Mouse wrote:The problem with Mordor, as stands, is there is no reason NOT to eliminate it. It makes a very poor pawn and certainly is not a kingmaker. As the game stands in the circle form of X vs. Y vs. Z, Mordor's neighbors simply have it lucky. It would NOT be wise not to take out Mordor since it has so little to offer. take for example Italy in classic diplomacy. The country has the lowest chance of winning, but has the ability to easily influence the game i.e. a kingmaker. Mordor is not in the catagory. They have very little to offer to any powers. The isolated unit dare not stray far from home so it is of little importance to the neighboring countries. The two units at home are really there for the taking since there is no reason to allow them to grow and take precious supply centers. That is why I suggest that all their home supply centers become fortresses. Mordor still would not have growth, but their ability to be knocked out of the game quickly would be dramatically reduced AND their political influence increased.
I disagree. Rohan could have easily attacked Gondor with more fury instead of committing units against the Elves. This would have taken counter pressure off of you allowing you to defend against the Ruhn or giving the Ruhn second thoughts about attacking you. Or Rohvanion could have put more pressure on Rhun than they did. I thought once North Rhun fell that would be your chance to make a come back. However, Once they had you surrounded, with no counter pressure from Rohan or Rohvanion, and you had that one army stuck in Mirkwood you really had no chance. It could have played differently I think. It's like Austria in the reg game. They have some logistical challenges but with the right mix of players and some convincing they can make it work. Otherwise they usually get slaughtered since they lack the safety of a corner like England or France.
