From the Mouth of Sauron Issue: E-8 Date: 02-11-94 Note: all authors retain exclusive rights to their material. Reprinting is allowed for non-commercial game use only. Editorial Weeelllll, ask for articles and you get them...and get them...and get them.... Thanks to one and all for answering my call for stuff. Because of your quick response, this is the largest Mouth yet - over 30 pages jam-packed with useful info and articles. My mailbox was filled to overflowing! Of course, I'll need more articles and such come next Friday, so get those keyboards primed.... First order of business: honors and well wishes to David and Leslie Foreman, who in about a week's time will have another young'un to brighten their lives! You probably won't see them around here for a while (a couple of years?), as they'll be dealing with the joys of caring for a new-born infant - like getting up every two hours to feed it. In terms of adventure, the one they're about to embark on would make even Sauron quail in his boots.... Hope everything goes A-OK guys! And tell me a name when you have it, so I can plaster the happy news all over the Mouth! Second item: I lose things. Names, articles, info, my mind, etc. If you don't see something here that you sent in, it's because I lost it. Just send it again, I can usually get it right the second time around. Remember, if I don't print something it's due to my own penchant for being easily distracted. It's not because I don't like you, or because you thumped me but good in a game we play together, or even because you commented on the dubious nature of my parentage (and a couple of you have); I'll send the Mouth to anyone, print anything they write regardless of what I might think about the person making the submission. The Mouth is for everyone who asks, and while I'm wearing this hat I put aside all of my personal prejudices. I won't cut anyone out of the loop. If you don't see something, just send me a note and say "what the hell's going on?" I'll reply with "huh?" and then we'll correct the problem. Third item: addresses. My system doesn't pick up your address when you drop me a line. Many have said "please add me to your mailing list", then failed to include their own in the note. In order for me to get you on that list, you MUST write your complete internet address out WITHIN THE TEXT OF THE NOTE. I can't stress this enough. I can't track you all down, so you need to make an effort here otherwise you'll never get on the list. If you know someone who's saying "how come I didn't copy and you did?", this person in all likelihood is one of the people who didn't supply me with this critical info. Please inform them that they need to do so. Lastly: I'm in the enviable position of being able to comment on articles in the same Mouth as they appear. If the authors would like to respond to my comments (if I have any), say the word and I'll send them to you so that you can do so in the same Mouth. That's assuming you send me the article early enough to make the turn-around. That's all this time around. Enjoy! Artifacts No changes. Encounters Radagast revisited: got alot of responses on this one. Here's what's been confirmed about our elusive and muddle-headed Brown Wizard: - he's a character encounter, not an army encounter. - FLEE = escape unharmed for all allegiances. - FEED the birds = get locations/owners of 1-2 random artifacts for Free Peoples, escape unharmed for Dark Servants. - he's still the only wizard with a lair. Lake/Swamp encounter: I'm told this is actually two different encounters that have similar openings. This won't make any difference in terms of the response set, but you might want to separate them out in your encounter file just to avoid confusion. By the way, I'm told the monster is mewlips. What follows is the ghostly army encounter I've been trying to hunt down: (My character) lay in his camp in the depths of the night, with a dark, cloud-filled sky overhead. He tried to rest. The chill night winds seemed to taunt him by blowing hardest when he nearly captured sleep. Suddenly awakened by another freezing blast, he heard the sound of tramping feet rise over the moan of the wind. He leapt up, looking for the source of the sound. Moments passed before he finally saw them, a ghostly contingent of fighting men, marching behind an eagle banner. War cries erupted behind him and he spun around to see another spectral war party charging forward. At the head of the charging party, a man bore a clenched-fist banner on the tip of the spear. Answering cries came from the first group of warriors and battle seemed imminent. ATTACK all COMMAND both sides to stop Attack the men bearing EAGLE banner Attack the men bearing FIST banner Declare your ALLEGIANCE OFFER to mediate a truce Say ____________ (only one word) FLEE FLEE = escape unharmed for all allegiances. Attack the men bearing the FIST banner = escape with minor injuries for Neutrals (data too small to tell what this really is). Most common locations: Southern Mirkwood area including the plains, southern Dunland near the White Mountains, Gap of Rohan. Balrogs: there was an error in an issue of the Mouth. Balrogs randomly affect the loyalty of neutrals; they don't automatically decrease it, as they do with Free Peoples. Thanks to Dan Arai, Glen Mayfield, Keith Peterson, Jeremy Richman, Michael Robinson, Brian Mason, Robert Lepper, Eric Schnurr, and others for the encounter info. Dragons Culgor: SAY "Sauron" = injured/killed for all allegiances. Nimanaur: Act MEEK = injured/killed for Free Peoples and Neutrals. Offer TEN thousand gold = dragon recruited into army for Dark Servants. Ruingurth: change all options except ATTACK the dragon to = escape unharmed for all allegiances. ATTACK the dragon = combat for all allegiances. Smaug: DEMAND obedience = combat for all allegiances. Turukulon: SAY "Turukulon" = injured/killed for all allegiances. Uruial: State your NAME = injured/killed for all allegiances. There's an unconfirmed rumor that any Dragon Lord character who States his NAME will recruit any recruitable dragon. Sounds pretty darned far-fetched to me, but since I'm the Dragon Lord in one game I might test it out for you all. COMBAT vs INJURED/KILLED results: A couple of players have asked wha the difference is between these two results on my dragon lists. Here's how I distinguish them: Where it says COMBAT, the majority of the results given to me by other players ended in death for the characters who chose that response. Where is says INJURED/KILLED, the majority of the results given to me by other players ended with the character escaping severely wounded (1 health point). For example, if 10 players chose DEMAND obedience from Smaug, and seven of the ten died gloriously, then the result would be COMBAT. If seven crawled away to live another day, the result would be INJURED/KILLED. I distinguish between the two because INJURED/KILLED gives you a better chance of escaping a bad situation than COMBAT does. And for many players, a chance to escape in any form is all they want. Other Corrections and Notes From Jerry Clark How does an army get overran? Is it by outnumbering you 8-1, 9-1, or what? Is overrunning based on number of troops or strength points? From Keith Peterson I recently learned something very interesting. In two cases I know that the One Ring ended in the same square as it was lost in (in both cases the characters who lost it moved, but it was apparently lost BEFORE movement). In games that have ended, the location is given on the end game sheet. We used this in these two games (one of which I played in) to find out where the Ring ended up. Why are agent actions rated hard? I asked GSI this once (esp. considering stealing can be done at 40 pts pretty easily)(Editor's note: I've had rotten luck with 40-point agents since the change to the rules, but okay luck with 50-pointers). The answer - they are assuming guards. Without a guard, most agent actions would be merely avg difficulty (sabot fort obv. doesn't fit in here). Can a DS team win? The DS are currently winning 9 nations to 1 in the first game. I think we'll manage to hang on. (g) We're also winning (different team) in #77. this also is just a matter of time, with the FP down 3 nations and we're down none. I think I know how stealth works in determining whether your character is spotted. There are two main factors: the skill of the character and the loyalty of the pop ctr. (There is a third -- some character are famous, or well-known according to GSI; this gives them a better chance of being spotted. Most NPCs probably fit into this category). Simply subtracting stealth from your skill ranks wouldn't do much. Elrond is still always going to show up. However, if his stealth was subtracted from the loyalty of the pop ctr, he might not. Consider that a character with 30 stealth and 30 pts of stealth artifacts would reduce a 100 loyalty pop ctr to only 40, and has little chance of being spotted. A starting MT with 75 loyalty would become only 15! From Wes Fortin Response to Doug Bergstrom regarding the Assassination/Kidnap equation and the listed Difficulty of orders in general: The equation is pretty accurate. It assumes both sides have equal relations with each other, otherwise there is an modifier there. And, GSI says the targets agent rank also serves as a negative modifier, experience dictates a fraction of that rank, perhaps one half. As for the Easy/Average/Hard designations for orders. According to GSI, those agent actions listed as "hard" are actually "average" difficulty. The "hard" designation assumes guards. As with all orders, the listed difficulty does not necessarily reflect a preset modifier to the roll (as many newbees originally suspect), but a position on the bell curve. Most orders have modifiers built in to them, but this is not what causes the various designation of the order. For instance, CreCmp is listed as easy, but veterans know that you better by close to 40 Emissary rank. Some easy orders, such as GrdChar rarely fail, and are probably Agent Rank + 35% or greater chance of success. For example, look at Steal artifact. It's Agent Rank - (modifier for differences in relations - see army combat for approx values) - 2*Guards Agent Rank. Most average orders have little, if any, modifiers built in to the code, so if we have a 50 Agent trying to steal an artifact, the relations between the nations is the same (so no modifier there), and no guard, the Agent has a 50% chance of success. Toss in a 20 Agent guard, and the odds are more like 10% - pretty hard! GSI seems to build the starting skill point ranges in the difficulty listings around a 50% chance of success. If most "Easy" orders are +35% to rank, then 10 - 40 is a 45% to 75% range, Average orders are, on the average, equal to skill rank so, 50 - 70 equals 50% - 70% odds, and Hard orders are, on the average, Rank -35%. So, in the above example of CreCmp, that order is probably more like Rank +15%. 10 Emissaries can succeed, but not often! Editor's note to new players: newly created camps always come in at a loyalty that's one-half the skill rank of the emissary. This is another reason you don't want a 10-point emissary to create a camp; the loyalty will be 5. You'll have to hang around for turns to increase the loyalty or the camp will instantly degrade the moment your character leaves. For camp creation, an emissary of 40 or better is usually good (gives loyalty 20+, which allows some 'slack' before hitting that magical disintegration number of 15). From Jeremy Richman I recently heard from an ally that both Rhudaur AND Haradwaith can hire armies of ANY type at no cost, not just MA. My source told me he'd just got off the phone with Bill Feilds; I couldn't believe it, so I asked GSI via CI$, and sure enough they confirmed this (!!!) in the following words, (though it is an unsigned response): Yes, there are 4 nations that have this benefit - Cardolan, Fire King, Haradwaith, and Rhudaur. I reviewed the Nation sheets for all and found that the section covering that for the Haradwaith and Rhudaur were unclear, so they have been corrected.>> Wild, huh ? All this time and probably virtually all Harad/Rhudaur players have taken the time to hire MA first. Tidbits: 1. Frumgara is the only Northmen character with command skill who doesn't start in charge of any army. Therefore, most NM players have him move to the capital and join the army there. So an enterprising BlindSorc could move a mage there and without even scouting, issue a challenge against Frumgara and be likely to surprise him; likewise, the LR could send an agent there and expect to find him there, for challenge or 615/620. NM: be warned! It may be worth the loss of orders/recruiting for the army commander at Frumgara's hex to transfer command to Mr. F while the previous commander is the one to move/join at 4013. Don't be too predictable! From David Foreman To the question on the assasination equation: All I can safely say about assasinations and hostage taking is that in my experience there appears to be a large random factor. Regardless of what GSI has said to me to the contrary, I have experienced enough fickleness in the assasination results to wonder what kind of random number generator is being used! In game 104 we (the Servants) had bad luck that defied all statistical expectations. We went something like 3 for 23 with Ji Indur and Erennis! And let me state that these were cases where no guard existed! In game 133 we (the Free) lost two 40 pt commanders on turn 2. Since we knew where Ji Indur, Erennis, and Din Ohtar were, you figure it out! ****** On the subject of the Servants winning: The verdict is still out. It appears that what GSI did, more than anything else, was define, in print, the effect of guards. To hear them talk now, a 30 point guard can repel a 60 point agent. A 50 point guard repels a 100 point agent. A 75 point agent basically unassailable AS A GAURD. (As a target, NOT!) In the blitz game, the entire military might of the Servants is needed to overcome a defence by the Free. Again, without the aide of allies, the WK is dead, as is the Dragon Lord. I believe that the answer to the question must be broken into pieces to be answered. Grudge games are a lot different that singles. Experienced games are a lot different than newby games. A few general comments: 1) In a non-grude game, the ability of the individuals is the most important singe factor. The nation doesn't matter unless there are others that are strong nearby. 2) In a grudge game, the servants can't win unless they coordinate a LOT. Free teams can be split into regions and play a reasonable game. 3) If you are experienced, play the servants. It is more of a challenge. If you are new, play the free. It's more interesting when you don't understand the rules. From Eric Schnurr I would like to see some suggestions about opening strategies for the Sea of Rhun area. How can the FP drive out the Long Rider? How can the DS kick out the Northman, Sinda, Eothraim, & Dwarves? How about an opening strategy for the Dragon Lord? How can they keep from getting driven out of Mirkwood? I'm looking for some advice on how to make best use of Mages. Do you solely have them find/retrieve artifacts? help out armies? track character movements? Is it worth 3/4 mages full actions to make a curse squad? Is it possible that there is a difference between amount of production in hexes that have starting pop centers and hexes that don't? Based on my limited experience, this seems to be the case (at least concerning rough/hills and gold production). In Your Ear Nothing this time. Sigh.... Personals Miscellaneous Games Looking for: Evils in Game 60, Free Peoples in Game 96, and Evils in game 133. Wesfor@raxco.com Game 104 To the gang in 104: Sorry I couldn't hang around. We were beat and other games beckoned! David Foremen (AKA the QA). Games 133 and 142 Anyone in 133 on the DS side or 142 on the Free? dforeman@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu ME-PBM Wish List From Darren Beyer A reply to letting neutrals know they are in a grudge match. Having played a neutral in a grudge match, I know that it is not as much fun as playing in a standard game. In a standard game a neutral can typically stay neutral longer, can gain a lot of info from talking with different factions, even attack a nation that isn't cooperating or communicating with its side without gaining an "enemy status". Yes the neutral game is much more fun in the standard game, but saying that it is more difficult to win as a neutral in a grudge match than in other games is simply not true. Consider: 1) You still have ample time in the beginning of the game to get your nation off to a good start, building characters, camps, armies, etc. 2) In a grudge match, typically the sides are more evenly matched than in a standard game, there aren't the nation drop outs, lack of communication, etc., associated with a standard game so the neutrals contribute more in the tipping of the scales and are thus valuable. 3) The "side" in a grudge match will typically give a neutral more to join, than the "individuals" of a standard game. There is a greater pool to draw from and the neutral can also negotiate from both sides at once, thereby upping its worth. 4) Once you've declared for a side, unless you've really back stabbed the other side, they will tend not to pick on you as much (for a while). For one, they may not know you've gone "good" or "evil" and two, they may not see you as a big threat until you start acting against them. This gives you more time to build, change you capitol location, etc. I played Rhudaur in a neutral game and was toggling between first and second (with the Noldo) on the good side (second and third in the game behind the Corsairs) in the 1200 - 1400 victory point range. I believe I had a viable chance to place in that game, something, according to Tom's Whispers article, has not been accomplished before. Unfortunately, the good side turned out to consist of a large number of boobs who decided to drop the game because the Corsairs and Dunland decided to go evil. Oh well. Granted, I would much rather play a neutral in a standard game and would like to know ahead if I was getting into a grudge match, unfortunately for GSI, so would 99 and 44/100 percent of the neutral players out there. GSI already has a hard time filling neutral positions and would never be able to keep up the grudge match pace if neutral players could decide ahead of time if they wanted to be in such a game. Besides, a neutral player, upon finding he/she is in a grudge match, always has the option of calling GSI and dropping the position prior to game start, where GSI can find a replacement. Not something I would do, but always an option. Darren A Reply to Darren Beyer From Tom Walton I've played neutral nations six times now (3 grudge, 3 non), and my own experience disagrees directly with Darren's on all points. To respond: 1) In team games I've had less time to organize and build prior to declaration. The team, being better organized, is more easily capable of making a massive strike against a neutral early on (especially with characters), knocking that nation out. This isn't true in a normal game, where disorganization within allegiances is the rule. 2) Neutrals make LESS of a difference in a team game because both sides are much more organized. In a normal game, sides tend to break down into small regional groups, meaning that a neutral carries much more weight within it's particular geographic location. 3) I've had much worse luck trying to get even small concessions in team games than non-team games. Because the allegiance is capable of coming down on the neutral like a ton of bricks, they tend to be much less willing to give up stuff to recruit a neutral. Instead, they concentrate on showing the neutral how coordinated they are, both to impress that neutral and to imply a threat ("join us or you're toast"). 4)If you stay neutral too long in a team game, the teams start to get nervous and may pre-empt you with a strike (thinking you'll go to the other side). Also, teams seem much more likely to take offensive action early on, because they know that as a group they can destroy a single neutral quite easily. I've seen a number of neutrals creamed this way because they failed to declare early. Team games have always been hard on my neutral nations; I've done much better in non-team games, taking first place early on and holding it. The people are also quite a bit friendlier, as they need you far more than they otherwise would (can't count on the support of nine other players). A new trend I've noticed in team games: some teams seem to harbor a rabid dislike of neutrals regardless of how soon they join the allegiance, and will destroy them in the end-game to prevent them from winning. I can understand this if the nation didn't declare for 20 turns; but when a neutral joins an allegiance prior to turn 10, only to get backstabbed because 'neutrals shouldn't win', this makes it much more important to carefully assess each team before joining a particular side. Complaints concerning this behavior have gone up markedly over the last few months. In all, I haven't found team games to be very much fun when playing a neutral. Given the treatment that I and others have received at the hands of teams, I'd recommend, strongly so, that you drop a grudge match game as soon as you find out you're in one. You'll be out the $12.50, but in my opinion it's worth it simply to avoid throwing good money after bad. And if you write an article for "Whispers", hey, you're only out a free setup! From Wes Fortin Put every troop type on even ground, in certain situations. The game is far too slanted towards heavy troops. They give you more bang for your buck, so the only reason to have light troops is economic, or you want an army soley to THREAT pop centers. For instance, Archers were hell on old battle fields - striking several vollies into closing ranks before combat with the heavy troops actually started. In MEPBM, they are pretty pathetic, usually dieing in the early phases of combat. GSI made the attempt to compensate with Tactic vs Tactic, and failed miserably! From David Foreman Allow the move & join command to join companies as well as armies. Add a parameter to the move navy command that lets you pick up all the ships in a hex and move, rather than just the transports. Afterall what is the justification for just getting the transports? When a character is created, there are a number of orders that they could reasonably be expected to be able to perform prior to the next turn. For example, capital orders like 948 and scouting orders. Therefore... Let's add a section of the turn sheet with nothing written in name and stat blanks. Orders written in those blanks would apply to the names in the blanks if those names are valid for the nation at the time the order is executed. If a player enters a bad name (character name is duplicated and therefore changef) that's tough luck. Then there's the move to ships and move order... For a price (say 6 points for CAV and 4 or 5 for INF) let an army move to a hex where ships are anchored, get on board, and keep on trucking. The order would be something like this: 880 w w sw PU w sw sw normal where the PU is PICKUP SHIPS. Of course, this would be transports only! AND BY THE WAY.... Provide a parameter to the move navy command to allow you to pickup ships and move all at once. The current requirement for two orders is silly, and can't be reconciled with reality given the auto pickup of transports. Create a new order that allows you to move a product to multiple locations. After all, how hard can that be to arrange? (For the programmer AND the caravan driver). For example: 949 Food 2212 3012 3000 2227 2000 0808 2000 would move food from 2122 to 3012 3000 units 2227 2000 units 0808 2000 units If insufficient stores exist at 2212, subtract from the last listed destination etc. Make casting a spell a 1-5 skill rank improvement. After all, most of the command orders result in rank improvement. Why not the poor mage? Editor's note: how about making casting a spell a 1-5 point gain in certain situations, i.e., army combat, curses, etc., where the character is at risk? Otherwise people'd simply prentice/cast for 2-10 points every turn in the safety of some forgotten pop center. From Jeremy Baxter A Move and Join Company order - otherwise you waste loads of orders trying to form a company. An influence Morale order so emmisaries with armies can do an order. How about Influence others morale too. Kill Guard - an Agent order occuring early in the Agent sequence! How I Got Shafted in ME-PBM From David Foreman Evasive movement hasn't been a normal part of my standard orders. I rarely find that I need to be hidden from scouts, and I frequently am moving as far as I can, which makes evasive movement a bad idea. I recently got shafted by this oversight when I took my standard set of game precepts and got blown out of the water. Here WERE my notions on army movement: 1) Evasive movement makes only your icon visible to enemy scouts and maps (TRUE) 2) When moving evasively, you can sometimes walk past an enemy army (TRUE) 3) When moving evasively, pop center fortifications don't stop you if you get lucky. 4) Armies that you walk past are uneffected if you get past them (FALSE) 5) Evasive armies can't overrun (FALSE) Why all the questions??? Here's why. SETUP: 2227 2400 S Gondor troops moved e e e NORMAL 2327 1500 N Gondor troops moved e e NORMAL 100 N Gondor troops 2427 800 S Gondor troops moved w w NORMAL 2527 975 Dk Lts troops moved w w w EVASIVE 2628 500 Ice King troops moved nw nw w ??? NORMAL So what happened??? Here it is! 2227 975 Dk Lts 800 S Gondor 2327 2400 S Gondor 2427 1500 N Gondor 500 Ice King 2527 EMPTY Dk Lts (Gothmog) moved from 2527 to 2427, where he encountered the 800 S Gondor troops. He moved past them, leaving them undisturbed. He then moved to 2327, where he encountered the 2400 S Gondor troops. These troops detected the Dk Lts army. All remaining movement points were expended while the S Gondor army 'searched' for the Dk Lts army. The Dk Lts army then encountered the N Gondor army (small) and overran it, killing both commanders with the army. The army then continued to move, and stopped at 2227 as ordered. The 800 S Gondor troops moved from 2427 to 2327, and then from 2327 to 2227. If I understand the math, this army was passed by Gothmog at 2427, then caught and passed it at 2327! The 2400 S Gondor troops detected Gothmog at 2327 and stopped to search. Since they found nothing, they sat alone at 2327 at turn end. The 1500 N Gondor troops encountered Gothmog at 2327, but missed him. The Ice King army moved along the road and stopped when it encountered the stationary N Gondor army. The N Gondor army at 2327 was obliterated by Gothmog when it was overrun. All of this was confirmed by Bill Field! he had to run the turn several times to check it all for me. Implications: 1) A small army with a good commander can walk past almost anything. 2) Small armies can be overrun on fortifications. 3) An evasive army can stop an enemy in its tracks and keep on moving. 4) From Bill Field... The test for overrun is done on the basis of the number of troops ONLY. The strength of the troops is not used at all. Comments welcome! And by the way, the next turn Gothmog attempted to capture pop center and died during the assault! Later gang Food and Army Movement By Jeremy Richman It is often possible for armies to move their full movement allotment even with insuffient food. What it takes is a second army (of the same nation) in the hex. The main force commander (or a subcommander) transfers to the secondary army, using order 355, all but 100 of his troops, preferably choosing to retain non-cavalry. At least 101 food units are brought into the main force, either by pickup (order 340 I believe), purchase, transfer from the secondary army (order 345 by its commander or subcommander), or is already present. Food is consumed approximately after order 355, so the (now-shrunken) main army "eats" and can move full movement for the turn. Then the commander of the (now-swelled) secondary force transfers command (780) to the main-army commander. Even though the bulk of the troops didn't eat, the original main army has in fact technically been fed, so it still gets full movement. Notice that the secondary army no longer exists. BTW, since all this happens before army movement and encounters, there is no danger from having only 100 troops in the big army -- they can't be overrun nor encountered by an NPC prior to the order 780 to transfer troops back to them. HOWEVER! An agent nailing the either army commander prior to order 780 could definitely put a spanner in the works, so you have to be careful how you use it. Of course, in return for full army movement you may be sacrificing character training, since you are using orders to transfer command, troops and food that might be used for rank-improvement. Admittedly the transfer of troop and command are miscellanious command orders, but if the character doing them is a multiple-class character s/he is still potentially missing out on at least one training order. If you are willing to miss even more training, and have a spare character with command skill, you can move for quite a while on only (say) 2000 food and even a huge army. You have to start with two armies, as above. Say army 1 and 2, with commanders A and B, and extra commander C in army 1. First turn: 1. Subcommander C (army 1) transfers all but 200 troops to Commander B (army 2). 2. 2002 food (say) is brought into army 1, as discussed above. Army 1, now with 200 troops and 2002 food, eats 200 of it (assuming non-cav), leaving 1802. 3. Commander A (army 1) splits 100 troops (order 765) to Subcommander C who is now a commander, of army 3, which also gets 901 of army 1's 1802 food. 4. Commander B (army 2) transfers command to (and joins) Commander A (army 1), dissolving army 2. Result: Commander A, with new subcommander B, commands army 1 with all but 100 of the troops; Army 1 was fed at the key time and can move fully. The remaining 100 troops are in a separate army under Commander C; this army was split from a fed army (and has at least 1 food unit) and so can move fully as well. All subsequent turns, until the food runs out: 0. To help you to follow this example, I've given #food remaining, assuming this is for turn 2, directly following the steps above. Just remember on each following turn there is 200 less food total between the various armies. 1. Commander C, with 100 troops and 901 food, transfers all 901 food to Commander A, giving A's army 1802. 2. Subcommander B transfers all but 200 troops to Commander C, swelling C's 100 man army. 3. Commander A's now 200-man army eats 200 of the remaining food (bringing it to 1602). 4. Commander A splits off 100 men (half his present army) to subcommander B, tranferring half the remaining food (801). 5. Commander C, still in charge of a now-swolen army, transfers command to (and joins) Commander A, restoring A's original huge size. Result: Commander A, with new subcommander B, (still) commands army 1 with all but 100 of the troops, and has full movement. Commander C has an army of 100 troops which also has full movement. Next turn repeat, but with Characters B and C having exchanged positions, as they will with each following turn. In this example the commander who ends up in charge of the small 100-man army that was split off is vulnerable to overruns (even if it moves with the main army, since army encounters with other moving armies are in random order). Strategy & Tactics: The Dragon Lord By Brian Mason From the author: After my last strategy & tactics submission to "The Mouth" (Cardolan, Mouth #5), I was a bit mistified as to which nation to discuss. I am probably most familiar with the other nations I am currently playing (Rhudaur in game 97 & Northern Gondor in game 131), however, as those games are still active, I don't really want to discuss any of the more unusual actions I took as those nations at this time (too many of my adversaries in those games read "The Mouth"). I have developed other strategies similar to my efforts for other nations, but rather than fall send out something developed in this manner, I thought it might be more interesting, from a discussion standpoint, to throw out a clay pigeon. I've never played a Dark Servant, or a character strong nation, so most of my observations herein will be either simplistic or just plain bad ideas. The choice of the Dragon Lord as something needing a good strategy was suggested by Jerry Clark and was written during a snowstorm at Mt. Wilson Observatory in the 100-inch dome, waiting for the weather to clear so I can do some work. The Big Problem Expected revenue and production: The following are the expected revenue from the population centers given at the start of the game at a 70 % tax rate and the expected gold production. Also, is the expected total production of commodities as well as expected stores. These are computed from "Population Center Development," Table 1 (Brian Mason, "The Mouth," no. 2). Rather than take the expected values for mild, I have taken them to be cold in mountain and far north population centers and mild elsewhere. le br st mi fo ti mo go tax total 143 247 113 010 921 203 036 3421 21000 There is no substantial production of any quantity to equip troops on a regular basis with good weapons or armor (i.e. bronze & steel), or to equip mounts (i.e. leather & mounts). Also, there is not sufficient timber production to make a substantial number of war machines or to improve existing fortifications (with the exception of Lag-auris, which is probably not worth fortifying because it is SO vulnerable). It might be possible in the long term to improve fortifications at some locations (e.g. Goblin Gate, if still held, to more securely hold the pass across the Misty Mountains, or Lug Ghurzun to make it more secure). The most effective use of production would be to sell them for additional revenue. Expected costs: Fortifications: 5000 Armies: 12900 Characters: 12200 ----- Total: 30100 Expected Revenue less expected costs: - 5679 So, even with a significant tax increase, the Dragon Lord is in significant financial difficulties. Also, one of his revenue generating locations is very vulnerable: Nahald Kudan. A Radical Idea A way to deal with the issue is the following strategy. It is (at least to me) a radical strategy. It has been stated (A Response to Wes from Tom Walton, "The Mouth," No. 4) that against a united front of the Sinda, Dwarves, and Woodmen that Dol Guldur and Goblin Gate cannot be held without substantial intervention from Mordor. Taking this as a given, what is the best course of action as you cannot count on the aforementioned intervention? If we take as a given that the Dragon Lord power base in Mirkwood cannot be held, what remains is to re-establish himself somewhere else. I recommend that Khamul name four emissaries and that these do nothing but work on establishing the backup nation (and what will eventually be the Dragon Lord's main holdings). There is nothing on the Dragon Lord map which is not seen on maps of the Northmen, Sinda, and Woodmen. Building a backup nation anywhere on the Dragon Lord map is inadvisable. However, the area in and around Lug Ghurzun is a good location. Examine the following: In the first series of six hexes (3821-3921, 3722, 3922, 3823-3923) surrounding Lug Ghurzun we have four mountain and two hills & rough hexes. Developing those six hexes to towns would cost 72,000 gold, although in most realistic cases this would take at least six turns (turns one & two: create three camps each turn, turns three & four: improve three camps to villages each turn, turns five & six: improve three villages to towns each turn). As seen below, four emissaries are committed to this undertaking. All of this assumes that the creations and improvements occur all the time with no failure. This is probably not realistic, but will serve as a starting point for the analysis. The orders below assume having three emissaries to execute them, even though there are four. This is an attempt to compensate for emissary failure. The following cost analysis considers the six population centers to be developed as a separate cost. Expenses are given and net costs are given considering development and revenue from these six hexes only. Consider the following: Turn one: Create two camps in mountain hexes, one in hills & rough. Cost: 6000 gold. These are anticipated to produce 2491 gold per turn total. Net cost: 6000 gold. Turn two: Same as turn one. Net cost 6000 gold from turn one + 6000 gold - 2491 gold from turn one camps is 9509. Turn three: Improve three camps to villages. Cost: 12000 gold. These, at 70 % tax rates will produce 5250 gold per turn. Net cost 9509 from turn two + 12000 gold for village improvement - 4982 gold production is 16527. Turn four: Same as turn three. Net cost is 16527 gold from turn three + 12000 gold for village improvement - 5250 from turn three village taxes - 4982 gold production is 18295. Turn five: Improve three villages to towns. Cost 18000 gold. These, at 70 % tax rates will produce 10500 gold per turn. Net cost is 18295 from turn four + 18000 gold for village improvements - 10500 from turn four village taxes - 4982 gold production is 20813. Turn six: Same as turn five. Net cost is 20813 from turn five + 18000 gold for village improvements - 15750 from turn five village and town taxes - 4982 gold production is 18081. At current revenue rates, this total cost for all six turns of 18081 is minimal. On turn seven this is payed back, with 7901 gold to spare. These costs do not include the associated character costs, the 20000 gold to get the four emissaries, the 2400 gold per turn minimum maintenance fee for the emissaries, etc. Substantial selling of resources along with possible grants from other Dark Servants may be necessary. However, an additional side benefit will be the emissaries themselves. There are a total of eighteen emissary orders, each allowing for increases of 1-10 points. Dividing these eighteen emissary orders among the four emissaries (five for the first two emissaries to arrive, four for the others) and basing improvement to the emissaries upon "More Character and Skill Improvement" (Tom Walton, "The Mouth," No. 3) the projected emissary ranks are: 49, 49, 54, and 54. This will make a very effective company (coupled with a commander) to move into a begin influencing enemy population centers. General Strategy So, while these new emissaries are developing a new base of operations what should the Dragon Lord forces do? If Mirkwood cannot be held, then go into a scorched earth plan of attack. The place for greatest gain is in Lorien against the Sinda. Turn one: All three of the good mages (with the exception of Khamul) should learn reveal population center and prentice magery. The army at Goblin Gate should add 400 hi and move towards Lorien. The two armies at Dol Guldur should combine after adding 400 hi and move towards Lorien. Khamul changes the tax rate and names an emissary. Lhacglin improves GrdLoc and PrenMgy). Increase in costs: 3200 gold per turn (hi), 600 gold per turn (new character), plus 5000 gold character startup costs and costs associated with improving characters. Turn two: All three of the good mages above learn reveal population center (if unsuccessful on turn one) or prentice magery and then move and join one of the two armies. The army from Goblin Gate moves onto Cerin Amroth while the army from Dol Guldur moves onto Caras Galadon. Khamul moves and joins an army as Lhacglin improves again. Emissary # 1 names emissary # 2. Increase in costs: 600 gold per turn (new character), plus 5000 gold character startup costs and costs associated with improving characters. Turn three: The two armies attack whatever armies they have facing them. The mages cast combat spells and reveal the population centers. Lhacglin improves again. Emissaries # 1 & # 2 name emissaries # 3 & # 4, then begin moving south. Increase in costs: 1200 gold per turn (new characters), plus 10000 gold character startup costs and costs associated with improving characters less costs due to army losses. Turn four: Caras Galadon and Cerin Amroth destroyed. Armies move back towards Dol Guldur and Goblin Gate to hold them as long as possible. The mages move to population centers to learn teleport and locate artifact true. Lhacglin improves once more. Emissaries #1 & # 2 reach the backup nation area, emissaries # 3 & # 4 reach halfway. Increase in costs: costs associated with improving characters less costs due to army losses. Turn five: Armies back at Dol Guldur and Goblin Gate. Mages continue researching spells or begin casting them. Emissaries # 1 & #2 begin build-up. Emissaries # 3 & # 4 reach backup nation region. All of these moves are "idealized." That is, the moves take place with no armies or other obstacles getting in the way. This is probably not realistic, but it serves as a beginning. What the Dragon Lord most needs is gold. Lhacglin might need to move to the capital to execute a sell order every turn to fund continuing expenses as well as the population center buildup in the south. A Final Word There is a rumor, thus far unconfirmed, that the Dragon Lord can recruit any dragon recruitable by Dark Servants by simply stating your name. If this is so, it makes for a significant play balancer. A Reply to Brian Mason from Tom Walton I've played the Dragon Lord now for 8 turns, the Dwarves for 26. Based on my experience, I'd modify Brian's model with the following assumptions: (1) Given competent play among the Dwarves, Sinda, and Woodmen, the towns of Gundabad (Witch-King), Dol Guldur, Goblin-Gate, and Sarn Goriwing can all be taken by the end of turn 6. This happens regardless of how skilled the Dragon Lord is, or how fast he recruits; he simply can't match the starting armies of these foes, or recruit fast enough to repel an attack. Without substantial outside intervention, a solid FP group will drive him into the ground early. Remember, I'm assuming a COMPETENT foe, which might not be the case in your game. So, I'd say assume that Nahald Khudan will be captured on turn 2, Goblin-Gate on turn 3, Dol Guldur and Sarn Goriwing on turn 6. Apply the appropriate economic losses accordingly. If it doesn't turn out this way, all the better for you. I won't even comment on Lug Ghurzun, a juicy target for the Northmen and Eothraim. (2) Raising taxes to 70% is a nice idea, but only Duran is capable of doing this with any sort of success. And unfortunately, Duran sometimes starts at Goblin-Gate. If he does, you probably won't be able to jack taxes beyond 60-65%. (3) Building camps is a great idea for the Dragon Lord; he's going to need them right quick. But I wouldn't put them in the mountains of Mordor. Why? For the simple reason that his loyalty's gonna go to hell in a handbasket from all the captures. Instead, I'd put them in the Grey Mountains; you won't get very much production, but dragons are a constant presence at pop centers located here, and each dragon will raise a DS pop center 1-10 points in loyalty per turn. In other words, the dragons act as built-in emissaries that you don't have to pay for, and are much more skilled than your own characters. As a bonus, you can track recruitable dragons in this manner, and the camp loyalty will increase so fast that even mediocre emissaries will be able to raise these sites to villages and towns within just a few turns. A final benefit: these camps are difficult for the FP to reach; they're off-map of ALL players; and they're next door to two Dwarven towns, where the same dragons are LOWERING the loyalty 1-10 points. When those emissaries hit a skill score of 50+, they can drop in on these towns and steal them in a couple of turns; not a darn thing the Dwarf can do about that unless he wants to station armies over them. (3) When going after the Sinda, make sure you plot your movement to avoid the Woodmen and Dwarves marching for Goblin-Gate. Otherwise, you'll smack head-on and lose your forces. Same thing when marching from Dol Guldur in case the Woodmen move to block. (4) As an alternate plan, avoid enemy armies and destroy all the pop centers you can reach. I did this as the Dragon Lord in my own game; so far, I've lost my village and Goblin-Gate in trade for two camps, three villages, and two towns among nearby enemy nations. I also have an army over the Dwarven town of Norr-dum threatening away with no FP relief in sight. The 'scorched earth' policy freaked the enemy out, forcing him to commit approximately 10,000 troops to attacking/hunting me down ever since the game started. This sort of thing works well in a team game (to help the team), or as a gesture of resistance, but it also makes your nation a very unwelcome center of attention among the Free - so consider it carefully. (5) One option you might want to try. Since the Dragon Lord usually gets thrashed pretty good, have the Witch-King march out right away from Gundabad to take Buhr Fram and engage the Woodmen army. Then have the Witch-King transfer both Gundabad and Buhr Fram to the Dragon Lord. What does this do? It keeps the Dragon Lord in Mirkwood a bit longer; it allows him to recruit at Gundabad, which is generally hard on the Witch-King (who needs his commanders and troops on the western front); it allows another avenue of approach against the Woodmen; and if the Dwarves in the Iron Hills don't march west, it provides a good back-up capitol in the event that Dol Guldur falls (you don't have to relocate to another region). The loss of the 7,500 gold in taxes won't affect the Witch-King much, since supporting the army and characters based here usually costs more than is produced by the town anyway. However, transferring this plus Buhr Fram (2,500 gold or 5,000, depending on whether the WK threatened or captured it) will add a great deal of punch to the Dragon Lord, whose economy starts with a tax base of 30,000 but drops to 20,000 almost immediately (loss of Goblin-Gate and Nahald Khudan). Strategy & Tactics: The Eothraim By Brian Mason Taylor Scott, a good friend of mine, said that when you drive a volkswagen van you have to understand that anything that wants to pass you, will and there is not a thing you can do about it. Likewise, if you are playing the Eothraim you have to understand, that in the face of competent opposition, without tremendous help from your allies, you will lose and there is not a thing you can do about it. The Eothraim start the game with an army which is second-to-none. How, then, can such a blanket statement be made? You have three major problems. One, the armies you face on the north-end of Mordor (Dog Lord, Long Rider, Dark Lieutenants) are combined better than yours, two, you cannot afford the armies you have, much less the armies you need, and, three, you don't have the agents necessary to protect yourself from agent actions. So, what should you do? First, encourage military support from the Northmen and Dwarves. I have seen in recent games, Dwarf players consolidate their three eastern armies first in the Iron Hills before moving them into action. That is not very helpful. Both the Northmen and the Dwarves should move South to engage some of these three adversaries. Second, encourage economic support from your wealthier allies. Lets face it, to get to the Northmen you've got to go through the Eothraim, and if the Eothraim are knocked out then Northern Gondor gets more attention from the Dog Lord and Dark Lieutenants. These two nations, at the least, should be willing to "fork over the dough" so that the Eothraim can keep going. Third, hack and slay, slash and burn, and scorch the earth. You might not be in the game long, so don't capture a population center that can be taken back. Burn, baby, burn. As long as you're asking for the moon and the stars, ask the Noldo to use the Mantle of Doriath to hide your capital. If they do, your position improves significantly. If they say no, well, you're no worse off. The Eothraim should have sufficient production to add cavalry as they are needed. Uirdiks should learn conjure mounts if only to get more mounts to sell. Well timed sells of leather, food, or mounts should be able to help the Eothraim economy as well as keep supplies at the location for recruiting as it is needed. Total economic position = 26250 taxes (@ 70 %) + 168 gold (projected production) - 3250 pop centers - 27000 armies - 6200 characters = 10032 per turn deficit! Group the five at start Eothraim armies into three combat groups: two strong, one weak. The two strong will go into combat immediately while the one weak one begins adding more heavy cavalry. Consider the following: mounts and leather are transported to a major town in sufficient numbers to allow recruiting of at least 800 heavy cavalry. The recruiting army goes there, recruits for a couple of turns and then moves off. When one of the "at the front" armies is exhausted, it moves back to begin recruiting while being replaced by the new army. Thus, at least two armies are kept in combat at all times. Along this line, it is worth pointing out that Buhr Marling (3612) does not appear on any Dark Servant regional map. There are two problems with this strategy. One, the Eothraim cannot afford the troops they start with and two, a character at their capital to do the necessary nation transport orders is vulnerable. The only viable alternative is to lose a good portion of the army (not wise, as it makes you vulnerable) or capture population centers (difficult, and possibly not a good idea). If the armies are decreased in size in combat it can do two possible things: one, if attacking an enemy army, it improves the Eothraim chances for survival, and two, if capturing an enemy population center, it improves the Eothraim economic situation. However, given the ebb and flow nature of actions in Rhovanion, a scorched earth policy is a good idea. What follows are suggested points for the Eothraim to concentrate attacks, as well as staging areas for first turn moves. The primary objective of all Eothraim forces should be to engage armies of the Dog Lord, Long Rider, and Dark Lieutenants. If they can, the following might be possible objectives. Attack group one: The armies starting at 3715 and 3612 move to 4219. On the following turn they will combine. Their objective is to engage forces of the Long Rider, or if not, to force march to 3922 on turn two and then to 3822 on turn three, then destroy the Dragon Lord major town of Lag-auris at that location. The Dragon Lord is the most vulnerable of the Dark Servants at game start (his armies are weaker than those of the Witch-King, and he does not have the potential for neutral allies). Taking out his only secure population center will make it much easier to get him out of the game. Attack group two: The armies starting at 2819 and 3112 move to 3120. Their objective is to engage forces of the Dog Lord and Dark Lieutenants. One the following turn they will engage enemy forces present in the hex and/or destroy the Dark Lieutenant town of Thuringwathost. Reserve group: The army at 3217 will move to 3612, there to begin recruiting to make up for anticipated losses, and to prepare this army to replace attack group one or two on the field. Strategy & Tactics: The Blind Sorcerer By Brian Mason This is an interesting position to play. Unlike many of your Dark Servant allies, you are relatively safe from early Free People attack. This allows you the luxury of developing the position more carefully. There are many possible options for this position. This presents just one of them. Because Free Peoples must either come through Mordor, through the Cloud Lord or around the east side of Mordor and the Sea of Rhun to get to you, you have the opportunity to send all of your troops out to engage the enemy. The question that remains is where? Consider the time to reach the following three objectives, using a variety of movement techniques: one, towards Osgiliath (through Mordor) with 1 navy movement and 3 regular marches, two, towards Pelargir (through mountains to south) with 6 regular marches, or three, towards Dilgul {4217} (around east side of Mordor) with 1 navy movement and 3 regular marches. So, by turn four or six depending on your objective you could have your army engaged. Consider economics, 12250 (taxes at 70 %) + 4072 (expected gold production) - 12150 (army costs) - 2250 (pop center costs) - 7800 (character costs) = - 5878 gold Like the Dragon Lord plan, I would recommend developing the nation with emissaries first. Use the at start gold surplus and that from sales to create emissaries and population centers in gold producing hexes (i.e. mountains and hills/rough). Then improve those population centers so that they generate revenue. A strategy which I saw employed in game 97, and I would advocate when possible involves trading a major town with the Witch-King. It gives the Witch-King a backup capital in a more secure location and a nearby ally (both of which he desperately needs), and gives the Blind Sorcerer a way to get in the "thick" of things without a four turn march. You have the ability to name 40 mages, but who cares about that? You start the game with seven characters who have a mage rank of 30 or better. How do you use them? Always have them prentice magery. This is the only way to get them to the levels necessary to learn hard spells, which they are, for the most part, too low to learn at game start. Have them within range of your army. Just before you anticipate moving into a hex with combat, move a bunch of your mages there. The extra offensive or defensive punch they can provide can turn the tide in a close battle. Winners and Losers in Middle-Earth by Tom Walton (Note: this article originally appeared in the February issue of "Whispers" and is reprinted here for the perusal of those of you who don't subscribe to that magazine.) Having played in Middle-Earth for over a year now, I've become interested in finding out just how balanced the game really is. Which allegiance is most likely to win? Which nations are the most powerful, and which are particularly weak? Do the Neutrals wield too much influence, as some players claim? And was the change in agent orders really necessary to correct an imbalance? Prior to this time, there was insufficient data to provide an informed answer to any of these questions. Opinions given by various players were based upon guesswork, hearsay, and complaint, often with little or no evidence to support anything the player said. Indeed, most players had no experience beyond the few games they happened to be playing in, meaning that they couldn't possibly identify any sort of pattern from their limited exposure to Middle Earth. With the December 1993 issue of Whispers, this has changed. Enough games have ended to provide a solid basis for establishing some general trends and to take a shot at answering these questions. Working off the numbers given by GSI for wins and nation placement, there's now a minimum amount of data to make this article possible. The Data As of December, 31 games have ended, yielding a total of 93 possible winning nations (1st through 3rd place). Of these games, 12 have gone to the Free Peoples and 19 to the Dark Servants, a ratio of 39% to 61%. Given the assumption that each nation has an equal chance of taking one of these positions if all other factors remain equal, you'd expect any one nation to have placed about 3.7 times (25 nations among 93 possible winning slots). Since the spread of the data is still relatively small and subject to error, this article operates on the premise that any nation which has placed 2-5 times is running about average. A nation which places 0 or 1 times is considered a 'loser', while a nation which places 6 or more times is a 'winner'. Nations break down as indicated below, with the number of placements following in parentheses: Free Peoples Losers: Woodmen (0), Eothraim (1), and Cardolan (1) Winners: Noldo (7) Dark Servants Losers: Dragon Lord (0) Winners: Cloud Lord (9), Long Rider (6) Neutrals Losers: Rhudaur (0) Winners: Corsairs (11), Harad (9) All other nations took a winning slot an 'average' number of times. The Balance of Power It seems apparent from an analysis of the economic, military, and character strengths of the allegiance nations that the Free Peoples have a definite advantage over the Dark Servants. Regionally, they're much stronger than their opponents in all aspects except for characters, and here a disparity exists only near Mordor. Consider: the four Free nations around Mordor (Gondors, Eothraim, Northmen) are economically and militarily just as powerful as the eight Dark Servants they face. In Mirkwood and Eriador, the Free so badly outgun the Dragon Lord and Witch-King that victory in the face of competent opposition is laughable for these two positions. Yet despite the enormous advantages the Free possess, they manage to win the game only 39% of the time. This can't be attributed to incompetence or exceptional Dark Servant play; there must be some aspect of the game which favors the Dark Servant nations. This is even more apparent when you take into account the fact that a nation like the Witch-King scores a winning position just as often as most other nations do, despite being surrounded by enemies and isolated from the rest of Mordor. What is the mystery factor? A number of players claim that Dark Servant agent advantages in combination with their artifacts unfairly tip the game away from the Free. As the Cloud Lord has scored the second-highest number of wins overall, there may be some evidence to back this up. Yet if this is true, why aren't the nations most likely to suffer from agent attacks (again, the Gondors, Eothraim, and Northmen) all losers? Perplexing, to say the least. If I were to hazard a guess (and a guess is all it is), I'd say that agents are indeed the primary reason for the preponderance of Dark Servant wins. GSI, with it's inestimably much better information, saw fit to make changes to the agent orders; this seems to indicate that they too believe this to be at least one the determining factors in the imbalance of victories between the allegiances. The Losers The losers among the nations of Middle-Earth include the Woodmen, Eothraim, Cardolan, Dragon Lord, and Rhudaur. Of these nations, the Woodmen, Dragon Lord, and Rhudaur have yet to place in the game. This suggests that these nations suffer some drawback serious enough to preclude an average chance of taking 1st, 2nd or 3rd place. While the Dragon Lord position lends itself to easy criticism, the others do not. None of the four are by any means helpless in comparison to their opposition, nor do they have an identifiable weaknesses. The Woodmen, for example, have no nearby enemies except for the Dragon Lord; once this Dark Servant is driven from Mirkwood, they can enjoy a peace dreamed of only by neutrals, with plenty of room to expand. They same can be said of Cardolan; this nation is often spared the direct and brutal attention of the Witch-King and his potential allies, yet has only managed to place a single time. Arthedain, on the other hand, is the prime target of Angmar; even so, that nation has managed to place four times. Arguments have been made that the Eothraim are particularly susceptible to attack by Mordor. This is true, but the same can be said for the Northmen. Why then are the Eothraim losers and the Northmen not? Why also has Rhudaur alone of the five neutrals never managed to take a winning position? No easy answers suggest themselves. I can only point out which nations seem to be particularly disadvantaged; others will have to suggest explanations for these results. The Winners The winners among the nations of Middle-Earth include the Noldo, Cloud Lord, Long Rider, Corsairs, and Haradwaith. Unlike the losers, it's fairly easy to see why these nations often surge to the fore. Protected from direct enemy action by isolation or neutrality, all of these positions have the time to build upon their particular strengths and jump into the fray after many other nations have taken a savage beating. There are some interesting anomalies. Note that among the allegiance players, the two of the three winning nations are almost completely character-oriented; only the Long Rider could (with some stretch of the imagination) be called a 'military nation'. In fact, the winning nations that truly qualify for this distinction are both neutral, and both are located in the same general area. The question is, do isolation and/or neutrality really count for that much? The Easterlings have the exact same advantages as their neutral neighbors, as does the Blind Sorcerer with respect to the Cloud Lord and Long Rider; yet neither of these nations are winners. Again, some other factor or factors must be at work to give these nations an edge. The Neutrals Having played a neutral nation six times, I've heard more than my share of whining over how 'powerful' the neutrals are, and that they place in the game far too often. Let's take a look at these complaints. Since there are five neutrals in the game, you'd expect that they'd take about 20% of the winning slots on average. In truth, the neutrals garner closer to 30% of these slots; somewhat higher than average, but certainly not high enough to set off any warning bells. In fact, considering that neutrals often remain intact in terms of their resources during the opening moves of the game, and spend the initial turns building up these resources rather than expending them against the enemy, you'd reasonably expect them to last longer than other nations and so reach winning positions more often. But even these numbers lend no credence to the claim that the neutrals are 'always winning the game'. The primary complaint concerning neutrals (other than the ludicrous insistence that they shouldn't exist at all) is that they affect the balance of power between the allegiances far too much. This is rather easy to disprove. In a recent survey of 34 games with 170 neutral positions, the allegiance chosen by 102 of these neutrals was reported as follows (others had yet to change allegiance or had dropped the game prior to changing allegiance): Nation Reported Free Peoples Dark Servants Corsairs 18 8 (44%) 10 (56%) Haradwaith 20 10 (50%) 10 (50%) Dunland 20 15 (75%) 5 (25%) Rhudaur 23 13 (57%) 10 (43%) Easterlings 21 9 (43%) 12 (57%) Total Free Peoples: 55 (54%) Total Dark Servants: 47 (46%) Note: information on 27 of these games was provided by Jeremy Richman, a long-time veteran of ME-PBM. You'll note that all of the neutrals except the Dunlendings tend to break out relatively evenly among the allegiances, and that among neutrals overall there seems to be a slight tendency to favor the Free Peoples. If neutrals had as much sway upon the game as some claim, their power should result in a balance of games won that stands close to even between the allegiances. Yet we know from the data that the Free win only 39% of the time; clearly the neutrals aren't affecting this, other than perhaps in letting the Free win more often than they would if there were no neutrals in the game at all. In other words, any affect the neutrals have on the game is usually minor (there are obvious exceptional instances, e.g., when all five neutrals go to one allegiance) and doesn't appreciably alter the balance of power between the allegiances. Even more interesting, though, is to compare the number of times a neutral took a winning slot when it belonged to one side or another. The following table gives this information: Nation Wins Free Peoples Dark Servants Corsairs 11* 2 (20%) 8 (80%) Harad 9 2 (22%) 9 (78%) Dunland 4 3 (75%) 1 (25%) Rhudaur 0 - - Easterlings 4 1 (25%) 3 (75%) * placed second in one game, put failed to declare prior to game end. The information here confirms the breakdown given above. If neutrals did have a great deal of influence on the outcome of the game, they'd tend to win in numbers equal to their rate of declaration for either side. Yet aside from Dunland, most neutrals win the game only when fighting for the Dark Servants; they most often lose the game when they declare for the Free Peoples! What does this suggest? The impact that any one neutral has on the chances of an allegiance winning the game is much smaller than generally believed. However, for three of the neutrals, joining the Dark Servants provides benefits that often allows them to take victory; for Dunland, these benefits are provided by the Free Peoples. In other words, declaring for the right allegiance is worth much more to the neutral than the neutral is worth to the allegiance. Conclusions Many questions on the 'whys' of victory and defeat can't be answered by an analysis of the data, only offered up for thought. Few things can be said with certainty: - some nations win out of proportion to the average nation; others lose more often than they should. - even under the old agent rules, the Dark Servants weren't unbeatable. Far from it, in fact. - a competent Free Peoples team won't win the game every time, despite their advantages in economic power and the regional disparities versus the Witch-King and Dragon Lord. - nations that one might expect to be losers (e.g., Northern Gondor, Northmen, Witch-King) were not, suggesting their strengths are fairly well proportioned for the opposition they face. - neutrals aren't winning the game vastly out of proportion to their numbers. - the affect that neutrals have upon the balance of power among the allegiances is much smaller than previously thought, and tends to even out both across games and in individual games. This article can only tell you what's happening with respect to the questions initially proposed, not the reasons behind the results. I leave interpretation of the 'whys' up to my fellow gamers, and invite criticism and commentary. However, I'd ask that all criticism of the results be based upon the data, not upon unsubstantiated personal belief or experience, or upon the anecdotal experiences that begin with "well, this happened to me in game such and-such once...". Commentary on the Previous Article From Keith Peterson I read Tom Walton's excellent article (editor's note: Thanks, Keith) in the last Whispers with great interest. His article -- and his request to have facts on your side and not just offer opinions - encouraged me to check a few things out. However, I'd like to make a few observations. We have no data on the roll of drops. In #31, both the Noldor and Northmen could have (would have!) placed if they had played another dozen turns or less. Both lost interest in a game that dragged out. In the end, the three who placed were the only three left (1 FP and 2 DS). I'm not sure how stubborness (and the refusal to drop) should fit in, but it does determine the outcome of some games. We also don't know how closely others finished, or whether others played selfishly or unselfishlessly. Certainly an unselfish Noldor could probably finish high more often. Thirdly, while it is true that the neutrals as a WHOLE are not abnormally high, it jumped out at me that two of them (the Corsairs and Harad) accounted for 20 of the 93 winning positions in Tom's statistics. That's 21.5% by just TWO NATIONS! And that is very statisticly abnormal. (Editor's Note: damn tootin' it's abnormal. GSI needs to make some SERIOUS adjustments to these nations. But also note: these very same nations usually LOSE if they go FP). Now then, to the meat of the discussion. IMHO, Middle Earth is not a military game, or an economic game as much as it is character driven. Therefore, the nations that have the best characters should win. This, and the matter of isolation and protection seem to be the biggest indicators of how well a nations should do. The isolation of the LR, Corsairs, Harad and Noldor serves them all well in this regard. The fact that Rhudaur has the worst characters of the neutrals PLUS is the center of the WK-FP conflict goes hand-in-hand with the fact it has yet to place in any game. Notice the following chart: base + skill + cbt skills artif artif NOLDOR 860 980 1045 WITCHK 630 750 800 DRAGL 610 720 785 DK LTS 610 690 735 DOGL 490 580 610 SINDA 540 570 585 CORS 530 NG 470 520 530 LR 360 440 450 QA 420 420 445 SG 400 425 BS 390 405 415 DWARF 340 395 IK 340 390 400 FK 370 370 390 DUNL 370 370 385 ARTH 330 380 CL 330 355 370 EAST 330 330 345 EO 310 310 330 WO 320 RHU 280 310 NORTH 300 CARD 290 HARAD 290 Notice how poorly the EO, WO, Rhu and Card all rank. Harad's financial resources allow it to quickly fix its shortcomings (it could name four 30-pt characters on turn 1 and put itself in the middle of the pack). Add to the woes of the EO, WO, Rhu and Card that they are all in the midst of intense military conflict immediately. But how to explain the problems of the BS and the DragL? The DragL has the 3rd best characters in the game, yet has never placed. In part, we can blame this on its precarious position. However, the WK has almost as bad a position. The difference? The WK has emissaries and commanders; the Dragon Lord has mostly mages -- and mages are probably the weakest of the four character classes, especially at the beginning of the game. If the DragL mages should survive, for example, to all learn curses, they could be truly fearsome. But that takes longer than the DragL usually has. The BS seems to be the other anomaly. But suppose we consider its mage skill largely useless in building its position up, as being mostly supportive? Consider this new chart, made by subtracting mage ranks from all nations' skills above: NOLDOR 675 WK 670 NG 530 DK LTS 475 CORS 460 DRAGL 425 DOGL 410 DWARF 395 SINDA 365 LR 350 ARTH 350 QA 325 CL 320 EO 300 SG 295 WO 290 DUNL 275 RHU 270 FK 260 CARD 260 EAST 235 NO 230 HARAD 210 IK 200 BS 90 We see here that both the Dragl and the BS have fallen considerably. The BS is in deep trouble with such poor characters in all the non mage positions, and a terrible deficit. We also notice the agent powers (IK, Dunl, CL, and to some degree the LR) can help their nations overcome some of their other shortcomings. Middle Earth is not a simple game. No single explanation (including this one) can explain everything. Obviously, some positions have some problems. The real question is what those problems are AND how to solve them without unbalancing the game. You can't make large or significant changes to the EO positions without possibly endangering Mordor at the same time, not to mention making it more difficult for the DragL, who already has problems. Place Names by Brian Mason Many of the geographical features on the Middle-earth Play-By-Mail map are well known. However, some of them are less familiar. This is not an analysis, per se, simply a listing of geographical features by their proper name and identifying them by hex location on the map. This may add spice to the game, or it might give you some ideas for naming population centers. After all, it's a good bit more colorful to arrange a rendezvous for the passing off of an artifact by saying "I'll meet you in the southernmost Eyrn Vorn" rather than saying "I'll meet you at 0916." Rivers are identified by pairs of hexes marking both ends of a river. Thos appearing in the map but which are not identified herein are not known. All names are given from primary sources (i.e. books by J.R.R. Tolkien) and not from any of the names given from the Middle-earth Role Playing materials published by I.C.E. 0808-0909 to 0806-0905 Lhun 1013-1014 to 1108-1207 Branduin or Brandywine 1219-1319 to 1713-1714 Gwathlo or Greyflood 1713-1813 to 2107-2108 Mitheithel or Hoarwell 1910-2011 to 2208-2209 Bruinen or Loudwater 1714-1813 to 2213-2112 Glanduin or Swanfleet 1321-1322 to 2119-2219 Angren or Isen 1821-1722 to 1921-1822 Adorn 1625-1726 to 1923-2023 Lefnui 2225-2325 to 2123-2223 Morthond 2224-2325 to 2424-2524 Ringlo 2324-2424 Ciril 2527-2627 to 2524-2624 Gilrain 2626-2627 to 2626-2726 Serni 2728-2829 to 2406-2505 Anduin 2928-2929 to 3129-3130 Poros 2828-2927 to 2725-2825 Sirith 2926-2925 to 2825-2824 Erui 2722-2620 to 2118-2218 Onedlo or Entwash 2521-2420 to 2321-2421 Snowbourn 2516-2617 to 2216-2315 Limlight 2515-2514 to 2313-2312 Celebrant 2415-2314 to 2315-2314 Nimrodel 2511-2510 to 2411-2410 Sir Ninglor or Gladden 2406-2405 Langwell 2405-2505 Greylin 2833-2734 to 3432-3533 Harnen 4013-4012 to 3107-3108 Celduin or River Running 3711-3712 to 3608-3708 Carnen or Redwater 3008-3109 to 2505-2605 Forest River 2708-2808 Enchanted River Bridges are identifed by two adjoining hexes. Sofe of these locations are identified as fords rather than bridges, as during the 1400+ years that pass from the time period of me-pbm to the epoch of these maps, some deterioration has doubtless taken place. 1211-1212 Sarn Ford 1209-1309 Bridge of Stonebows or Brandywine Bridge 1909-2009 Last Bridge 2109-2209 Ford of Bruinen or Ford of Rivendell 2020-2120 Fords of Isen 3129-3130 Crossings of Poros 2510-2610 Old Ford Mountains are large ranges with beginning and ending hexes being identified. 0703-0608 Ered Luin or Blue Mountains 0811-0813 Ered Luin or Blue Mountains 1804-2104 Mountains of Angmar 2304-3102 Ered Mithrin or Grey Mountains 2006-2207 Ettenmoors 2205-2219 Hithaeglir or Misty Mountains 1321-2824 Ered Nimrais or White Mountains 3107 Erebor or The Lonely Mountain 2809 The Mountains of Mirkwood 3221-4221 Ered Lithui or Ash Mountains 3122-4226 Ephel Duath or Mountains of Shadow Hills and Rough 1005-1108 Emyn Uial or Hills of Evendim 0711-0912 Tower Hills, Far Downs and White Downs 1506-1609 Weather Hills 1609 Amon Sulor Weathertop 1311-1510 Barrow Downs and South Downs 1406-1508 North Downs 1324 Druwaith Iaur 1227 Andrast or Ras Morthil 1725-2124 Pinnath Gelin 2620-2919 Emyn Muil Islands are rare. There are only three "true" islands. While 2721 appears to be an inland island, it actually represents the delta of the Onedlo at its confluence with Anduin. It should be a marsh hex rather than plains. 0203 Himring or Himling 2430 Tolfalas Forests are common, but many are unnamed. 1014-0916 Eryn Vorn 1409-1310 Old Forest 1908-2109 Trollshaws 2506-3115 Taur e-Ndaedelos or Mirkwood 2218-2418 Fangorn or Entwood (or Ambarona, Tauremorna, Aldalome, or Tauremornalome) 2622 Firienwood 2823 Druadan Forest Swamps, Fens, Bogs (altough I believe the corrent P.C. term is Wetlands) 1509 Midgewater 1714 Nin-in-Eilph 2820-2822 Nindalf or Wetwang 2920 Dead Marshes Lakes and Inland Seas 1107 Nenuial or Lake Evendim 4113-4317 Sea of Rhun 3926-3728 Sea of Nurnen There are also various descriptors which pop up in many population center names, for example: Minas = Tower (e.g. Minas Anor) Sarn = Small Stone (e.g. Sarn Lothduin) Cerin = Mound (e.g. Cerin Amroth) Erain = King (e.g. Fornost Erain) Bar = Dwelling (e.g. Bar-en-Tinnen) Tir = Watch Over (e.g. Tir Anduin) Cirith = Cleft or Pass (e.g. Cirith Dunrandir) Nan = Valley (e.g. Nan Requian) Ceber = Stake (e.g. Ceber Fanuin) Ost = Fortress (e.g. Celeb-Ost) Dol = Hill (e.g. Dol Guldur) Barad = Tower (e.g. Barad-Dur) Tol = Island (e.g. Tol Buruth) Eithel = Well (e.g. Eithel Thurin) Annon = Gate (e.g. Annon Baran)