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)