The question is this - does a new age call for new strategies? And the answer is - yes! Without reviewing the basic game structure or referring in detail to the earlier scenarios, most of which will be familiar to the more active gamers, it is still possible and perhaps useful to highlight some of the intriguing differences that accompany gaming life in the Fourth Age.

All the very great similarities notwithstanding, reliance on the old strategies can be an invitation to disappointment and will clearly be missing an interesting opportunity to try new approaches that can bring fresh interest to this game system. For example, I would argue that it is now - for the first time - possible to play a powerful early game offensive strategy using emissaries, and that it is now extremely difficult to play a powerful agent nation except perhaps with considerable patience and a mid to late game orientation. Clearly, a fresh look at character attributes is thus in order as a major strategic component, although perhaps the best order to discuss development of strategy would not lead with character traits. Instead, in order to understand some of the critical differences that set this age apart from the earlier scenarios, let's work through six major components: the age of discovery; enemy strategy and placement, failed analogies, player goals, character traits, and, finally, geography for the new position.

For the experienced Middle-Earth gamer, there is comparatively little left to explore in the prior versions. (This does not mean those versions are without interest; being able to play 25 different positions insures some inherent variety, and being obliged to play with 24 different players from game to game creates great variety, even before adding in the disparate choices made by the neutral kingdoms and the differing outcomes of the now customary race for the most prized artifacts.) Conversely, the Fourth Age is in important ways terra incognita. Is Radaghast the Brown still feeding the birds, or has he departed? Have all the long - lived elves of legend crossed the sea? Even poor Darien? Is Celgor still a risk to the unwary? Indeed, as a general and unanswered question, what might one find in NPCs wandering the realm? And how about the dragons, whose presence in DS armies in times past allowed even minor armies to deal with very formidable opposing forces? Which are alive yet? Or was old Smaug the last, and their kind is now no more? And if one or two exists still, would the same recruiting responses still be valid, or have these been revised? Certainly the artifact information has been scrambled. It is simply not possible to know from game to game which artifact numbers would lead you to, for example, agent artifacts, so never again can there be the frantic early game race by the free and the dark to be the first to secure the Ring of Wind. (Artifacts may not be less powerful, and indeed the reverse may be true - for the accidental early discovery of powerful artifacts may provide much in the way of competitive advantage in that particular game, in part because most other powerful artifacts may linger undiscovered for a long time.)

This is just the beginning, however. Apart from the information imparted by your turn map, there is little you will know about the placement of the other nations unless you are one of the twin kingdoms. (This suggests, of course, that every nation might make a special effort in immediate diplomacy with the twin kingdoms, since they alone at game start will have information on placement of nations off the individual player game maps.)

So, while you will know the terrain (mountains, plains, sea, and so on) from the game map, the placement of almost all the pop centers will be a mystery, and only with an effort at exploration or diplomacy will you be able to ascertain whether the hexes just off your map are empty - or occupied by potential enemies. Discovery of another sort will be needed as well, for you will know the name of none of thestarting characters save your own. In prior games, seeing the names of Elrond or Din Ohtar or any of the other 198 known starting characters as reported visitors in your pop centers conveyed quite a lot of information. Clearly, you knew the affiliation, by both nation and alignment, and you would have a very good sense of skill levels for many rounds, and you might even hazard a guess as to which artifacts might be carried. But in the Fourth Age you know none of this, and with that fact perhaps even your erstwhile 'allies' might be tempted to steal from you, trusting that they would not be found out. Indeed, with the new rules, even those you think of as natural allies, such as one dark servant to another, may prove to be deadly adversaries.

So, this may be the same game map, and the same game mechanics, but already with these changes it is a new game, and one in which the need for discovery is ever so much greater. (And, by the same token, it suggests that games may run a good bit longer. It could be hard in the end game to determine which adversaries remain, in part because it will be as a practical matter impossible to determine which nations have been eliminated. In Game 4 of the Fourth Age I am aware of two nations being eliminated from play before turn ten - and this before the placement of most nations on the map can even be guessed at. Uncover secrets will only work if there is a pop center left, and interrogate will only work if you can find and capture a character; without knowledge of starting enemy characters and starting enemy pop centers both will be difficult.) However, this need for early and continuing discovery is not the only major strategic difference, and is - except for suggesting that the games may run longer - is probably not the most important difference.

While others will no doubt argue the point, I would suggest that the most important strategic difference is that you must - absolutely must - consider where those 22 other nations will place their pop centers. This is not a consideration at all in the earlier scenarios, where the starting pop center locations were fixed. Again, an example may help. In Game 4 two nations picked starting positions in the Iron Hills. With the rules of placement for pop centers this was possible, and the reaction each player could have had upon seeing that first map and of seeing a nation of different alignment more squarely on their doorstep than was ever possible before could have been (a) delight, if that had been the hope on a quick start military strategy or (b) shock and chagrin, for almost every other circumstance. An expansion of the discussion about this placement will provide a compelling illustration of the need to worry in advance about where your neighbors might be.

One comment that will help in this discussion is to note that, except for the twin kingdoms, nations start virtually impoverished. You will not have a huge horde of gold, and you will have a very small opening economic base. If it were possible to eliminate any other nation almost at once, and in the process to absorb their pop centers, this would be a fantastic advantage. There are, I believe, only two ways to achieve this - and with a military strike is the obvious one. So, in doing the initial pop center placement, suppose you elected a military strategy and then carefully chose placement north of the Iron Hills. Your bet would be that you would have to win with such a selection and a military/emissary strategy - for if anyone else chose the Iron Hills, they would get that choice (your pop centers being a hex or two far enough away so that you would not preclude that choice by them) and you could swoop down to inflict an early and preemptive first strike. But, if these hexes - which would be shown on your map - turned out to be empty, you could use a fallback strategy of colonizing all that metal and gold producing rough. The hope, however, would be to have the chance for early conquest. There are a great many places on the game map that suggest themselves in just such a fashion as likely 'predator' points. This discussion leads naturally to the issue of where to place one's own pop centers, which will be covered, but as a strategic consideration the point is that in the Fourth Age there is a need to ponder the risks of placements by others that could make your 'prize pick' a death trap.

As the second most important strategic focus I would suggest that we examine the relative strength of the four basic character types. My conclusions are that agents have become far less powerful, that emissaries can be far more powerful and could even constitute a first strike capability, and the blended character type of command/emissary has become essential. Oh, it is still possible to play an agent-based game, but let us consider the difficulties. First, you will not know the names of enemy characters. Second, you will not know the locations of enemy pop centers. Third, you will not know the artifact numbers for agent or stealth enhancing artifacts, so even if you invest in getting the ability to cast Locate Artifact True your mages can only cast 'in the dark', picking a number at random and only then (assuming the spell was cast) having the least clue as to which artifact it was. These three factors combine to suggest that playing an agent game - with the exception of well-coordinated team games - will be very slow to start as it may take a great many turns to develop your characters up to the stat levels so easily achieved in the prior age by Uvatha and Ji Indur and others. More surprising, perhaps, is that the emissary strategy could be powerful in the early game. Remember that, except for the twin kingdoms, the number of starting pop centers per nation is sharply limited, and that these will be tightly clustered. If minor armies (even armies with only the base level of 100 troops) can deal with the unfortified camps and village, and if your ems can take down the town by influence, then your opponent's economic base is destroyed, and they will fall. (And, of course, this also means that it is an enormous risk to let your capital do without a friendly home army - for losing a capital in the early game would almost certainly be the end.) It was exactly this approach that led to the early elimination of one nation in Game 4. To this point no real strategic difference is obvious in the use and need for commanders and mages, but what appears to be the inversion of the early game value of agents and emissaries is a dramatic difference. The need for a commander/emissary character is, of course, directly related to the new order which allows the turn map to be moved, and while this may not be critical in the early game having at least one character skilled enough to be able to issue the order is important. Another example may help. In Game 11 most of my game map consists of sea hexes, and so has almost no useful data. Moving the map away from the sea to get better land hex information would be enormously helpful, both in exploration and in gaining awareness of pop centers, army locations, army actions, and army movements.

The third major consideration might be that of player goals and temperament. This is, in some ways, not really a difference from the earlier versions. For example, if you wanted to jump right in with heavy military action, you had as obvious choices nations that included the Eothraim, Fire King, and Northern Gondor, among others. Choosing those positions in the Fourth Age is (unless you choose as a target one of the twin kingdoms!) more difficult, but, as discussed above in the example of the predator position north of the Iron Hills, certainly not impossible. Apart from these predator positions, most any position far from the map edges will likely give the player a map that shows a potential adversary or two. Conversely, if taking a slow start and working to build a position up for the mid-game is consistent with a player's style, if you might have liked the old Easterling and Harad positions for those reasons, then your choices will clearly be a great deal different. What choices must a player make as the base for strategy? Essentially, they are these two choices - the type of game (a military emphasis, or an emissary orientation, or mages with the goal of a Blind Sorcerer type game, or of building an agent power), and the preferred starting locations. While many other decisions remain to be made (special nation abilities, specific skill levels and mix for the opening characters, the purchase of artifacts, and so on), all those other decisions need to be made in a way that is consistent with these two formative principles. And the most important rule is that - that the two principals do not conflict! If you want to play a fast paced military game from the first turns, do not sink yourself into the far southeast corner of the map! If you want to play a game that will take some turns to build, do not try to cozy up as close as possible to the Twin Kingdom capitals and do not pick for yourself a high risk location like the Iron Hills. Build lots of characters - now there's a rule of thumb that fails the Fourth Age test! This example will be a good lead to the topic of failed analogies, On the surface, it is a tremendously powerful idea, with more characters having the direct benefit of having more orders. Yet in Game 4 my emissary strikes had taken the opposing nation's town, miniature armies had carefully maneuvered off the enemy game map until they were positioned to be able to take out his village and camps, my ems had already posted camps to boost production levels, and they had created a back up capital. My opponent was destroyed and all that was left - or so I thought - was one camp, his capital, and one army, so his bankruptcy was assured. And - or so I thought - I was safe, my capital protected with a fort and 1000 troops. I could not have been more wrong! Oh, no doubt I had inflicted a mortal wound, but my adversary was cunning and determined to take me with him in his fall. And, as near as I can tell, he quit naming characters, most likely he retired many of his characters, and he recruited and bought timber with every bit of gold to his name. What should have been an easy defense at my capital turned into a nightmare of a cliff-hanger, the fort reduced by war machines, my army outnumbered and squashed, and the capital hanging on by what must have been no more that 2 or 3 morale points. The single low level combat spell I got off was probably all the difference - and the availability of a back up capital means little when there is not enough in reserves or tax base to pay for the move. This has two lessons; the first is that I had obviously named one character too many, for by naming one less I could have afforded the capital relocation if my capital had fallen. The second is that my opponent was quick to realize that war machines could have an enormously greater value than characters in the early going.

Let's return for a moment to the question of economic strength. Apart from the twin kingdoms, every nation starts out in a position of economic weakness so extreme that taking down a capital is a death stroke to any opponent. And so in the early going is it important to have a few more characters - or war machines? Some of the other failed analogies have already been covered. One is that emissaries are weak in the early game, and another is that agents are powerful in the early game; neither of these are true in the Fourth Age. Another failed analogy is the importance of diplomacy; it is difficult to do well in the prior scenarios without a diplomatic effort. While diplomacy in the Fourth Age can still be valuable, there is perhaps for the first time in the Middle Earth series a real opportunity to play a no diplomacy game - assuming some good fortune in map placement and that you have not joined in a team game. Another important difference is that this version casts into doubt the old presumption that nations of the same alignment can to some extent be trusted - because in this version they could much more easily work against you. (Thus, having the good fortune to find yourself nestled among likely allies may not be such good fortune after all!)

Now we come at last to the question that may have tempted you from the first to try the Fourth Age, that being the chance to pick out your own pop center locations. To do the best job you need four tools, simple tools that may cause you to throw out your first inclinations about what are the 'good' hexes. The first, obviously, is the game map, which every experienced player will have. The second is the old turn sheet map from any prior turn in any prior game. The use here is simple and obvious once explained, and perhaps not so obvious in advance. The idea is that you will want to see for every hex you are considering as a capital location what the corners would be for your turn map with that position. (Had I though of this before Game 11, most certainly I would not have elected to take a capital location which produces an almost worthless map showing enormous expanses of sea and very few land hexes.) This is useful for both offensive and defensive purposes. Let us suppose you decided you wished to get a really fast start in a high risk game with a military orientation by 'pulling the lion's beard' in going after pop centers of one of the twin kingdoms. (Oh, you might not last, but you'd never be bored! And, heck, the risk of early elimination is worth taking if you're a gambler who wants to roll out the war wagons.) Well, if that is your inclination, make sure your map covers the area you need to see to maximize your offensive and defensive potential! While that will likely not be a temptation to most, the principle of making sure you know what hexes you will see - and which hexes will be able to see you - is important. (Should you decide on an offensive emissary strategy, be sure you pick a location so that you can large amounts of land area - both to make sure armies are not camped on your target pop centers and so that you can see any army movements that might be heading your way!) Our other tools are designed to help in defensive placement. Read the rules carefully on how close together two capitals could be. Cut out two sets of hexes that you can lay onto the game map, one to represent your kingdom and the other to help you visualize how close a neighbor might be. This is both offensive and defensive. As a defensive measure, careful placement of your pop centers in the 'right' area can be increased or decreased greatly in strategic positioning by making sure your capital location precludes the positioning of the centers of other nations in locations of special risk to you. Moving your capital location by as little as a single hex or two can have an enormous impact in your potential vulnerability. And, again, there are strong offensive considerations if you have elected a military strategy - as in choosing to sit in the predator position above the Iron Hills has illustrated. If that is your aim, be sure to position yourself conveniently to likely target hex locations!

In conclusion, there are very important strategic differences built into the Fourth Age scenario - and with that some of the tried and tested strategies may have lost their appeal even as some fascinating alternatives have been created. Bring fresh eyes to the Fourth Age, the age of discovery - because the game itself is structured to reward fresh thinking and approaches.