having Switzerland joining the Coalition in Iraq. Had I been
Tolkien's editor I would have suggested to clarify the thing during the
Council of Elrond - but even in this case it would have been a
clarification, not something made-up on the moment. So, maybe he just was
lucky, but at the end this plot point worked the way it was intended.
> Who knows ? Writers aren't perfect :)
Nor are critics. Ask Giftzy what he thinks of Wargamer's review of Tiller's
games :)
eddys...@hotmail.com
Vincenzo Beretta wrote:
> > Sure, and reviewers should positively *hammer* a designer who decides to
> > jigger reality to suit his game design instead of making his game design
> > reflect reality.
>
> Looking forward to your review of TOAW where the use of HEXES and turns is
> hammered - since both do not happen in RL :o)
Well, in a way both a fantasy writer and a game designer are "creating
worlds". Do you know what happens when a given ruleset contains a
loophole or something that doesn't make sense given the rest of the
game's internal logic ?
No-nonsense players throw out that rule or adapt it to fit the internal
logic.
But the problem with both the printed book and the pc wargame is that
their world is fixed, the reader/gamer can't change it, unlike a
tabletop ruleset for instance.
We played a game of "Shootists" last night - see
http://www.nirya.be/snv/ttm/ for a report - and us being a group of
no-nonsense gamers the internal rules of the "Shootists" universe were
constantly adapted to preserve the internal logic.
I've yet to come across a ruleset that doesn't contain such
"plot-holes" and I'm pretty sure one could find one in almost every
movie or fantasy book ever written - just as you'll find them in every
wargame ever created. In wargames they are called bugs, and gamers
accept them as pretty much unavoidable and a fact of life.
Some books - for whatever reason - reach a status so that one is a
heretic for pointing out the gotcha's.
Come to think of it : the same applies to some wargames and developers.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Gandalf Parker
news:1160468526.5...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
> Bloodstar wrote:
>
>> Strange... As you are programmer and Linux freak (?)
>
> 2 out of 3 :) Every year or so I take a good, hard look at Linux and
> decide it's an inferior OS compared to MS for the desktop. We've got
> some Linux database server boxes running here at work and they're more
> than ok for that, but Linux on the desktop is for people who don't want
> to play games on their machine and like to jump through hoops every
> time they want to install <name any piece of hardware less than 6
> months old>. On top of that : on the same hardware the various UI
> shells are slower than the MS GUI.
>
> <Insert Linux-head claim that command line Linux is faster> Sure, so is
> command line Windows aka DOS - what's your point ?
Hey Im a linux head! And I totally agree with you. I think that
everything has its pros and cons, especially OS's. There are people I
would recommend mac to, and others Id recomment windows, and a few Id
recommend linux (some Id even recommend unix).
I have 3 WinXP desktop machines in my house (me, wife, son) which Im very
happy with. I cant see replacing them with Linux. And I have 2 linux
servers which totally replace our ISP functions plus letting me host many
games. Im thrilled with that and I couldnt conceive of replacing them
with windows.
>> I would have think that
>> you would love Dominions but fantasy setting puts you down I guess.
>
> Exactly, and it's completely OT here, just like the Linux stuff above,
> the political rants and most of the rest that makes this a fun place to
> hang out :)
I dont know. It kindof depends on your idea of historical. Its done my a
2-man team. In real life, one is a programer and the other teaches
religio/mythology. Yeah its done in fun but there are deep discussions on
the forums with Kristoffer about the basis for the nations. The armor,
the weapons, the demons, the gods, etc etc. It tends to lose me quick but
apparently some people get a kick out of it.
So its still part of the past even if it is done in a fun way.
Hmmm that is stretching it, isnt it? :)
Oh well, I like the game.
Gandalf Parker
eddys...@hotmail.com
Vincenzo Beretta wrote:
> >>Just cut the Eagles,
> >> change some scene and there you go: no more plot-hole, right?
> >
> > Right - a good editor would have thrown them out :)
>
> Uhm, are you referring to the movies? Because, as we said, in the movies the
> point *is* shaky.
It's shaky in the book as well - see Mr. Giftzwerg post pointing out
the "eagle option" was never discussed in the council at Elrond's
place. It wasn't. And the Nazgul were still on horses at this point
too.
>
> >> Right. But why
> >> do that if the plot-hole was only in the eyes of some "informed" critics
> >
> > That's retro-active reasoning - for all we know Tolkien never realized
> > the plot-hole
>
> No: more precisely, we do not know for sure what Tolkien thought of the
> matter. But we know a lot of things: the Eagles were described as part of
> the Middle Earth since "The Hobbit". The "Lord of the Rings" was composed
> over 14 years and read to a lot of people before being published: family,
> friends, Tolkien's editor... No one ever objected to this plot point
Or Tolkien never listened to critics of his work. Don't tell me that's
not possible as well.
>(notice
> how if Giftzy theories about writing are true then ol' J.R.R. only needed tu
> pull off his ass some "anti-Eagle field around Mordor" explanation and go
> on).
Again : if he was aware of the plot-hole - which no-one can confirm he
was or wasn't.
> More importantly, within the context of both Tolkien's cosmology and poetic
> the non-intervention of the Eagles makes sense. If anything, one could have
> argued that having them go to Mordor with the Ring would have been a plot
> hole - like having Switzerland joining the Coalition in Iraq. Had I been
> Tolkien's editor I would have suggested to clarify the thing during the
> Council of Elrond - but even in this case it would have been a
> clarification, not something made-up on the moment. So, maybe he just was
> lucky, but at the end this plot point worked the way it was intended.
How do you know how it was intented ? Maybe he just liked to keep them
around for when he got stuck in a part of his story or the action
needed a dramatic turn - the ol' Deus ex machina ploy. It worked for
Greek tragedy writers, it could work for him.
>
> > Who knows ? Writers aren't perfect :)
>
> Nor are critics. Ask Giftzy what he thinks of Wargamer's review of Tiller's
> games :)
Useless - I mean his opinion about the writers, not me asking him :)
What Tiller games need is a Deus in machina :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
rec...@hotmail.com says...
> >>Just cut the Eagles,
> >> change some scene and there you go: no more plot-hole, right?
> >
> > Right - a good editor would have thrown them out :)
>
> Uhm, are you referring to the movies? Because, as we said, in the movies the
> point *is* shaky.
...and we're still waiting for you to present the passage in the book
which proposes the question and states the answer unequivocally.
> >> Right. But why
> >> do that if the plot-hole was only in the eyes of some "informed" critics
> >
> > That's retro-active reasoning - for all we know Tolkien never realized
> > the plot-hole
>
> No: more precisely, we do not know for sure what Tolkien thought of the
> matter. But we know a lot of things: the Eagles were described as part of
> the Middle Earth since "The Hobbit". The "Lord of the Rings" was composed
> over 14 years and read to a lot of people before being published: family,
> friends, Tolkien's editor... No one ever objected to this plot point (notice
> how if Giftzy theories about writing are true then ol' J.R.R. only needed tu
> pull off his ass some "anti-Eagle field around Mordor" explanation and go
> on).
Exactly. The reader rightly expects the protagonists to use *all* the
tools available to them to resolve the elements of drama - and objects
when obvious tools are available and not used without sufficient
explanation.
Thus here readers reach a blazingly obvious conclusion: that those big
flying characters would be especially handy at things like fighting
battles, rescuing wizards from tower prisons ... and transporting items
to the tops of distant volcanos.
It also reduces Tolkien's apologists to stammering inobvious malarkey
like, "the nature of eagles precludes this." Sorry, but I call
bullshit. If their nature doesn't "preclude" them from staging dramatic
rescues and valiently fighting against evil in huge battles, then the
parameters of their "nature" needs to be *explicitly* explained in this
context.
> More importantly, within the context of both Tolkien's cosmology and poetic
> the non-intervention of the Eagles makes sense.
TRANSLATION: "If Gandalf used an eagle instead of Frodo, the book would
end on page 67."
> If anything, one could have
> argued that having them go to Mordor with the Ring would have been a plot
> hole - like having Switzerland joining the Coalition in Iraq.
Nice try, but no one is arguing that the eagles *should* have been used
to transport the ring and end the book on page 67 - only that Tolkien
had a duty to explain this obvious point - an explanation which is
lacking, as demonstrated by readers who bring it up again and again.
Giftzwerg
eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > More importantly, within the context of both Tolkien's cosmology and poetic
> > the non-intervention of the Eagles makes sense. If anything, one could have
> > argued that having them go to Mordor with the Ring would have been a plot
> > hole - like having Switzerland joining the Coalition in Iraq. Had I been
> > Tolkien's editor I would have suggested to clarify the thing during the
> > Council of Elrond - but even in this case it would have been a
> > clarification, not something made-up on the moment. So, maybe he just was
> > lucky, but at the end this plot point worked the way it was intended.
>
> How do you know how it was intented ? Maybe he just liked to keep them
> around for when he got stuck in a part of his story or the action
> needed a dramatic turn - the ol' Deus ex machina ploy. It worked for
> Greek tragedy writers, it could work for him.
Off the top of my head, I recall six direct and decidedly partisan
interventions on the part of the eagles into doings in Middle Earth
during the period in question:
(1) Dust-off for Bilbo, Thorin, et al.
(2) Duking it out in the Battle of Five Armies.
(3) Dust-off duty for Gandalf from Orthanc.
(4) More dust-off for Gandalf from Durin's Tower.
(5) Frei-jagd with some flying Nazgul near the Black Gate.
(6) Dust-off for Frodo and Samwise after the whole Mt. Doom thing.
Neutral? These guys are about as "neutral" as the boys from
Jagdgeschwader 52.
Vincenzo Beretta
> the "eagle option" was never discussed in the council at Elrond's
> place. It wasn't.
I see that he is Googling around, since this is one of the first objections
that you find by doing that :o) But one could counter by saying that this
option wasn't *even* discussed, at the Council of Elrond - a meeting where
the even idea of giving the Ring to Tom Bombadil was given some thought.
Both Elrond and Gandalf didn't considered the Eagles as an option, even if
Gandalf was their friend, and when you check the Eagles background you
understand why. Again, some feel that it would have been better to clarify
the reason to all at the Council.
> And the Nazgul were still on horses at this point too.
Yes, they were searching for the Ringbearer "masked" as black knights - but
I have the feeling that Sauron didn't conjured up the flying beasts on the
spot after their horses were killed. While Sauron - at the beginning of
Frodo's journey - was already engaged in a war with Gondor, his menace to
the West was not yet so open. Having Nazguls flying around on immense
pterodactyls would only have caused the free peoples to go "hummm". This
doesn't means that Mordor wasn't protected from the air - ironically, this
is even more likely if Sauron expected the Eagles to act against him.
>> No: more precisely, we do not know for sure what Tolkien thought of the
>> matter. But we know a lot of things: the Eagles were described as part of
>> the Middle Earth since "The Hobbit". The "Lord of the Rings" was composed
>> over 14 years and read to a lot of people before being published: family,
>> friends, Tolkien's editor... No one ever objected to this plot point
>
> Or Tolkien never listened to critics of his work. Don't tell me that's
> not possible as well.
Yes, it is possibile, but "listening to" doesn't mean "agree" :)
> Again : if he was aware of the plot-hole - which no-one can confirm he
> was or wasn't.
The problem is this line of reasoning is that it assumes that there is a
plot-hole in the book. Fact is: there isn't. The questionable thing is why
Tolkien didn't put together in a nice package the clues scattered around to
answer to this question (Eagles neutrality, veto for higher beings to
actively meddle with the people of the Middle Earth...) So, what we do not
know is if Tolkien just got lucky, or if he was so "inside" his world that
he thought that the answer would have been obvious.
> How do you know how it was intented ?
Because it is consisent with the world. As I wrote, having the Eagles to
actively collaborate against Sauron would have broken the internal logic of
the world.
> Maybe he just liked to keep them
> around for when he got stuck in a part of his story or the action
> needed a dramatic turn - the ol' Deus ex machina ploy. It worked for
> Greek tragedy writers, it could work for him.
Except for the fact that the Eagles do almost nothing to advance the story.
They do save Gandalf from Saruman, which is consistent with what their are
allowed to do, and they do save Frodo and Sam at the end - which is a
biggie, I agree, but I feel that it is still consistent with their nature.
Anyway, it is refreshing to see how a discussion about "fantasy is
arbitrary!! cheaters!!" narrowed down to a single plot point in a single
book over 1000 pages long - which was already answered long ago :o)
Vincenzo Beretta
> their world is fixed, the reader/gamer can't change it, unlike a
> tabletop ruleset for instance.
True, but, first of all this debate is about this "fantasy is always
inconsistent!"... er... fantasy, not about if wargames can be more
consistent than books. Second, inconsistency can happen both in the fantasy
and in the realistic genres, no matter what the medium is. So you can have
an historical game where a Tiger tank can be destoyed by a rifle and a
fantasy book where the internal logic is very sound - and the other way
around.
> Some books - for whatever reason - reach a status so that one is a
> heretic for pointing out the gotcha's.
The more one flyes high, the more he is admired... but deep inside the
others there will always be the vague desire to see him crash and burn :o)
paul...@yahoo.com
> the "eagle option" was never discussed in the council at Elrond's
> place.
Wow. Do you guys really want to discuss this stuff here? There are
VOLUMES written about this stuff and people have done doctorates on it.
There are lots of inconstancies and contradictions in Tolkien but most
of them are very obscure. Part of it is that JRRT changed his mind
about some things - like the origin of orcs and didn't go back and
rewrite stuff he had written earlier (sometimes decades earlier). Most
of his stuff is logically consistent and the LOTRs is actually based
on another book that he had written previous to it but couldn't get
published (the Silmarillion).
The only reason there is any controversy about "Eagles and Mordor" is
that JRRT died before anyone asked him about it and thus there is no
"official" cannon answer.
But you guys all need to do a lot more studying if you want to discuss
it intelligently.
Gandalf was not raised by the Vala. He was raised by Eru (God).
Direct, divine intervention. But Gandalf was an "angel" not a mortal
and couldn't really die. He would have eventually reformed in the
Uttermost West. Just as Sauron was not mortal and couldn't die - his
body died more than once and reformed each time. .
Eagles were associated with Manwe (a Vala) but the Vala were not
Neutral. They were definitely rooting against Sauron but would not
directly interfere. This was discussed in the council of Elrond when
they talked about sending the Ring over the Sea but it being refused.
Eagles would have been easily spotted by Sauron who was "ever
watchful".
In the 3rd age, Sauron was the most powerful being in Middle Earth. It
was Sauron that created the Mountains around Mordor. I doubt the
Eagles would have faired well against an erupting volcano and hurricane
force winds. Sauron was the most powerful mage in Middle Earth.
No, the "eagle option" only works if you assume that Sauron is
powerless and helpless.
If you want to discuss it further, you probably want to take it to
rec.arts.books.tolkien.
Giftzwerg
rec...@hotmail.com says...
> > But the problem with both the printed book and the pc wargame is that
> > their world is fixed, the reader/gamer can't change it, unlike a
> > tabletop ruleset for instance.
>
> True, but, first of all this debate is about this "fantasy is always
> inconsistent!"... er... fantasy, not about if wargames can be more
> consistent than books.
Actually, my point was that any talk about "internal logic" in fantasy
fiction is nothing more than a tautology, since the "internal logic" can
- *and does* - change in an arbitrary fashion anytime it suits the
author.
> Second, inconsistency can happen both in the fantasy
> and in the realistic genres, no matter what the medium is. So you can have
> an historical game where a Tiger tank can be destoyed by a rifle and a
> fantasy book where the internal logic is very sound - and the other way
> around.
That's a nice theory, but I haven't even begun to address an excellent
point in my argument's favor - which is that most fantasy computer games
are *not* based on some previously-existing work of fantasy fiction, and
are thus representing no "internal consistency" *at all*. In sharp
contrast, *every* historical wargame is based on a historical reality.
> > Some books - for whatever reason - reach a status so that one is a
> > heretic for pointing out the gotcha's.
>
> The more one flyes high, the more he is admired... but deep inside the
> others there will always be the vague desire to see him crash and burn :o)
Presumably, Tolkien himself isn't numbered among these detractors. On
the subject of the "eagles" controversy, he says:
"The Eagles are a dangerous 'machine'. I have used them sparingly, and
that is the absolute limit of their credibility or usefulness. The
alighting of a Great Eagle of the Misty Mountains in the Shire is
absurd; it also makes the later capture of Gandalf by Saruman
incredible, and spoils the account of his escape."
- J.R.R. Tolkien
Yup. I agree with Tolkien. *Deus ex machina*. But doesn't this amount
to a tacit admission that the main reason the eagles can't be used to
fly the ring to Mt. Doom is *because it would harm the drama*?
Giftzwerg
paul...@yahoo.com says...
> > It's shaky in the book as well - see Mr. Giftzwerg post pointing out
> > the "eagle option" was never discussed in the council at Elrond's
> > place.
>
> Wow. Do you guys really want to discuss this stuff here?
Is this a trick question?
> In the 3rd age, Sauron was the most powerful being in Middle Earth. It
> was Sauron that created the Mountains around Mordor. I doubt the
> Eagles would have faired well against an erupting volcano and hurricane
> force winds. Sauron was the most powerful mage in Middle Earth.
...and yet, Frodo succeeds. Quite handily.
So much for the "Sauron was just too powerful" theory, eh?
> No, the "eagle option" only works if you assume that Sauron is
> powerless and helpless.
The "Frodo option," similarly, only works if the author wants it to
work.
Vincenzo Beretta
>
> So much for the "Sauron was just too powerful" theory, eh?
>
>> No, the "eagle option" only works if you assume that Sauron is
>> powerless and helpless.
>
> The "Frodo option," similarly, only works if the author wants it to
> work.
I think he is beyond hope... (*)
(*) Are you aware of the fact that in "Cross of Iron", historical novel set
in WWII, realistic, acclaimed, whatever, Steiner survives only if if the
author wants it, aren't you?
Giftzwerg
rec...@hotmail.com says...
> > ...and yet, Frodo succeeds. Quite handily.
> >
> > So much for the "Sauron was just too powerful" theory, eh?
> >
> >> No, the "eagle option" only works if you assume that Sauron is
> >> powerless and helpless.
> >
> > The "Frodo option," similarly, only works if the author wants it to
> > work.
>
> I think he is beyond hope... (*)
TRANSLATION: "I surrender!! Please leave me alone!! I read Tolkien
but I barely understand it!!! BYE NOW!!!!!!!"
> (*) Are you aware of the fact that in "Cross of Iron", historical novel set
> in WWII, realistic, acclaimed, whatever, Steiner survives only if if the
> author wants it, aren't you?
Of course. So what?
The point is that Heinrich doesn't insanely re-animate one of his
"dead" characters, citing some ludicrous, previously-unknown property of
the dipshit reality his audience mistook for the real world.
Else your dizzy parallel might have the slightest relevance.
Dennisb55
entirely! :-) The reason the eagles couldn't be used to deliver 'the
ring' was because of the anti-eagle-artillery ringing Mordor. Only
after the destruction of the ring and ensuing explosions was the air
defense umbrella lifted allowing the eagles free reign over the skies
of Mordor. We all knew the eagles had air superiority over the
nazguls, but AEA is a different story. The eagles had seen 'The
Bridges at Toko-Ri' and wanted no part of that! And they knew Sauron
wouldn't ignore a small flight of eagles carrying 'the ring', so the
air option was out. And the ground forces were too limited to win a
campaign to Mt Doom. Therefore, as the counsel was watching 'The Guns
of Navarone' one night, the 'special forces option' came to them and
you know the rest......Doesn't Elijah Wood kinda look like a young
Gregory Peck?
Briarroot
Nah. He looks more like Gia Scala. ;-)
--
"Man will always be Man. We tried so hard to create a
society that was equal, where there'd be nothing to envy
your neighbor. But there's always something to envy: a
smile; a friendship; something you don't have and want to
appropriate. In this world, even a Soviet one, there will
always be rich and poor; rich in gifts - poor in gifts, rich
in love - poor in love." - Comrade Commissar Danilov in
"Enemy at the Gates"
eddys...@hotmail.com
What's really amazing is that afaik the last time I read LOTR was
exactly 24 years ago [I remember because I got into a gigantic row with
my English teacher over it] and the only refresher course I got was the
recent movies so given the details I still remember it must have made
an impression upon me - never mind the plot-holes you could fly an
eagle through :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> What's really amazing is that afaik the last time I read LOTR was
> exactly 24 years ago [I remember because I got into a gigantic row with
> my English teacher over it] and the only refresher course I got was the
> recent movies so given the details I still remember it must have made
> an impression upon me - never mind the plot-holes you could fly an
> eagle through :)
Find a copy of BORED OF THE RINGS.
I always wondered what all the fuss was about. LOTR is overlong[1],
overdull, and manages to keep the most interesting character completely
off-screen. Brilliant move, that.
At least it's part of the 66% of Tolkien's *oeuvre* that isn't
completely unreadable.
[1] Of course, you can shorten it up considerably just by eliding all
mention of Hobbits eating, Hobbits talking about eating, or Hobbits
wishing they were eating or talking about eating. Sheesh.
Gandalf Parker
>
> Dennisb55 wrote:
>> WOW I can't believe a bunch of intense wargamers missed this one
>> entirely! :-) The reason the eagles couldn't be used to deliver 'the
>> ring' was because of the anti-eagle-artillery ringing Mordor.
>
> What's really amazing is that afaik the last time I read LOTR was
> exactly 24 years ago [I remember because I got into a gigantic row with
> my English teacher over it] and the only refresher course I got was the
> recent movies so given the details I still remember it must have made
> an impression upon me - never mind the plot-holes you could fly an
> eagle through :)
Yeah. Pretty good for a bunch of stories that was pretty much just bedtime
stories for his kids that grew up with them. Thats why "the Hoobit" is so
kiddie level, the "Lord of the Rings Trilogy" much more teen, and "the
Silmarillion" so college dry.
Gandalf Parker
Vincenzo Beretta
This is ***totally*** accurate :o)
Vincenzo Beretta
This because of the silent majority ^_^
Vincenzo Beretta
> point in my argument's favor
Maybe because it isn't.
> - which is that most fantasy computer games
> are *not* based on some previously-existing work of fantasy fiction, and
> are thus representing no "internal consistency" *at all*.
Many fantasy books are not based on previous writter ones either.
"Consistency" means, among other things, to respect the rules of the world
you have created, as you presented them to the public. This is true for book
movies, games etc. If your work is based on some one else's efforts, then
you must respect the rules created by someone else: i.e., no Star Destroyers
in Middle Earth.
> In sharp
> contrast, *every* historical wargame is based on a historical reality.
Just to give an example, WWIII wargames are based on educated guesses, not
"historical reality". While one can implement the weapon's performances and
the OOBs to the umpteen decimal, we still do not know how WWIII would have
played out: the tempo of operations, the discoveries made along the way
about what worked and what didn't in doctrines that were really never tested
on the battefield on a vast scale etc. I fully belive that the most
"realistic" wargames available to naval war staffs before WWII still showed
the battleship as the Queen of the seas.
"Historical reality" is full of plot holes too. Hitler's panzers are about
to cut off the British forces at Dunkinrk, but... presto! Hitlers orders to
Guiderian to stop. The good guys are allowed to escape! How convenient, uhu?
The writer of this "Reich Storm Rising" fiction really ran out of ideas.
Ooops, it happened in RL. And the debates regarding *why* Hitler stopped the
panzers when they were two hundred yards from Dunkirk have the habit of
resembling the ones about some unfamous Eagles, no "official" answer being
available (*)... No one knows why Attila didn't sacked Rome, Pope Leo I's
speech to him having "coveniently"never been recorded. Just imagine the
uproar of, let's say, a generic Giftzy, if in LotR Gandalf speaks off-screen
with Sauron and at the end the evil dude agrees to leave Middle Earth, thus
solving the problem. These are only examples of why "history" sometimes can
get away with much more that fiction.
Last, fantasy wargames do exist, and they have or do not have loopholes like
any other kind of game. Richard Berg designed the "War of the Ring Trilogy"
for SPI back in the '70, and one of the games, "Gondor" is about the siege
of Minas Tirith. The rules are sound, and the battle plays out a lot like in
the book. You could say that "Gondor" is quite sound in its "historical"
portrayal of the battle.
> Yup. I agree with Tolkien. *Deus ex machina*.
You agree with Tolikien that *Deus ex Machina* is bad??? Well, yes, but, as
you see, even Tolkien knew about that.
> But doesn't this amount
> to a tacit admission that the main reason the eagles can't be used to
> fly the ring to Mt. Doom is *because it would harm the drama*?
No: you only need a paragraph to explain what we patently explained to you
ten or twelve times in this thread, and the "drama" remains unspoiled.
(*) This last time I checked: arguments range from "Hitler was unsure that
France was defeated and wanted to close the French campaign", to "Goering
assured him that the Luftwaffe was perfectly able to do the job alone", to
"Germany was sure that UK would have sued for peace anyway", to
"all/some/none of the above".
Giftzwerg
rec...@hotmail.com says...
> > That's a nice theory, but I haven't even begun to address an excellent
> > point in my argument's favor
>
> Maybe because it isn't.
Take your best shot, Kemosabe.
> > - which is that most fantasy computer games
> > are *not* based on some previously-existing work of fantasy fiction, and
> > are thus representing no "internal consistency" *at all*.
>
> Many fantasy books are not based on previous writter ones either.
> "Consistency" means, among other things, to respect the rules of the world
> you have created, as you presented them to the public. This is true for book
> movies, games etc. If your work is based on some one else's efforts, then
> you must respect the rules created by someone else: i.e., no Star Destroyers
> in Middle Earth.
This is your best shot?
The point is that a fantasy game which isn't based on anything beyond
its own design is *by definition* making it up as it goes along, and is
one further step removed from any sort of grounding in anything except
whatever-the-designer-does-next. You're the one claiming that a game
like DOMINIONS3 can be "internally consistent." I'm simply pointing out
that *reflexive* internal consistency is a textbook example of a logical
circle.
In other words, your whole argument here boils down to: "A level four
mage can cast 'fireball' because *he's programmed that way*."
> > In sharp
> > contrast, *every* historical wargame is based on a historical reality.
>
> Just to give an example, WWIII wargames are based on educated guesses, not
> "historical reality".
WWIII games are *not* historical, though.
> "Historical reality" is full of plot holes too. Hitler's panzers are about
> to cut off the British forces at Dunkinrk, but... presto! Hitlers orders to
> Guiderian to stop. The good guys are allowed to escape! How convenient, uhu?
> The writer of this "Reich Storm Rising" fiction really ran out of ideas.
> Ooops, it happened in RL. And the debates regarding *why* Hitler stopped the
> panzers when they were two hundred yards from Dunkirk have the habit of
> resembling the ones about some unfamous Eagles, no "official" answer being
> available (*)...
So what?
A wargame designer isn't going to model the historical Dunkirk outcome
as a *fact*, he's going to model it as a *choice*.
And if you're going to build a LOTR game, you'd better put in some
pretty specific special rules about eagles; you know, how you can
*sometimes* use them as rescue helicopters, gunships, or transports, but
... uh, they're just no good at trucking tiny objects to the tops of
volcanos.
> > But doesn't this amount
> > to a tacit admission that the main reason the eagles can't be used to
> > fly the ring to Mt. Doom is *because it would harm the drama*?
>
> No: you only need a paragraph to explain what we patently explained to you
> ten or twelve times in this thread, and the "drama" remains unspoiled.
You didn't "explain" anything. You merely (and lamely) asserted that
eagles can't be used as ring-tranports because, well, they weren't used
as ring transports - but this amounts to a bald, unsupported statement
of your belief. Nothing more.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> "Historical reality" is full of plot holes too.
Of course it is - but that was not the point in contention :)
Ok - I get what you are trying to get across : that there are fantasy
worlds that show more internal logic and less plot holes than Real Life
(tm)
Maybe for a fantasy world to "feel" right it needs a few plot holes to
not become too predictable and keep the reader/viewer/gamer guessing.
> No one knows why Attila didn't sacked Rome, Pope Leo I's
> speech to him having "coveniently"never been recorded.
You mean the tons of gold handed over were "off the books" :)
> history sometimes can get away with much more that fiction.
Agreed - we expect the creator of the fictional world to have done his
homework properly :)
> Last, fantasy wargames do exist, and they have or do not have loopholes like
> any other kind of game. Richard Berg designed the "War of the Ring Trilogy"
> for SPI back in the '70, and one of the games, "Gondor" is about the siege
> of Minas Tirith. The rules are sound, and the battle plays out a lot like in
> the book. You could say that "Gondor" is quite sound in its "historical"
> portrayal of the battle.
I went upstairs to get the box and have a look - pretty bland game,
typical rules format of SPI, nothing particularly wrong with it,
generic medieval combat with some magic stuff added on one of the worst
looking maps ever. By contrast the LOTR map in the same box is colorful
and bright - nice.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
> And if you're going to build a LOTR game, you'd better put in some
> pretty specific special rules about eagles; you know, how you can
> *sometimes* use them as rescue helicopters, gunships, or transports, but
> ... uh, they're just no good at trucking tiny objects to the tops of
> volcanos.
Lo and behold : they did. From SPI's "War of the Rings" - rules section
"N - Event Cards"
".... enables one or more Characters in the same hex to escape or (in
the the Campaign Game) affects one combat resolution." - from the event
card itself "subtract 1 from the die roll in Army combat"
Seems like they can be used as helicopters or in combat but only by the
Fellowship player - not exactly "neutral" these guys :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Vincenzo Beretta
>> speech to him having "coveniently"never been recorded.
>
> You mean the tons of gold handed over were "off the books" :)
Well, the tons of gold that a broken and ruined Roman Empire *conveniently*
happened to have stored away ^_^
> I went upstairs to get the box and have a look - pretty bland game,
> typical rules format of SPI, nothing particularly wrong with it,
> generic medieval combat with some magic stuff added on one of the worst
> looking maps ever. By contrast the LOTR map in the same box is colorful
> and bright - nice.
Whoa! A true believer! I did exactly the same today, except that the box was
under my bed :o)
The map is totally plain, true, but the game was engaging: I played it solo
a lot during my first LotR high, and a couple of times against a friend.
Once I even made up the rules to use the armies from the other game too
(Sauron). I was 12, then, and it was a good introduction to wargames to
come.
eddys...@hotmail.com
Vincenzo Beretta wrote:
> >> No one knows why Attila didn't sacked Rome, Pope Leo I's
> >> speech to him having "coveniently"never been recorded.
> >
> > You mean the tons of gold handed over were "off the books" :)
>
> Well, the tons of gold that a broken and ruined Roman Empire *conveniently*
> happened to have stored away ^_^
Ok - now you made me look it up :)
It was not Rome that was under siege - it was Ravenna which was then
the capital and apparantly the plague was ravaging Attila's army. Given
that Rome was already paying Attila an annual tribute the encounter has
problably gone like this
Pope Leo : Hi Hun
Attila : Stop with that stupid joke or I'll put that crucifix somewhere
where it'll be hard to retrieve.
<diplomatic pleasanteries like that were custom at that time as
everyone knows>
Pope Leo : You know that sum of money we pay you each year ?
Attila : Yup, comes in quite handy, my christian wives are shopaholics
- is that a mortal sin yet in your faith ? - it would be handy to keep
them in reign if it was ...
Pope Leo : Well, I'll think about it, but they'll be very cross at you
if you destroy Ravenna, capital of Italian fashion, and there will be
no more cheques coming from Rome since you destroyed all the summer
beach houses of the rich and famous.
Attila : hm, I see your point - I think we'll pack it up here - this
warm and pleasant climate is too much for us anyway, half my men are
already down with the flue or something. But you'll continue to pay,
right ?
Pope Leo : Sure, no problem, what else would we use the levied taxes
for ? public sanitation ?
<both break out in laughter>
Attila : Ok, that's settled then - drinks ?
Pope Leo : the usual
Attila : and for misses Pope ?
Pope Leo : aargh, don't mention the wife where a chronicler is present
- I'll have to use my influence again to strike this from the records -
come to think of it, this whole conversation is better struck from the
record. What's for dinner tonight ?
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Vincenzo Beretta
> Fellowship player - not exactly "neutral" these guys :)
Blah, the "War of the Ring" campaign was always biased agaist the Evil Lord
:)
However, IIRC, the Eagles bring you to Rivendell and some other place, they
cannot airlift you to Mordor - too much AAA there :o)
termite
news:MPG.1f97096d3...@news-east.giganews.com:
> In article <zn9Xg.24311$pp1....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
> rec...@hotmail.com says...
>
>> > But the problem with both the printed book and the pc wargame is
>> > that their world is fixed, the reader/gamer can't change it, unlike
>> > a tabletop ruleset for instance.
>>
>> True, but, first of all this debate is about this "fantasy is always
>> inconsistent!"... er... fantasy, not about if wargames can be more
>> consistent than books.
>
> Actually, my point was that any talk about "internal logic" in fantasy
> fiction is nothing more than a tautology, since the "internal logic"
> can - *and does* - change in an arbitrary fashion anytime it suits the
> author.
>
raymond chandler and a great many other authors in genre and mainstream
fiction do the same thing ... it can be very hard to come up with a
completely consistent plot
if the jfk assassination had been a novel people would be very critical
of the top being down and the bulletproof glass being removed from the
limo ... contrived! they would say
it's a deep desire of people to impose order on a disorderly world ...
fiction and wargames are two ways people do that ... it's not internal
consistency that makes them realistic, because that consistency is
actually an oversimplification of a confusing reality
in real life, does a general get victory points from the pentagon? ... do
they give him a piece of paper proclaiming a "minor victory" or a "major
victory"? ... no, fiction and wargames do not attempt to give us a
picture of reality, but a simulation of reality that is more interesting
to us than the reality itself
termite
news:wf9Xg.24292$pp1....@tornado.fastwebnet.it:
>
> The problem is this line of reasoning is that it assumes that there is
> a plot-hole in the book. Fact is: there isn't.
true ... why should the wise trust an eagle more than they trusted frodo?
... remember that the ring corrupts anyone who takes posession of it and
gandalf didn't even trust himself with it
more importantly, the eagle could not have brought himself to destroy the
ring ... and the only way frodo was able to do it was to have gollum bite
his finger off
beats me how tolkien could have managed that plot twist with an eagle
carrying the ring ... and it's not just any old plot point, but it's at
the very center of the book's meaning
Giftzwerg
termit...@chartermi.net says...
> beats me how tolkien could have managed that plot twist with an eagle
> carrying the ring ... and it's not just any old plot point, but it's at
> the very center of the book's meaning
Sure, but it's not Frodo's job to be a numbskull just so Tolkien can
establish the point at the center of the book's meaning; this is what
Roger Ebert calls "an idiot plot," defined as a story that would end in
about 15 minutes if any of the characters were smart enough to do the
obvious thing.
Like it or not, Tolkien has created a world where his protagonists can
converse with eagles and often get them to do their bidding. On a half-
dozen occasions, Tolkien has eagles acting as rescue helicopters, Apache
gunships, and CH-47 transports at the bequest of The Good Guys.
Sorry, but if you're going to write a story about a characters who own a
fleet of helicopters, you'll have to excuse your readers if they find
something odd about these same characters conveniently forgetting about
them whenever you need to write-in a dramatic quest that involves
massive miles of walking.
The question won't go away (despite all the desperate "debunking" the
fanboys can dredge up...) because the eagles appear to show up whenever
Tolkien has written himself into a corner.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"A question for Condoleezza Rice: on what basis do Palestinians
'deserve' a better life, and why is it our responsibility to give it to
them? They voted en masse for a radical Islamic terrorist group with an
open policy of genocide. They have turned their back on every offer of
statehood, chosen a path of violence and murder, and built a death cult
society that instills hatred in children from their first moments of
life.
And they danced in joy on September 11."
-Charles Johnson