[ Back ] [ Up ] [ Next ]

Articles on Middle Earth 1650 No 2

And yet more Articles.....

Diplomacy by Colin Forbes
Top 10 Middle Earth Blunders by Colin Forbes
Bribing Characters by Brian Mason
Bribing Characters II by Brian Mason
Bribing Characters III by Brian Mason
Population Centre Improvements by Brian Mason
The Art of Losing in a Winning Position by Greg Reid
Rookie Mistakes by Darrell Shimel
NPC Skill ratings by Tom Walton
Population Centre Developments by Brian Mason
Economics in Middle Earth by Tom Walton
Will my Assassination work? by Wes Fortin
Mages in Battle by Tom Walton
Will my Threat Work? by Paul Comber
ME-PBM Questionnaire by Kevin O'Keefe
Kidnap or Assassinate? by Rob Pegg
How to make killer agents by Kevin O'Keefe
How to eliminate the Dragon Lord (1650) by Kevin O'Keefe

IT'S A TEAM GAME......

From Colin Forbes

There are not many PBM's out there that are first and foremost team games. To be fair, most PBM's give some scope for diplomacy, but a game that takes team play as far as Middle Earth does is rare. As a result it has to be said that many PBMers are not used to playing as a team - something has been shown up in several games of Middle Earth.

So what exactly is the difference between a normal cut-throat PBM and this game? Well first and foremost of course, whatever position you play be it the wealthy Haradwaith or the weedy Woodmen, you have no chance at all of winning unless your team wins. Far too many Middle Earth players ignore this and take the attitude of "well we'll pull through somehow". True enough, on a number of occasions where a team has not worked well together, their side has still won, and those that just sat on the sidelines often did well. But hold on a moment. How many people can truly say that they enjoyed playing in such a game? I'm fairly sure that most Middle Earth players like feeling part of a team, they like to know there's someone there to back them up, and (most importantly of all in my book) aren't games where the team works well more enjoyable?

To take a couple of examples of games I've played in, i.e. games 10 and 17. Game 10 was a close fought battle for 26 turns, and it was not until the last three or four turns at most that we began to think that as Dark Servants we might actually pull it off. We'd had armies all over Mordor, and several team members had been reduced to little more than a major town and a couple of camps at some stage. Still, teamwork won the day, for we were able to co-ordinate to the extent that those armies in Mordor were disposed of by agent action, and nations on the verge of bankruptcy were selflessly bailed out by those with money (i.e. Harad and the Dark Lieutenants). On the contrary in game 17 both sides seemed fragmented from the very beginning. By the time I (as Dunland) joined the Dark Servants the game was already degenerating into faction fighting. In the end I was attacked by two of my so-called allies, making it very difficult for me to actually go on and wipe out the Dwarves and Sinda (the only two Free People's left). In the end I won, but I must say that the game was nowhere near as enjoyable as game 10. I don't think it was a co-incidence that the enjoyable game was the one where I was part of a team.

So what makes for a good team? Well to begin with a newsletter is vital, and something that is often underestimated. A newsletter can serve several functions. Not only does it keep all team members informed of the other's activities, but it can also build morale (thus cutting down on drop-outs). Newsletters may also play an important role in convincing neutrals to join your side. I for one would be far more likely to join a side if I was receiving regular communication from them, and a newsletter indicates that they are well organised, in other words people you want as your friends, not your enemies!

It is essential in a team game for everyone to play as team members first and individual players second (at least in the vital first half of the game). From the Free People's point of view this is important as a number of positions, especially the Noldo Elves, tend to lend themselves to those whose style of play is simply to sit there and do nothing. This is counter-productive and endangers the teams chances of victory - at the very least it will unduly prolong the game. The Noldo have great characters and really should use them aggressively, especially those emissaries and of course Elrond can challenge just about anyone and win. The Mantle of Doriath should be used to hide vulnerable population centres, preferably by being given to a character with a Teleport spell.

Both sides should, at the beginning of the game, seriously consider swapping a few major towns, Olbamarl for Lug Ghurzun is a typical example as this gives the Long Rider a useful recruiting base and the Dragon Lord a much needed safe haven. The Eothraim should really see that their survival is dependant on a co-ordinated attack on Mordor early on together with North and South Gondor. Similarly the Dark Servants will get nowhere acting individually in the early stages of the game, but together they can assemble a powerful military force. I've heard of at least one Ice King player and several Blind Sorcerer's that have disbanded their forces on turn one. This is irresponsible, and if such a player survives to the later stages of the game, they will probably find themselves with only a small number of 'allies' remaining.

As the game moves on it may become necessary to save nations from going under by giving them a major town. Players should not hesitate to do this, especially the Gondors, the Noldo and perhaps the Sinda who are in the best position to help in this way. The Dark Servants have a more difficult task in this respect, but the Blind Sorceror, Dog Lord or Fire King should stand by to help out the Ice King should it become necessary.

The neutrals are of course in a slightly different position in that they do not start as part of a team, and they will often sit around for some time before deciding which way to jump. But here again a team game is important, if only to attract the neutrals to one side in the first place. Whilst there are people that will join a losing side just for the fun of it, there are even more neutrals that want to join a side they perceive as winning. Solid team play and a good newsletter will help this perception. But what happens once a neutral joins? All too often neutral players seem to want to retain some 'special' status once they have declared, when surely they should be a part of the team? To take a prime example, Harad should be prepared to finance nations on the brink of bankruptcy. I've seen this happen in more than one game, and in all cases it's been vital to that team's eventual victory. I should say that I don't really think Harad suffers too much doing this, by virtue of their position they will always be in a good position to place well, if their team wins!

To conclude, Middle Earth is designed as a team game, and it should be played as one. Any group of ten people willing to make some sacrifices will find themselves enjoying the game far more than if they played it as a bunch of individuals. Artifacts, armies gold and even characters are all essentially disposable, and should be sacrificed if need be for the good of the team. Of course the most enjoyable games of all are those with two opposing teams! Then its fast and furious from the off - very much a case of all for one, and one for all!

- - Colin Forbes.

Top 10 Middle Earth Blunders (UK)

From Colin Forbes

My apologies to those involved - I should perhaps point out that I am trying to avoid responsibility for two and a half of them myself.

Dwarves, game 5: Marching out of Khazad-dum to fight the Dragon Lord, but heading west by mistake, then killing Rhudaur and trying to pretend nothing had gone amiss.

Noldor, game 20: Why did Elrond hide Metriath just after the Witch King took it? As if that wasn't enough he then hid Goblin Gate, thus raising the siege that the Dwarves were attempting.

South Gondor, game 62: Attacking the Quiet Avenger capital on turn two, but forgetting that the fleet would sink when they destroyed the harbour.

South Gondor, game 51: Why did they send 20,000 gold to the Blind Sorcerer instead of the Northmen? I hope the BS made good use of it..

Dwarves, game 20: It probably wasn't the best idea to guard Bain with 5 agents and also to challenge Ji Indur. The result? Seven dead characters in one turn.

The Free Peoples, game 10: Why did they all drop, when they still stood a chance of winning the game? I don't think a simple mistake by the GM is a sensible reason.

North Gondor, game 5: Not attacking a Dragon Lord major town, when it would have knocked the Dark Servants out of the game. The game continued for at least 15 more turns as a result.

South Gondor and the Northmen, game 11: Attacking Haradwaith, and thus causing a total breakdown of Free People relations.

Rhudaur, game 2: Picture the scene. Arthedain and Cardolan have dropped. Dunland are friendly. The Dark Servants are friendly. You attack Arthedain, right? Wrong, you just sit there and wait. Oh dear.

Any game: Playing the Woodmen.

On the Bribing and Recruiting of Characters

by Brian Mason

While there has been very little input, I suspect the prime reason for this is the lack of orders. However, allow me to summarise results. I don't think there is enough data to establish a trend, much less determine cut-offs for success. However, the results are interesting. Possibly the most informative result is that if you fail in a bribe attempt the gold is not paid out.

So be daring! Attempt a bribe! (but send your results to me for further tabulation. :-)

Thanks to Holger Eichmann, Jeff Holzhauer and Thomas Meier for their contributions.

On the Bribing and Recruiting of Characters II

by Brian Mason

There has been some more input since this was last presented a while back, and while there is still not enough data to make any hard and fast statements there are a few observations which can be made.

1. For enough gold, you can recruit just about anybody.

2. If your emissary rank is high enough you can recruit just about anybody.

3. There is a large random factor.

To cut down on undersampling of the data more input is needed. If you can pass any along, please do so. Also, does anyone know if it is possible to recruit npcs?  So be daring! Attempt a bribe! (but send your results to me for further tabulation. :-)

Thanks to Holger Eichmann, Jeff Holzhauer,Thomas Meier, Chelsea Wood and Greg Reid for their contributions.

On the Bribing and Recruiting of Characters III

by Brian Mason

Unlike the results presented for population centre improvement, the results for bribing and recruiting are not as clear. First, allow me to present the data, as before.

Population Centre Improvements

Brian Mason

In a recent issue of "From the Mouth of Sauron" Brian Lowery posed the following question regarding the above order.

Population Centre Improvement (550):  Until recently the sum of loyalty and emissary rank required to improve a population centre was:

> 70 Village

> 90 Town

> 110 Mtown

> 130 City

For over a year I never saw the above fail. Recently in 2950 game 16 half of my camp improvements with a Emis/Loyal totals of  70-74 have failed. Any thoughts?

From checking my own database, I find the following data. The columns are the pop centre upgraded to, the numbers are the combined emissary and loyalty rank, while the yes/no flag is whether it works or not. These are for both 1650 and 2950 games.

While the results seem to confirm the numbers above, their are a few  exceptions. If anybody else has any other data, please send it along and we'll tabulate the results.

Pondering the Hall of Heroes of Middle-earth Play-By-Mail, c.1650, or The Art of Losing in the Winning Position

by Greg Reid

The first part of this article is an analysis of the facts: who has won and who has not, how many times every position has placed, and the weighted total of points (3 for each 1st, 2 for each 2nd, and 1 for each 3rd place ranking). For this I borrow shamelessly from an article in "Whispers of the Wood" vol. XI issue 10, entitled "Reflections on the Hall of Heroes as of December 1994", by John Shirey. The second part of this article is an attempt at analysing why the winners win, and why the losers lose.

As of the November '95 issue of Whispers, 146 games have been finished, with 54 of these wins being by the Free Peoples and the remaining 92 by the Dark Servants. This represents a winning percentage of 63% by the Dark Servants, an improvement over the previously calculated percentage of 69% (as per the aforementioned article), but still worth discussing considering that the Free Peoples are still considered by most to have tremendous advantages.  Statistics follow.

For purposes of this article I have broken the positions into three groups: the top ten by points, the bottom eight by points, and the remaining middle seven. The top and bottom groups will be discussed in some detail. In addition the role of the neutrals will be analysed, as well as why the Free Peoples, who enjoy such an overwhelming economic and military advantage, do indeed lose so often.

Winning Positions:

Of the top ten positions, four are neutrals, including the highest and second-highest totals, the Corsairs and Haradwaith. All of these positions except one, the Witch-king, can expect to enjoy some degree of isolation and build-up, either by virtue of their neutral status (Corsairs, Haradwaith, Easterlings, Dunlendings) or protection from the front by other front- line positions (Noldo Elves, Dark Lieutenants, Cloud Lord, Long Rider, Blind Sorcerer).

It would certainly seem, then, that being allowed to correct weaknesses and gather strengths before entering the war is an enormous boon to almost any nation.

Other positions that would seem to be isolated are Southern Gondor and Cardolan, but their proximity to neutrals whose status is highly variable, as well as the necessity of these positions to support their northern neighbours, often force these two nations to go immediately into a strong military-attack mode, as well they should.

The Witch-king would seem to be quite the anomaly here, as he could be called, with very little dispute, THE front-line nation. Indeed, only the Dragon Lord and, perhaps, the Eothraim face more potential foes early in the game. His enormous strengths, however, certainly give him an edge in combat against any single opponent; his characters are good enough so that he isn't under as much pressure to develop them as other positions are, and he actually starts with a kingdom, unlike other Dark Servant positions. But why does he even survive, let alone do well enough to place and win more often than most other nations?... The answer to this lies with the reason the Free Peoples lose so often, which is discussed later in the article.

Losing Positions:

I think it's pretty easy to see why the bottom eight are in the bottom eight. Only one of the Dark Servant positions, with their excellent characters, have sunk low enough to get to this cut; six of the eight lowest are Free Peoples, with the only neutral of the bunch being Rhudaur, easily the loser-most of all the neutral powers. Nearly all of them are front-line nations that are often picked on by several other opponents. The Eothraim has lousy characters and a horrible economy; the Dragon Lord, while having a fine group of characters, is completely surrounded by foes while sporting only a medium-strength army and vulnerable pop centres;  Rhudaur is in a similar situation as the Eothraim, being surrounded by potential enemies, vulnerable, with several low-fortification or no-fort population centres. The Northmen and the Woodmen have horrible characters and are often picked on by several nearby Dark Servants. Northern Gondor has several Dark Servant positions pointed directly at it and is often a prime target of agent attacks out of Mordor.

The only two positions of the bottom eight that evoke some mystery are Cardolan and the Dwarves. Nevertheless, some justification can be presented as to why these two are as low as they are. Cardolan, although far from the Witch-king and many Dark Servants, is extremely vulnerable to assault by neighbouring neutrals, whereas the Dwarves are suffering from Dragon woes in the mountains and have a spread-out position with no really good way or place to expand. In addition, both of these positions have suspect characters with little agent skill, making them prime targets for Cloud Lord agents wet behind the ears.

The Neutrals:

It seems fair to say at this point that the neutrals are winning more than their fair share of games. Two of the neutrals, Corsairs and Haradwaith, account for 20% of the wins among the 25 positions; when the top four neutrals are factored in, those four nations account for 30% of the nations among the 25 positions. It is, to put it mildly, an imbalance. I have a hard time seeing why GSI always has such a hard time filling the neutral positions, as it's apparent to any long-time player of ME-PBM that four of the five neutrals are clearly favoured to win. Only Rhudaur drags the average down; he brings the total average for the neutrals to 31.5%, which in and of itself is not terribly abnormal.

The reason the top four neutrals do win is because they are allowed to sit out the opening turns of the war and build their characters and nations, and often when they do join it is in the form of a nasty surprise attack that acquires them much territory for little cost. In addition, neutrals are often showered with gifts to join, an unfortunate practice that has been perpetuated over time and merely serves to strengthen their firm grip on the high-win spots.  (I have, in fact, made it a credo of mine to not ask for gifts as a neutral, especially as the Corsairs -- this is, IMJO, the last neutral position that should be given presents. They already have an excellent tax base, good characters, and a virtually impregnable stronghold in the south. What in the good Lord's name do you need to make him even stronger for?!)

Why the Free Peoples Lose:

This is far too complicated a question to answer easily.  Nevertheless, I'll give it a shot. I think this issue has been too long unaddressed to continue ignoring it. There are several reasons that spring to mind:

- inferior characters. What ME-PBM boils down to is that it's a character-based game. Characters are what issue orders, and high-level characters are more resistant to encounter death, challenge death, and agent assault. As the Dark Servants have far more good characters than the Free Peoples do, they inevitably have more and better-quality orders, which in the long run is a good way to achieve victory.

- dragons. Dragons are what allow the Dark Servant positions to defeat early Free army superiority. This in turn sets the stage for their superior characters to pull it out for them later in the game. The fact that no good way has been discussed to defeat them makes them, as Tom Walton has many times pointed out, no-brain nuclear weapons. However, this is, IMJO, the least compelling reason the Dark Servants win the game; dragons mostly assist the Witch-king and Dragon Lord, which are both positions that could use some help.  And don't forget that there are many other army encounters that are Free-aligned, such as Ents (which can be acquired just by running an army through Fangorn), Eagles, Woses, and Throkmaw. Why don't the Free attempt to recruit these as heavily as Dark Servants recruit Dragons?...

- neutral tendencies. Four of the five Neutral positions (Corsairs, Haradwaith, Easterlings, Rhudaur) clearly benefit more from a declaration for the Dark Servants than they do from a declaration for the Free Peoples. The fact that two of the most powerful neutrals are often inclined to go Dark Servant (if for no other reason than to avoid character attacks on their not-stellar character sets) often spells the doom of the Free Peoples. This is especially because in games where neutral powers are asking for bribes, the Dark Servants simply have more artifacts to bribe with than the Free.

- lack of team play. For various reasons, I've discovered that Free Peoples generally exhibit far more selfishness than the Dark Servants. This is because the Free Peoples have been broken into regions, which is conducive towards them joining forces within their home region and allowing others to go their own way. (How many horror stories of Noldo selfishness have we heard, anyway?) The Dark Servants, on the other hand, are mostly closely packed together in Mordor, forcing them to work together. The extreme disparity in force that the Witch-king and Dragon Lord face also make other Dark Servants with available resources willing to assist them, as they so clearly need help.

- lack of team play, part II. Even should the Free Peoples be more team-oriented than the Dark Servants, characters are far better than armies at carrying fights and assistance to distant lands. As the Dark Servants have a far superior character base, they can simply send their better agents and emissaries where they will to provide much-needed relief to their allies in hard-pressed areas (such as Eriador and Mirkwood). Positions such as Arthedain and Cardolan, even should they rapidly defeat the Witch-king, will find it difficult to send armies to the aid of their hard-pressed southern neighbours.

- incompetence and drops. Because of the above two paragraphs, inept and missing Free positions hurt the Free side far more than they hurt the Dark Servants. As each Free is incapable of giving good support to regions outside their sphere of influence, they must each hold up their end in their respective regions; and let's face it, usually at least two or three people on each team are, well, rather less than competent, if they're there at all. With the Dark Servants, powerful positions such as the Cloud Lord take up the slack (or a neutral is bribed into helping the Dark Side).

These are, by the way, reasons that the Witch-king usually manages to stay alive in Eriador. Lack of team play and incompetence among forces around Eriador/Mirkwood often force Arthedain or Cardolan to withstand the initial strike of Angmar alone... a dubious situation for the Free Peoples. Also, the Witch-king is the squeaky wheel that gets the grease, with Cloud Lord agents often coming north to assist the Witch-king against Arthedain and Cardolan, who are ill-equipped to withstand agent attacks.

Well, that would about do it. Comments and criticisms are welcome. My own experience with ME-PBM is not as extensive as some of y'all.

Rookie Mistakes to be Avoided in MEPBM

by Darrell Shimel

I'm quite disappointed with the lack of content in recent issues of the Mouth. In a past article, I tried to start some controversy over "Determining Winners in MEPBM." Unfortunately, this effort was sabotaged by an editor who wrote a supplementary article. The person playing SG in 2950-48 would do well to read this article.

[Tom's note: sabotaging efforts is one of the substitutes for actual pay when doing the editorial gig.]

Now I'll try to solicit input on a topic that I could really use.  Here is a list of rookie mistakes that I have made (or seen made).   I hope others will add items, so that I can avoid them. I'm not talking about the simple, "missed a mailing date", "wrote a number incorrectly", or "missed a required information". These are concept errors.

1) Troops eat after they transfer armies. 

1st army 3000 troops, 5000 food.

2nd army 6000 troops, 17000 food.

I transferred 5900 troops from army 2 to army 1, then tried to execute full movement. The army didn't arrive at its expected location, because the troops transferred before eating. When time came for movement, they had no food.

2) I'm not sure how many times I saw this stressed, but I still misunderstood it. Artifacts effect the chance of success, but not the result.   A 20(35) commander will NamComm a 20 commander, not a 30.

3) This one is almost too stupid to include, but I actually did it. NatTrans can only be done to one of your pop. centres. Don't try to NatTran directly to an allies pop. centre.

4) Gold transfers come at the end of the turn, but costs must be paid up front. Don't expect a gold transfer from an ally, to pay your bills on the turn that it is made. You'll be bankrupt with gold in the bank.

5) Don't assume that a powerful enemy character in your capital has something better to do than challenge that emissary you just named. You'll end up with an empty character slot, and Cirdan will get some cheap training that will come back to bite you later.

6) If you have overwhelming force on an enemies capital, are about to take them out of the game, and they have a small army with a commander better than yours, expect a challenge. Refusing might even be a good idea.

7) The converse of this is also true. When an enemy has a couple of powerful armies on your capital, and you have an army with a potential challenger, don't assume they'll refuse and attack.  They may attack and move to your backup, causing the situation described in 6) above.

All for me this time, I hope to see items I can learn from.

NPC Skill Ratings

by Tom Walton

All dragons are listed as Marshals/Archmages, but their skill ranks  are obviously beyond 100.

Celeborn: Command 60-69, Agent 10-19, Mage 20-29

Daeron: Command 20-29, Agent 10-19, Emissary 70-79, Mage 100+

Galadriel: Command 20-29, Agent 20-29, Emissary 70-79, Mage 100+

Gandalf: Command 30-39, Agent 30-39, Emissary 60-69, Mage 80-89

Saruman: Command 30-39, Agent 10-19, Emissary 70-79, Mage 100+

Sauron: Command 100+, Agent 80-89, Emissary 100+, Mage 100+

Shelob: Command 40-49, Agent 10-19, Mage 70-79

Tom Bombadil: Command 100+, Agent 100+, Emissary 100+, Mage 100+

Estimated Challenge Ranks based on skills alone:

Celeborn: 79

Daeron: 121+

Galadriel: 122+ (212+)

Gandalf: 115 (165)

Saruman: 123+

Sauron: 143+

Shelob: 95

Tom B: 156+

Note that it's possible for an NPC to have a skill rank greater than 100. It's also been speculated that some NPC's have challenge ranks higher than their skill ranks would indicate (the Wizards), and that a number of NPC's have health ranks greater than 100 (dragons, Sauron, Tom Bombadil).

The challenge ranks seem to be close to what seems to be correct for Celeborn, Gandalf, and Shelob. Daeron's challenge rank is probably somewhat higher than this, as his mage rank is almost certainly above 100. Same goes for Saruman and Galadriel (Saruman doesn't carry any artifacts, but seems to be stronger than Gandalf anyway).

Concerning Sauron and Tom Bombadil, the figures are obviously low.  Tom is far more powerful than any other creature except Sauron, and perhaps even Sauron would lose that battle. Sauron's challenge rank without artifacts has been estimated to be greater than 300; he's never been defeated in challenge, to my knowledge (although it'd be interesting to see what would happen if a character carrying the One Ring personally challenged Sauron, or transferred it to him if Dark Servant).

Population Center Development

by Brian D. Mason

Abstract

One of the most important aspects of the early game is deciding where to create or post camps. While many nations lack the emissaries with the necessary skill level to create camps, despite it being an easy skill, almost all possess one or more commanders with the skill level necessary to post camps, an average difficulty order. One of the most difficult decisions in the early game is deciding where camps should be located. This article will discuss some of the reasons behind the placement of camps: which type of character should do it, resource production, financial considerations, and security. Then the strengths and weaknesses of various nations will be discussed, as well as some possible camp locations.

Who Should Place the Camps?

Many of the nations have commanders who, when travelling with an army, have the command skill which would allow order 552 (Post Camp) to be executed with a very good chance of success. Also, very few nations have emissaries with even the modest skill level needed to execute order 555 (Create Camp) with a good chance of success.

Despite this, those nations without good ( > 30) emissaries would be advised to create one using order 725 (Name New Character), and then subsequently have that emissary execute order 734 (Name New Character as Emissary) as many times as necessary. Having a character in an army posting camps is not advisable for several reasons: one, it does not improve the command skill of the commander, two, when posting camps rather than training troops or training the army the commander does not improve his command rank and the training rank of the army or troops is not improved, and three it costs twice as much. For the additional cost of posting three camps you could name an additional character and have gold to spare. A stable of about three good emissaries can be used at all stages of the game, in creating camps when their skill levels are low, in improving population centres and bribing/recruiting characters or double agents when their skill levels are moderate or high. As it becomes more difficult to place camps at later stages of the game, it is important that you create emissaries fast and get your camps created quickly, especially if you start the game with few good emissaries.

Resource Production

The most important factor in camp placement is determining what types of which resources you need production, and where in nearby hexes these can be located. The spell reveal production is relatively easy to research (if you do not already have a character who can cast it) and this can determine locations which can supply the most needed commodity. Another option is having an agent Scout Hex (915), however, that has the detrimental effect of only determining production value of one hex (although with much greater precision). Another disadvantage of the Scout Hex option is that it takes an agent into a hex with no objectives where he may be unable to cast a skill order on the following turn. It is usually better in the early game to have agents improving their ranks or outperforming more specialised agent tasks. Below is a list of the mean production of each hex type taken from several games, and set-ups of many different nations, as well as additional contributions from other players. The production has been modified such that this is the production value of a camp in warm weather (that is, 100 percent production values). Keep in mind that the climate in your area will effect these mean production values and that mountainous terrain also will typically have one or two grades cooler climate than surrounding plains. The first column gives the resource type, the second column describes the rows, the first row being the terrain type, the second row the number of sites in the sample. Within each production type the first row is the number of sites in which that product is present, the next row the average of those sites and the final row the average of all sites. Some of these (especially desert terrain) may suffer from small number statistics, so the results may skewed. Also, note that no information is given for swamp hexes.

Table 1. Statistical Treatment of Resource Development

Clearly, from inspection of the list, the type terrain with the most varied production type is hills/rough, which can produce all types of materials except mithril. For nations which are relatively weak in metal production for armour (primarily the Free Peoples) the most profitable terrain type are mountain hexes. However, mountain hexes often contain dragons, which rarely have good effects on the loyalty of Free People population centres, or the health of the Emissary posting the camp. Sometimes a safer strategy is to place them in hill/rough hexes which have been already determined to produce the desired resource. Another advantage to the hill/rough option is that those hexes typically have better climate which has the effect of increasing production.

Looking over your production and estimating needs for your nation and then placing camps to produce what you need is often a good plan. If you start with few mounted troops and few sources of the supplies that are needed to build them (mounts, leather, bronze or steel if desired for armor and weapons) it is unlikely that you can get that all cavalry army you want on the field anytime soon.

However, if you are fighting someone who is aware of your nation strengths and weaknesses then planning to build them in later turns might be an good plan.

Financial Considerations

Sometimes camps can be placed to make resources to sell. For many nations, selling supplies is a vital (and sometimes necessary) means to float your economy. Despite the initial outlay, almost all hexes can produce in just a couple of turns the supplies which could be sold to pay for themselves, even if they do not produce gold directly. Some nations can choose one or two resources which they can use to buy and sell on succeeding turns to drive up and down the price of that commodity. This "playing of the market" can be most effective when several nations co-operate to buy all of a commodity and then sell all the following turn when prices or high. Increasing production in this commodity will allow you to generate larger profits, or give you the production you need to develop on the one hand, and execute buy/sell orders with, one the other. Gold production does not decrease with increasing population centre size however other resources do. Each increase in the size of a population centre will require a few turns to recoup the losses for development. Listed below are the turns needed to "break even" on population centre improvement at several various tax rates. In considering a break even cost, it is necessary to not only consider how long it takes you to recover the cost of investment, but also how long to catch up to the amount that the population centre would produce.

Table 2. Turns to Recoup Cost of Improvement

In addition to the time needed to "break even" on the cost is the lost production over the interval. Depending on the commodity the production loss may or may not be trivial. It is generally a good idea to improve population centres whose production type you do not need.

Security

Another important consideration in improving population centres is the safety of the population centre. Don't improve population centres you cannot hold. There is no need to improve population centres for your enemies to take. Also, in developing population centres try to put them in locations which are hard to get to or not on the maps of other players (especially neutrals and enemies).

If you have a surplus of secure areas then allowing your allies to develop in some of them is often a good idea for team play. Also, population centres without fortifications, characters, or armies present will begin to disintegrate if the loyalty drops too low.

Nation Strengths, Weaknesses, and Camp Placement

Now, a short rating for each nation is listed below. Ranked as good, average or poor are emissary strength and possible camp placement as well as a short listing for where might be good locations to place camps for that nation.

Locations can be rated as good, average, or poor based on their relative security from enemy nations. If this region is not on your map (where you can keep an eye on it) the location rating is downgraded. Also, if you are competing with many other nations over a small area to develop (e.g. many of the Dark Servants in Mordor) the location rating is downgraded.

Table 3. Rating Population Centre Development

Potential Population Emissary Centres

An alternative strategy to selecting secure locations would be to select locations far from you and not appearing on any other nation map. These locations, if developed, could serve as jumping off points for campaigns.   Obviously, co-operation is needed among the Dark Servant players in deciding what parts of Mordor to develop. Care must also be taken that the very good emissaries of the Witch-King and the Dragon Lord have somewhere to develop. Also, the Free People pairs of the Woodmen and Sinda, Noldo and Dwarves, Arthedain and Cardolan, Eothraim and Northmen also need to co-operate in developing population centres. Most of the Neutrals can work independent of others with the possible exception of the Haradwaith and Corsairs.

Conclusion

Population centres can have noticeable effects on your nations place in the game and effective placement of these population centres can dramatically effect your outcome.

The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions to Table 1 and the comments of Tom Walton, Glen Mayfield and Jeff Holzhauer.

Economics in Middle-Earth

Compiled by Tom Walton

Much of what's given here was obtained through Q&A sessions with Bill Field at GSI, and from the combined experiences of many players. Thanks to one and all for making this possible.

I first became interesting in pinning down the economic situation when I started collecting rumours on how the market worked. Most conflicted with each other, some were downright ludicrous; many were started by people who had little other than their own game to base their conclusions on. I knew that they couldn't all be true, so went to Bill to see what I could get.

Bill was, of course, his usual evasive self, but on a couple of occasions he 'spilled his guts'. Some of the stuff he had to say was very interesting, and I doubt he'd repeat it if he knew what use I'd put it to. It simply gives players too much power in Middle- Earth.

Have fun with it!

- market pricing is based upon two factors. Gold available and total production. Gold available includes treasuries, native production, and tax base; total production is essentially a bit more complicated, but is a measure of how much 'stuff' all nations are pumping out every turn. Added to this is the production currently on the market. The actual amount of gold available isn't as important as the relationship between the amount of gold and the amount of production. Example: if all nations have 500,000 gold between them, and total production is 50,000 units, the ratio is 10:1. If total production is 100,000 units, the ratio is 5:1. Prices will be higher in the first case than the second case, because the ratio is higher.

- the basic precept above explains many market events that you all have probably experienced at one time or another. For example, in many games prices tend to fall drastically in the first ten turns. This is because pop centres are getting destroyed/reduced (reducing tax base) and the gold from treasuries is being spent on a variety of items. Even though players are selling right and left to increase their treasuries, the market is getting glutted and the gold that's being made is almost immediately lost again on fixed costs: character creation, maintenance, etc. Add to this the fact that players are probably putting down camps right and left, and the relationship between gold available and production drops to an even lower ratio, resulting in a decrease of prices. Nations also get dropped within the first ten turns, further removing tax base, treasuries, and gold production from the game.

In many games, this results in a spiral of deflation, where players have to sell more product to make up a deficit, which in turn lowers prices, which means everyone has to sell more, etc. If this spiral of deflation continues, you'll see prices drop to absurdly low levels: 3/1, 2/1, and so forth. Once you hit rock- bottom here, it's very difficult to climb back up to something more reasonable.

- Prices among all commodities are interrelated. This is pretty obvious. If prices are low for one item, they tend to be low for all items. If high for one item, they tend to be high for all items. There's a factor in the code which prevents any one product from moving too far away from the current market prices. You won't see steel at 30/20 and food at 2/1, even if the entire market stock of steel is bought out.

This means that if prices are low, buying out an entire product will result in only a modest gain in prices and a small profit when you re-sell to the market. If prices are high, the gain tends to be correspondingly higher. Here again, there's a relationship at work which keeps a lid on the pricing of any one market item (in relation to all others).

- Selling to or buying from the market is totally random. There's no structure in the code which keeps any one nation from completely buying out an item. It's difficult, to be sure, but any powerful neutral with a large amount of cash will find that it can buy out the entire stock of one market item during the turn, so long as it has a lot of cash in relation to the total amount of cash in the game. If EVERYONE has a lot of cash, then it won't matter; it only works if YOU have a lot of cash and most other people don't.

Note: the rumour that a single nation can't buy out an item is still floating around. This is incorrect. I've done it on a number of occasions.

- Because buying and selling is random, this means that some nations may be able to clean up while others can't sell if their lives depended on it. It happens. Again, there's no section in the code that 'allocates' a certain amount of selling/buying power to any one nation. It's based purely on luck.

However, one good thing is that while buys and sells are randomly ordered, so are the amounts that the caravans will accept from you. It could be you'll sell all of your food, some of your food, or none of your food; but this factor generally keeps lucky nations from dumping everything and keeping the rest from doing the same. Still, be aware: it's possible to have none of your sell orders go through, while other nations make gold hand over fist.

This too has happened to me on several occasions. It may not be fair, but then few things in ME-PBM are.

- The maximum amount of gold you can make on the market is set upon a factor which represents the total sell amount for the market that turn. Essentially, you can make more gold when prices are high, and less gold when prices are low. The more production there is, the more production you can sell (but of course, prices will be lower and you'll make less).

There is no 'maximum amount' set within the code. Most games start so the relationship between all factors limits initial sells to somewhere around 30,000 gold, but this changes rapidly. As prices rise, so will the amount you can make (though inflation will make this gold worth less to you). If you're in a game where both prices and production are rising (very rare), then you can both sell more and make more. This combination is hard to get, though; it means that you either have to have a market 'spiral' taking place, or that both camp creation and pop centre upgrades are outstripping war-time destruction at a relatively even pace.

Note: the rumour that 30,000 is 'it' is not true. It just happens that the market relationships tend to set it around this level at game start.

- Another fairly obvious point: pricing within the item itself varies with the product. Food prices change only small amounts no matter how out of control the market gets. Mithril prices tend to jump around even when the market is at rock-bottom.  If you want to make a lot of gold by buying the market out and then reselling to it the next turn, pick a high-priced item; the potential change is much greater. It's also good to pick an item that people probably won't sell during the turn (timber and mithril are your best bets, with perhaps mounts thrown in as well). If you buy out food, you might see a price change of one or two gold; buy out mithril, and the sell price can double in a single turn.

- Buying out a market item won't always result in a large increase in prices. If too much gold is dumped during the turn, either through buys or maintenance or what have you, the drop in the ratio between gold and production may counteract the effect of the buy, disappointing the players involved. It's even possible to have prices fall after you buy out the market stock, because so much gold has been lost during the turn. This, of course, is potentially disastrous if you were relying on making a profit the following turn.

- The market will always buy a minimal amount of each commodity every turn, regardless of current market stores. The minimal mount tends to vary based upon the product; the lower the price, the more it'll buy.

This tells you why you can have relatively small amounts of each product in market stores, yet see 120,000 food racked up at the same time. The market will buy more of low-priced items than high- priced items, and will always buy at least some minimal amount of each commodity each turn. It also shows why market stores alone are a small factor in determining overall price ranges (i.e., high stores don't result in extremely low prices).

These are simply the basics. The market algorithm is extremely complicated and I could detail interesting specifics for pages. But the precepts above will allow you to manipulate the market in a number of fascinating ways. Here are some examples:

- You want to raise overall market prices. Start by buying out a single product, then reselling the product the next turn. Do this several turns in a row AND KEEP THE PROFITS. This won't work unless you do.

By keeping the profits, you increase the total amount of gold in the game. If you spend what you making, prices will remain steady. Should you do this over the course of several rounds, gold in the treasuries of the involved players will increase the available amount in the game a significant fraction, raising the ratio of gold to production. This, in turn, will force market prices to rise.

This is what I call an upward market 'spiral'. Once you start it, prices tend to take off because other players also sell and increase their treasuries. The ratio gets bigger, prices rise more, players have more gold in their treasuries, and so on. It's much like a catalytic effect.

Be aware: this is much more beneficial to the Dark Servants than the Free Peoples. If the Dark Servants can get prices to rise enough, then they can sell a small amount of production every turn to make up huge deficits, while keeping a hefty amount of gold in their bank accounts. After a certain point, the Free economic base no longer factors in to the equation, only the amount of orders each player can issue. In essence, the Dark Servants become just as strong economically as their opponents, cancelling the biggest advantage the Free have. Starting an upward market spiral can spell doom for the Free.

- You want to stop an upward market spiral. Buy the product that's being used to manipulate the market. Buy a lot of it. Wait one round while your opponents sell. Then, on the turn they buy again, sell everything you've got. This'll restore market stocks of the product and cancel any price increase, leaving the enemy with a lot of whatever they just bought and no way to sell it back for a profit.

This is more effective if you also dump your bank account at the same time. If the Free wanted to kill a market spiral before it gets out of hand, they could sell everything they have of the chosen product to the market at the same time the Dark Servants buy, then reduce their treasuries through character creation, buying small amounts of other items, and so forth. Not only will the target product fail to increase in price, but all prices will drop because of the drastic reduction in total gold.

I did this in one game - as a single nation - royally screwing the Dark Servants. I set them up by starting a market spiral - again as a single nation - waited until they got hooked, then killed the spiral and dumped a huge amount of gold. They ended up with a bunch of timber that wasn't worth nearly as much as they bought it for, and empty treasuries. This is where the sheer power of the idea comes in; that any one nation could do this is remarkable.

- prices in the game are rock-bottom, and you want them to come up (or vice versa). Destroy enemy camps and raise your own camps up to villages, then towns, etc. In other words, raise the gold available by increasing your tax base, and reduce production by eliminating camps. You can do the opposite by destroying enemy towns and cities and putting down camps as fast as possible.

Because of the complicated machinations of the market, much of what you do has to be based on 'gut' feeling. You can't know the exact economic status and orders of all the nations in the game. It's possible to try out a trick and get clobbered for it, because others inadvertently countered it.

A notes: the wild price increases of the earlier games seems to have been fixed. There's evidence of a cap, a maximum buy/sell price, on all products.

This article details only the basics. I'll be happy to answer specific questions if I can, or address situations which aren't covered in the above. Also, anyone who'd like to add something I missed or left out for space considerations is more than welcome to do so.

Wes Fortin answers the question that Jerry Clark posed in issue no. 5:

Q. what's a reasonable agent level for an assassination or kidnap attempt?

The equation seems to go like this:
Success = Net Agent Rank + Stealth (variable/random number between 0 and the stealth rank) - 2*Agent Rank of Guard - 1/2 Highest base rank of the target. Kidnap may be 5-10% easier than Assassinate, so low agents should do this and execute instead.

Recently, agent rules changed. According to Bill Field, the only difference is that the consequences for failure are steeper. No agent task is more difficult. However, Guards are more effective now (effectively double rank).

Mages in Battle

By Tom Walton

I've heard a number of comments concerning how wimpy battle magic is. Can't say I agree with them; there are far too many games on the market where magic is nothing more than the fantasy equivalent of nuclear weapons, destroying any real attempt at winning through with (the idiots can get nukes just as easy as the smart guys).

But magic in battle is underestimated in ME-PBM. Here's a simplistic example, involving two armies of 2,000 HI. Let's say that both armies are equal in every respect for ease of calculation, and that offensive strength works at to 10,000 points, defensive strength to 20,000 points. Neither has access to magic.   In a normal battle, both would inflict 10,000 points on each other in the first round, reducing the armies to 1,000 HI apiece.

Recalculate, and each kills off another 500 HI in the second round. This continues until both armies fall to less than 100 HI and are dissolved.

Now imagine that the first army has two mages in it, each of whom is capable of casting a defensive spell worth 1250 points. Both cast for a total of 2500 defensive points in the first round.

Army #1 inflicts 10,000 points, while army #2 only does 7500 points.
Army #1 is reduced to 1250 HI, army #2 to 1,000 HI. The spells wear off (only good for the first round), and battle continues round after round until #2 is destroyed. Army #1 survives with about 550 troops. In essence, the two mediocre spells saved the army and kept 5500 strength points of troops from being wiped out.

Try another example, where army number one also has a 1,000 point combat weapon. In the first round, army #1 inflicts 11,000 points, otherwise the battle is the same. Army #1 is left with about 660 troops at the end of the battle.Maybe this doesn't sound like much to you, but you can change this to say, light infantry and get a survival rate of 1100 troops and 1320 troops where otherwise the army would be destroyed. Or 2750/3300 men-at-arms. Vary the equation by adding some archers in, and suddenly the bowmen aren't dying in droves.

It's usually better to use defensive spells than offensive spells, if you can expect to fight multiple rounds of combat. But if your troops really suck, or you're going to get wiped out in the first round anyway, casting offensive spells allows you to inflict more casualties.

Used with precision, magic can change the course of a war, especially for the Dark Servants. Those extra casualties or saved troops add up over time, and having an army survive instead of getting destroyed allows it to continue to operate and be a pain in the butt enemy territory. This is especially so if the army is far from home and it'd take several turns to get a new one into the region. Best of all, magic doesn't cost anything in terms of maintenance, and can be used over and over again to annoy and discomfit your opponents.

Will my Threat Work?

From Paul Comber

According the Paul Comber, the following is the formula for success of threats goes something like this:

+ Command Rank(Inc Artifact)

- loyalty of pop centre

- 20 per level of fortification

- 20 if capital

+ 100 if required amount of troops to capture present.

+100 always gives a positive result.

(Tom's Note: while the presentation of this algorithm is interesting, I've had several instances where threats which were better than 100% by the above formula failed. My own experience with threats points to a somewhat lower chance of success than the one given here - though I could just be terribly unlucky).

Therefore it is perfectly possible to threaten a city if command rank is high enough, also perfectly feasible for a com10 character to threaten a pop centre.

Kidnap or Assassinate

by Rob Pegg

Kidnapping is a big bonus over assassination as it usually has the same effect (it is rare for a non agent/stealth equipped character to escape) and it not only deprives the enemy nation of the character slot - but forces it to keep paying for it as well. And the costs are not insubstantial !

As a general rule of thumb I will always assassinate agents, and always kidnap commanders/emissaries and mages. If a character is known to be stealthy I will usually opt for the assassinate, but it depends on the
circumstances. Of course there are risks involved - and losing all the hostages is one of those risks - one I'm just about to take in G16. Thus when an agent becomes overloaded with hostages (more than about 3) I will transfer them around a bit.

The tactic is always best of course when applied to one nation - if you can gang up on it, it's demise becomes certain.

How to Make Killer Agents

By Kevin O'Keefe

Towards the end of a game, agents play a more and more important role.  If you are a non-agent nation, you can counteract the one sided-ness of a game by producing some super agents of your own after turn 20 in record time.

This ploy is best served by non-agent nations but can work for anyone. 

By turn 20, if you have been playing the Dwarves or Arthedain or the Fire King for example, agents won't have been top of your agenda.   However, it now would be nice to start making some agents with a bit of punch.

Here's what to do...

1) Form an emissary company.  Your emmys at this point should be typically 60+.

2) Ask a team-mate to form an emissary company with ranks 60+.

3) In each company put in the agent you want to improve.

4) Arrange with your team-mate for the two companies to meet.

5) When the two companies are in the same location, the emissaries try to double each other, the agents try the counter espionage order.  This order is a Average difficulty so it shouldn't be too difficult to achieve with a 40 agent.

What happens is every emissary doubles one of the 'enemy' emissaries.  These emmys get a skill rise to improve their ratings.   Approx 4-7 points of skill.

The agents get 1-5 points PER CONVERSION.  If there were 5 emmys in each company that's possibly 25 agent points!  This many points are highly unlikely but you should get 12-18 points of skill increase per turn.   Three or four turns of this and you can have a great agent.

The only downside is the agent and emissaries are not being 'useful' for those turns.  They could be better employed improving pop centres or influencing away enemy pop centres.  Still, its a good idea!!

Kill The Dragon Lord (1650)

For the freeps to win the normal 1650 scenario they need to do significant damage before turn 10. That includes removing the Witch King from Angmar (see later)  and the Dragon Lord from Mirkwood.

As far as the Dragon Lord is concerned, the usual tactic is for the Dwarves to move to Goblin Gate and then turn their attention to Dol Guldor. I'd rather do it the other way around.

You should try to put a sizable force on Dol Guldor on turn two, and a sizable force on Goblin gate turn 3. It's quite likely the Dragon Lord armies will move first turn, but if they don't and they sit and recruit (very unwise) then at most, they will have

600HC
1400HI
600LI
900AR
900MAA at Dol Guldor by the time you land on it.

Given that the loyalty of MT/Keep is likely to be 60 (ish) it gives a defensive strength + army of 30000.

Woodies start with
600LI 600AR at 2711
600HI 600LI at 2711
1200HI 900LI at 2508

Dwarves start with
1200HI at 2212
1500HI 300LI 300AR at 2212

Sinda start with
300LC 300LI 600AR at 2908
900AR at 2413

Northmen start with
300LC 300HI 300LI 300AR at 3109

Noldo start with
300LC, 300AR at 2209

Dragon Lord starts with
600HI 600AR 300MAA at 2715
600HC 600HI 300AR 600MA at 2715
300LC 300HI 300LI 300MAA at 2409

Turn 1

Sinda recruit 500HI at 2413 and move to 2514
Dwarves recruit 500HI into big army at 2212, transfer everything but 100AR into the army with the best commander and move to 2613.
Woodies recruit 400HI at 2711 and transfer all but 100AR into the main army and move to 2613.
North Gondor send 600HC, 600LC from 3116 and move to 2617 (bit strange this, but bear with me).
Sinda recruit 500HI at 2908 and move to 2810
Northmen recruit 400HI at 3109 and move to 2810
Noldo recruit 400HI at 2209 and stay put.

Turn 2

The Dragon Lord will be expecting a large Dwarven force to land on Goblin Gate this turn. Ji Indur may have turned up banking on us doing the usual opening moves.

The Dragon Lord armies will have either
a) Stayed put
b) moved an army to 2915 - Sinda village
c) moved to 2613 - will get decimated by dwarves and woodies
d) moved to 2617 - will meet 1200 NG Cav.
e) really bad news, moved en masse to 2514 and had it revealed (by Murazor for example). Hope this doesn't happen.

It's important that Bain's army (assuming Bain has started at the dwarven capital) is in the same hex as woodies. This means the woodies don't have to risk refusing a challenge from Duran or other high challenge rank characters.

Woodies and Dwarves at 2613 either fight Dragon Lord and move, or just move to 2715.
Sinda at 2514 recruit 500HI and move to 2715.
North Gondor at 2617 either fight Dragon Lord and move, or recruit 300HI and move to 2715.

The combined armies of NG, Woodies, Dwarves and Sinda will be on Dol Guldor turn 2 and can capture on turn 3. You do however, need the 1200 NG cavalry to do this.

Meanwhile,
Northmen and Sinda at 2810, move to 2410.
Noldo recruit 400HI at 2209 and stays put
Dwarves recruit 500HI at 2212, move to 2410
Woodmen recruit 400HI at 2711, move to 2410
Woodies recruit 400HI at 2508, move to 2410

Turn 3

You capture Dol Guldor.
All armies at 2410 moves to 2409

Turn 4

Maximum Dragon Lord army at 2409
300LC 1500HI 300LI 300MAA behind MT/F gets trounced and you capture it.

****

As it turned out, Northmen going west is probably too much but can be useful if Rhudaur declares early.

Kevin O'Keefe

[Top of Page]