Heh. well Clint, you have a growing number of people in the player base that can prove you wrong on your theory. fact is fact. The banker nation exploit does indeed work. keeping the same amount of gold in the nations’ treasuries does not do the same thing. sorry. that’s irrefutable at this time.
Consider this:
game a: DS nations xfer 200k gold to a banker nation and suffer a 10% loss of treasury to do so for the DS. Market explodes
game b: DS nations don’t xfer the 200k gold, but otherwise do similar orders. Market does not explode even though the DS have 10% more in their treasuries.
the theory of total gold in nations’ treasuries is debunked completely at this point as far as I’m concerned. the banker nation exploit works 100% of the time that I have seen it tried. The market prices are driven much more strongly by the richest nation treasury than by total gold in all nations’ treasuries.
All of that said, there’s an old saying that likely applies: “a rising tide lifts all boats.”
Interesting data Clint.
As far as I have understood the market prices raise initially (turn 1) to about twice the prices which you see in normal grudge games. This CLEARLY indicate/prove to me that the strategy works. Because if prices ONLY were based on total gold available, then it would aquire that suddenly there were double as much total gold turn one as usually ??? Turn one is pretty much standard for all nations in all games regarding gold spend on new characters and natsells. So Clint, I think you will need to alter you World view. Middle Earth is not flat, its round and are part of a solar system in a huge universe
I have been discussing the banker strategy with Dave Holt, and my personal feelings are certainly that the banker strategy is a huge advantage to DS in a team grudge game. Part of how FP eliminated the DS in earlier games was through tight economic play, where you starve out the DS in such a way that they cant efford to hire troops and name new characters. With the banker strategy the Economy aspect is put completely out of the eqation, which has a lot of effect which mostly benefit DS:
Unlimited armies and recruitment
Unlimited naming of characters (of course up to turn limit)
Unlimited pop upgrades
No need for thefts, meaning that all agents can consentrate on character war
Other stuff related to economy
True that initially (turn 1-6) FP take advantage of the high prices just as much as DS, because this lets FP recruit unlimited as well with nations like Eot, Sinda and Cardolan.
However, in the long run, DS benefith greatly from banker economy. This is because it will let them build up an economic and military base quickly, which can match the FP and then the game will be determined by character war where DS have a huge advantage initially. So in my view in a game where two equal matched teams play each other, FP have one chance to win with the banker economy, and that is a quick effective military campagn. If that fails, they might as well throw in the towels righ away….
I agree 100% to the two posts above. There is the limiting factor of the maximum market sells, which usually does not exceed 25 k in the first turns, which means that nations running a higher deficit than that still need support. But the DS can play a totally different style when they don’t have to worry about money as a team.
Imagine the two DS emmy arties being handed around in mordor. Soon, the FP will face lots of cities and be outrecruited in no time - just one example what can be done.
Clint I really can’t understand how you can be so indifferent to this. Set up three test games, try it and publish the results, if you are confident… somehow I suspect that your reluctance might be related to the fact that changing the code to mend this would be not trivial at all…
Well, I see another solution: “1650 grudge game, 12 vs 12, forts on 1910 and 4217, no banker nation exploit allowed”
Without delving too deeply from my Southern Gondor pdf’s, I easily sold 31,000 on turn 1 and also again on turn 4 (even though I ran into Market limits, I still got 30,000).
I suspect the dips in prices reflected more DS laziness and complacency than any self-adjusting market programming.
I ran a spreadsheet during the G16 PwR game tracking prices which I’ll send to anyone interested. I crunched loads of numbers, but the single biggest determinent on prices was how much gold was in the banker nation treasury.
I also have the GSI 1650 and 2950 win % numbers. Bobbins site had all this but when I relinquished control, MEPBM cut swathes out of it and you only get the bastardised version at the moment. [Most of what was cut was pointless waffle though so I don’t blame them]. I’ll see if I can post the page on my (unused) webspace and post the link later. GSI data showed DS winning 2/3rds time though if memory serves. 2950 was more balanced. Curious that under MEPBM the results are reversed!
One day I plan on doing an updated Bobbins site now that I’ve had 5 years more experience of the game. One day…
I think Clints numbers are accurate… Mainly becuase i have always seen FP having the advantage. That is why I started playing DS to begin with…
While the advantages of market strategy are effective… I state it’s clearly a bandaid for players who are clueless on effective economics where resources are not sold but used to equipe troops better than the oppositions giving whoever having equiped troops a significant advantage no matter the side.
Selling resources for 30k natsells means your sending out 10 trained HI armed with sticks naked… This also means every turn your natselling to keep from going bankrupt … becuase these same nations are running 20-30K deficits per turn… This is also why so many 1650 players fail so miserably in 1000 … Bank rolling your team does not work against nations who broaden their tax base in recruiting base.
I began playing this game back in time of paper turns also… watch and listened to every so called unbeatable strategy… But in every case whether the teams wins or loses… Is soley dependent on good teamwork and a through understanding of how to grow your economy… Finally and lastly who writes the most Skill orders to impliment those strategy’s. So if the DS team is natselling for 30k all their bronze and Steel and I am arming my HI and HC in the very steel and bronze they are selling as a FP I would soon be in Mordor…
I actually agree with you if you are talking grudge but otherwise I think most people won’t. The general line of thought is you have more options as DS and in the past this used to draw the more experienced players. Toss in that most newbies are drawn to the freep nations (and they don’t know what they are getting into or how to play them effectively) and this goes a long way to explaining the old 2/3 DS 1650 wins under GSI.
But each game mode is also different and in 1650 I would have to disagree with you on your comments about 30k nat sells - it’s all about the numbers and whoever brings the most knives to the fight will usually win the 1650 battle, so give me the 10,000 naked HI, they will beat your 4000 HC in shiny steel/steel any day (I know I know bad example but you brought it up and when do you not see naked HI in 1650 I ask you?)
Actually I wasn’t sure what your point was Terry, I thought the reason we played 1650 was so we didn’t have to stuff around building too much of an economy first? Are you suggesting for example that the Eoth and NG should be naming emmies rather than having 30k deficits? I hope not!
I can’t agree with you Terry, as far as effectivity of selling resources VS equipping them is concerned. we all now that metal weapons increase troop strength so little that it can be omitted. we are talking about armor here.
in the data Brad has posted, you can see that the average sell price of bronze was 10. so, to verify your theory, you’d have to make the following calculation:
1000 hi equipped with br armor are the equivalent of 1300 “naked” troops
If you sell 1000 bronze, you gain 10000 gold which means you can field the additional 300 troops for 8 turns, which is a lot longer than most armies do survive. You can even finance 600 more troops for 4 turns, which would make it 1000 vs 1600 troops
so as long as gold still is a limiting factor towards maximum recruiting, I would always favor selling resources
Your correct your example is bad because the 4000 HC in st/st would win LOL. Either way niether side would have a significant force left… But even in your example the 10000 HI would cost 30k per turn to maintain vs 16k per turn for the 4000 HC…
In order to make the 4000 HC it requires steel, leather and mounts … With constant Natsells of some resource and food is impossible for DS to get a 30K natsell per turn. So they are most likely to natsell bronze steel and mithril. Now the likely hood of seeing vast numbers as in you example of 4000K HC is rare in 1650… troop equiped in steel uncommon before turn 10 for the very reason of those natsells… to utilize banker nation strategy…
My point is simple… Numbers on the last 5 years indicate balance in 1650… Even use of the Banker strategy does not show me that it erases the FP ability to wipe out DS nations in grudge or open games… Even new players can be brought up to speed quickly with the usergroups for teamplay something that was rare in pre MEPBM days if not non existant now it’s the rule… So stating that since the begining of 1650 DS have a 2/3 advantage in wins compared to what is actaully happening now. Is like saying A strategy guide written 5 years ago based on previous tactics used from expierence of the 5 years before that is useful in today’s game… so the numbers prior to MEPBM current data is both sides are equal it’s who plays best as a team and reponds to each games uniqueness problems that wins the game.
Hey Terry, some quick replies for what it is worth.
you need a new combat calculator but it still was a bad example. I didn’t do a good job but my point was battles are usually won by the numbers. I used to get annoyed by all the masses of naked troops running around but alot of realism gets checked at the door when you play ME. Anyway, I probably misunderstood you but it seemed liked you were advocating not recruiting naked HI in 1650 and I totally disagree with you there. Also running up 30k deficits when you are freep is part of the economic battle i.e. crashing the market.
I gave a quick rehash of the old arguments of why there was a 2/3 win ratio for the DS in the 1650 because you said (1) you have been playing this game since the old days and (2) you always believed the freep had the advantage. I simply said most people would disagree with you on that point. Yes I totally agree the last 5 years have changed for the reasons you mention. And whilst this helps both sides, it certainly has helped the freep more (as they now win 50% of the games). The other contributing factor is many more grudge games, a format where I think the freep do even better (and I was very surprised the numbers said the exact opposite!).
You still need good strategy to win games. The team does not even have to get on well for this to happen!
I think here in forum my particular views on economics will never be accepted… but those who play with me and my opponents may wonder How when I play a nation I can consistant pour out and support large numbers of HC in steel armor with bronze weapons. I have been asked questions like that from my opponents as well and my teamates often adopt the same strategy after seeing the military impact of my economic strategy that begins at turn 1.
I think some of my opponents in Gm 32 probably wonder this after they took 5 towns from my Easterlings and I sent wave after wave of 1000 HC 30/60 and crushed those unarmored HI until they equiped there’s… By then it was to Late…
What turn did the attacks on you start? I’m not trying to stir but how can you pour out HC either without going the emmy route (which for a lot of nations takes time) or without allied assistance?
Turn 10ish is usualy when you start seeing the HC come rolling out? I mean by that stage of the game, alot is possible. I still can’t see how the alot of nations can go without the naked HI beforehand and in the case of the freep, why they would (just smacks of the freep trying to play the character game from the onset, something in my experience is not the way to go but that is probably best said for another topic on this board).
Then again, I just love armies and not much else (as I am crap with the charcacters!). Of course, I am equally crap with the armies but if I had to pick one).
with Easties I did this from turn 4 on… I had 2 shipments from allies of Leather and Mounts… One was to hire and army of HC in OZ area equiped in Br/br… I receive no steel or br from anyone else… AS I stated earlier I 500 HC per turn from 4133 turn 4 on … turns 2 and 3 400 HC from 4228…
This sealed the Backdoor of Mordor in Gm 32 and eventaully lead to the conquering of all of Rhun to 3612… This isn’t a theory it works… But you must have a solid feel and plan economically for total economic independence… That also means don’t make characters ubtil you can affort them and constant increasing of tax base!
(I know I know bad example but you brought it up and when do you not see naked HI in 1650 I ask you?)