DGE wins/losses

Well, thank you Jeremy!

I've been one of the biggest, brashest, most annoying
"The game IS balanced"
and
"Show me the NUMBERS!"
idiot out there.

Well, I just myself spend some time perusing papers, and I chanced upon
an article from Whispers Dec95 that had the data for 146 GSI/DEFT games.
This is on Bobbin's site, "Articles 2". I was just coming home to send my
own crow-eating message and found your much better info! I suppose that
the article on Bobbin's site was the main source of all the "GSI data supports
the 2/3 victory too...I know, but don't know where it is..".

I also suppose that an apology to Laurence GT is due here. He mentioned that
the stats for the "American" games were on a web site that he had linked, and
I tore into him 'cause Bobbin's "Stats" page is the UK stuff. Well, the GSI stuff
WAS on a LGT linked page.....Sorry for my impatient and agressive moron-ness.

I will now definitely accept the "fact" that the Dark Servants have won 2/3 of
the games. Although, I will avail myself to a little curiosity: I intend on working
backwards through the mail you just sent to ascertain any chronological trends.

Bobbin's UK data shows a slew of DS victories at the start, then 50/50 after a
certain point. My thinking is that the ratio gets closer towards the present.
This being based on my own hunches, and the more recent "anecdotal" showing
of game ends, where I have personally seen more Free victories announced in
the last year than DS.

I am willing to own up to my doubts of the past. It has been adequately
demonstrated.

I am still (clinging to..??) in doubt regarding the degree of "unbalance" that exists
in our present game.

Having said that, I would love to see all the final results including the 2 fresh FP
victories that our recent Front Sheet announced. I would also like to see the line
where these agent "tweaks", and others, occured between games. There was a
skew in the results. The program was modified to address that skew. What has
happened since? That is the question. If you make a change today to address a
problem in the past, the results of the past do not make your experiment a failure.

If the recent results post-tweak show similar skewedness (?), then it's a safe bet
that changes can be further made, well in advance of a far-off future 2nd Edition.

Regards,

Brad G Brunet

···

__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com

greetings

Having been of one of the 'oh my god, another 40
emails to be deleted' brigade, I only took a passing
interest in this 'who won what, and when' theme.

I more interested in personal impressions than raw
data. I know that in different 2950 games i've played
free/dark and neutral. And playing DS was bloody hard.

Stories have come to me that the DS yanks in 2950
grudge games are brillant, and that 2950 grudge games
are expected to result in DS wins (of which I've no
personal experience as I'm unwilling to join a game
where I expect to lose). Stories of 6 DS grudge teams
waiting to play 1 FP grudge team only give me extra
reason to flee at the sound of 2950 grudge games
waiting to start.

Which leads to me asking the question 'when you do
record the win/loss ration, can you keep seperate
counts for 1650 grudge and normal games'.

my money is on free winning the majority of 1650
grudge games. And DS on winning the majority of 1650
normal games.

thanks
din

···

_____________________________________________________________________________
http://store.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Store
- The fastest, easiest way to open an online store.

I would like to weigh in on this discussion since I am a big advocate
of changes. I have placed in 2950 as the DS. It plays just like 1650
ds. When I placed as a Free 1650, Our 2 gondors and eothraim stayed in
until the end. One aspect that Jeremy's data stated was that no
Eothraim has ever placed. That is upseting that the best at start army
nation doesn't win. My one observation (humble opinion) is that for
the goods to win, the Eothraim and at least one gondor must remain
playing. If either of them drop (in the early part) the goods can pack
it in. Competent play by the evils will beat competent play by the
goods do to the weakness of the Eothraim. They are easy targets for
gold theft, their weak characters are easy to kill, and that cannot
protect everything. Once the Eothraim is defeated, it is easy to
isolate the Northman and go for the kill on them. The gondors don't
need to be beaten (in fact it is hard to do)just kept busy. With the
current ways in which gold theft occurs, both gondors can lose 30000
gold a turn from pop centers in there rear and not have any money to
ship to the pony boys. Again, making the kill on them easier. It is
hard to prevent this with good/average evil play.

The point that the data gives is that it is easier to win as DS. The
numbers confirm it. That is why there needs to be some change (aka 2nd
edition). A larger number of FP victories are from grudges (I been in
2 which won) because the goods can bring overhelming power to bear. In
a grudge, you don't need to worry if you trade some popcenters with
the DS as long as you are squeezing mordor. The Witch King is not a
factor, in the fight and the Cardolan and Arthedain can ship huge
amounts of money down south. All they need to do is spare with the WK
and maybe Rhudaur. If the fight is contained to the area between the 4
nations, the free's are winning up north. With the money shipments,
the southern allies can just keep recuriting and overwhelm mordor. If
the free play the grudge without worring about the personel losses (if
a few Eothraim mt are lost so what) the evils can't win.
--- In mepbmlist@y..., Din <din_oh tar@y...> wrote:

···

greetings

Having been of one of the 'oh my god, another 40
emails to be deleted' brigade, I only took a passing
interest in this 'who won what, and when' theme.

I more interested in personal impressions than raw
data. I know that in different 2950 games i've played
free/dark and neutral. And playing DS was bloody hard.

Stories have come to me that the DS yanks in 2950
grudge games are brillant, and that 2950 grudge games
are expected to result in DS wins (of which I've no
personal experience as I'm unwilling to join a game
where I expect to lose). Stories of 6 DS grudge teams
waiting to play 1 FP grudge team only give me extra
reason to flee at the sound of 2950 grudge games
waiting to start.

Which leads to me asking the question 'when you do
record the win/loss ration, can you keep seperate
counts for 1650 grudge and normal games'.

my money is on free winning the majority of 1650
grudge games. And DS on winning the majority of 1650
normal games.

thanks
din

_____________________________________________________________________________

http://store.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Store
- The fastest, easiest way to open an online store.

yeah, I see several of my games in the list, 141, 167, 220, 236, 251,
265, 283... (of those I was on the losing DS in 167, but on the
winning side of the others)

but what is troubling is we won't get GSI to cooperate and tell us
when they changed the rules...

and that has been my question re: the data
have the tweaks changed game balance?

this data set, while impressive doesn't tell us that because it
doesn't tell us when and which code changes were made...

--- In mepbmlist@y..., LBear <ditletang@c...> wrote:

Well, thank you Jeremy!

I've been one of the biggest, brashest, most annoying
"The game IS balanced"
and
"Show me the NUMBERS!"
idiot out there.

Well, I just myself spend some time perusing papers, and I chanced

upon

an article from Whispers Dec95 that had the data for 146 GSI/DEFT

games.

This is on Bobbin's site, "Articles 2". I was just coming home to

send my

own crow-eating message and found your much better info! I suppose

that

the article on Bobbin's site was the main source of all the "GSI

data supports

the 2/3 victory too...I know, but don't know where it is..".

I also suppose that an apology to Laurence GT is due here. He

mentioned that

the stats for the "American" games were on a web site that he had

linked, and

I tore into him 'cause Bobbin's "Stats" page is the UK stuff.

Well, the GSI stuff

WAS on a LGT linked page.....Sorry for my impatient and agressive

moron-ness.

I will now definitely accept the "fact" that the Dark Servants have

won 2/3 of

the games. Although, I will avail myself to a little curiosity: I

intend on working

backwards through the mail you just sent to ascertain any

chronological trends.

Bobbin's UK data shows a slew of DS victories at the start, then

50/50 after a

certain point. My thinking is that the ratio gets closer towards

the present.

This being based on my own hunches, and the more recent "anecdotal"

showing

of game ends, where I have personally seen more Free victories

announced in

the last year than DS.

I am willing to own up to my doubts of the past. It has been

adequately

demonstrated.

I am still (clinging to..??) in doubt regarding the degree

of "unbalance" that exists

in our present game.

Having said that, I would love to see all the final results

including the 2 fresh FP

victories that our recent Front Sheet announced. I would also like

to see the line

where these agent "tweaks", and others, occured between games.

There was a

skew in the results. The program was modified to address that

skew. What has

happened since? That is the question. If you make a change today

to address a

problem in the past, the results of the past do not make your

experiment a failure.

If the recent results post-tweak show similar skewedness (?), then

it's a safe bet

that changes can be further made, well in advance of a far-off

future 2nd Edition.

···

Regards,

Brad G Brunet

__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com

--- In mepbmlist@y..., lucasc68@y... wrote:

One aspect that Jeremy's data stated was that no
Eothraim has ever placed.

I said they hadn't come in first. But they
have placed 2nd and 3rd, though their total
record is the worst of any nation, just below
the Northmen.

Of course I don't have all the game results
so I don't mean the Eothraim have never
come in first; I'm only speaking of the
150+ games I have the info for.

That is upseting that the best at start

army

nation doesn't win. My one observation (humble opinion) is that for
the goods to win, the Eothraim and at least one gondor must remain
playing. If either of them drop (in the early part) the goods can

pack

it in.

The Eothraim starting position is that they are
in a fight for their lives. They can't spare
effort for nation buildup, it is all they can
do to keep the troops funnelling into Mordor
and replacing their assassinated characters.
If they win the fight, the FP have high hopes
of victory but the Eothraim won't benefit in
terms of VP's because they get no return on their
battles, at most a couple of DS popcenters that
they've captured. They develop no cadre of
emissaries nor good base of camps, so they can't
capitalize on their victories.

OTOH, they do get quite a run for their money,
excitement-wise.

As some interest has been expressed in when the "agent
tweaks" took place, I have begun to research my games to
determine when the "agent tweaks" took place. I have not
finished. So far, I have been through GSI ME-PBM 1650
Game 68 (my first game), which ran from January 22, 1993
to January 24, 1996. In that game, I found the following
reports of "tweaks" from GSI. Not all of them are agent
"tweaks" Since I went to the trouble of finding them, I
reckoned I would include all the "tweaks", in case anyone
cares. The changes for agent actions might not be those of
concern, but they were those reported in turn results
between the given dates. Other than my typing errors, the
messages are given verbatim. Anyone who cares to argue
with them needs to take the argument to GSI, not to me.

If future leisure gives me opportunity, I shall report on any
other old "tweaks" I find.

Steve Allen

GSI
ME-PBM 1650
Game 68
Turn 18 results
October 6, 1993

Order 948 now allows the character to issue the order in the
capital OR the origination hex of the transfer.

Success with Order 670 and 675 is now also a function of
the level of the target. Thus, citadels are more difficult to
sabotage than towers, and ports are harder to sabotage than
harbors. The overall order difficulty is still as listed in the
rules.

Several changes to mechanics were made to better balance
the various skill areas of the game. For example, emissary
actions will be more useful. The 500 order is slightly easier
and the 525 order now reports a measure of the loyalty of
the pop center, even if the order fails.

Additionally, the strength of agents was over-balancing the
delicate balance between the strengths of the various
nations/allegiances, and thus there have been some subtle
changes made to agent actions. For instance, guarding has
been slightly enhanced and guards are slightly more likely to
be injured rather than killed. Offensive agents actions will
generally have fewer missions that simply fail - more
injuries, capturings, and deaths instead. Also, scouting will
tend to be a bit more effective. Finally, the 690 order will
generally see less gold taken during successful attempts. All
of these changes are subtle, yet the combined effect should
put agent actions more in line with emissary, command, and
mage skill activities. The potential rewards are still there,
but the risk for those actions is now somewhat higher.

Finally, high-level characters now have an `extra' chance to
avoid dying in encounter combat. This helps protect the
critical characters from `chance death', although severe
injury is still likely and death can still happen, and retains the
balance of the nations longer into the game.

GSI
ME-PBM 1650
Game 68
Turn 33 results
May 4, 1994

Effective April 1, 1994, GSI made a number of changes to
ME-PBM game mechanics. We are sorry for the delay in
getting the word out about these changes. These changes
are summarized below.

1 ) The use of the 940 order, with regard to casting of the
Artifact Lore spells (412, 418, and 428), is slightly
modified. Chances of successfully casting the above listed
spells is now further modified by the level of the target
artifact. The casting rank is still modified by any artifact
bonus when determining if the spell is successfully cast.
Now, however, the artifact level will also be a determining
factor. Thus, where before a `net' casting rank of 100+
would have been a sure thing, now (depending upon the
artifact level) it might result in unsuccessful spell casting.
The bottom line is that the more powerful the artifact, the
harder it will be to cast one of these successfully. The only
exception is the One Ring - which may now be slightly
easier to find ...

2) Loyalty effects due to current tax rate are now slightly
more randomized. Whereas the changes in loyalty due to
current tax rated used to be (normally) a fixed amount, they
will now be randomized within a certain range - with the
average of the range being exactly what the fixed amount
was before. If, with a certain tax rate, you received a 1 point
loyalty increase, you may now get more or less than 1, with
the average remaining about a 1 point increase per turn.

3) New 7-hex maps will also be generated for any Major
Town/City located entirely off-map that has a high loyalty.
Only the map graphic will be generated - not any textual
reports. These new maps will begin appearing on turn 0.

4) New games will also see that a combat artifact has
already been put `in use' on turn 0. Also, special abilities
assigned to starting characters in new games will also see a
description of the special ability appear on turn0, just like in
a normal game.

--- In mepbmlist@y..., LBear <ditletang@c...> wrote:

Well, thank you Jeremy!

[ ... ]

  I would also like to see the line

where these agent "tweaks", and others, occured between games.

There was a

skew in the results. The program was modified to address that

skew. What has

happened since? That is the question. If you make a change today

to address a

problem in the past, the results of the past do not make your

experiment a failure.

If the recent results post-tweak show similar skewedness (?), then

it's a safe bet

that changes can be further made, well in advance of a far-off

future 2nd Edition.

···

Regards,

Brad G Brunet

__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com

I know the Palantir's were tweaked at Game 50 to make them more powerful,
but how I do not know...

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Jeffery A. Dobberpuhl" <webguys@l...> wrote:

I know the Palantir's were tweaked at Game 50 to make them more

powerful,

but how I do not know...

Hi Jeff.

Shouldn't you be spending more time thinking about which DS capital
we will take next in Game 106?

But, to answer your question, the palantir tweak enabled a palantir
scry of a capital to reveal the locations of other major towns and
cities owned by the target nation. I think its main significance was
to make it a bit easier to track down and finish off the last backup
capitals of die-hard nations that don't know when to quit. Like the
WW of 106, for example.

Best,

Mark

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Jeffery A. Dobberpuhl" <webguys@l...> wrote:
> I know the Palantir's were tweaked at Game 50 to make them more
powerful,
> but how I do not know...

Hi Jeff.

Shouldn't you be spending more time thinking about which DS capital
we will take next in Game 106?

Ha! You make me laugh... :slight_smile:

But, to answer your question, the palantir tweak enabled a palantir
scry of a capital to reveal the locations of other major towns and
cities owned by the target nation. I think its main significance was
to make it a bit easier to track down and finish off the last backup
capitals of die-hard nations that don't know when to quit. Like the
WW of 106, for example.

Or the Rangers, Noldo, Woodmen, Dwarves.... :wink:

Best,

Mark

Second Best,

Jeff

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Jeffery A. Dobberpuhl" <webguys@l...> wrote:

I know the Palantir's were tweaked at Game 50 to make them more

powerful,

but how I do not know...

as has been said, they help locate other potential capitals...

now in 1650, the free have quite a few of them, and I wonder, if
other free teams use them, or just the ones I've been on...

I do and encourage my team mates to to the same (both DS and FP).

Henning

···

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: ggiacoppe@aol.com [mailto:ggiacoppe@aol.com]
Sendt: 7. marts 2001 23:09
Til: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Emne: [mepbmlist] Re: DGE wins/losses

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Jeffery A. Dobberpuhl" <webguys@l...> wrote:
> I know the Palantir's were tweaked at Game 50 to make them more
powerful,
> but how I do not know...

as has been said, they help locate other potential capitals...

now in 1650, the free have quite a few of them, and I wonder, if
other free teams use them, or just the ones I've been on...

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/