ME 1650 2nd edition disbanding armies

mepbmlist
#1

Ok, show me the data that the DS win 2/3 of the games in 1650. What we
"believe" doesn't mean squat. This is something the Clint is "working on"
By the way, it is my "feeling" that the DS win the majority of games also.
But it that actually what happens? And is that team games, grudge games,
random games, or all games? And which nations win the most, and which
nations die the most?

    Provide that data and you have a good start on where problems are in game
balance, and where changes might need to be made to balance the game to the
point where player skill is what decides the game. Isn't that our objective
here? Or are some players trying to make Middle Earth an entirely new game,
or a game that resembles many other out on the market? I just want to tweak
the game balance so that every nation can win, all things being equal (yeah,
I know, they never are).

    Agents are too strong, a year ago I would have agreed with you. With the
changes made recently I am not so sure. But using the example of a single
commander leading a 5000 man army isn't a good one in my book. If you have
only 1 guy leading that big of an army, you deserve to be whacked. Agents
work both ways, once you get to about turn 6 or so. And maybe sooner, if the
Free are on the ball and are compitent players. There are remedies to
assassins, multiple commanders, swaping your commanders to prevent tracking,
not telegraphing your next move, guards, doubling, and several more we all
have up our sleeves.
    Disbands happen. Usually due to either poor play by the owner, good
player by the opponent, or an unsuccessful gamble. I agree, it may not be
totally realistic, but it is part of the game balance. This game was not
ever meant to be totally realistic, you want that, go play Squad Leader. I
don't see how you could change disbands without causing a ripple effecting
the balance throughout the game, or creating a completely new game.

    Another issue floating out there is scrapping MA, LC, LI and maybe AR.
Why? There are current uses for these types, not as many as there should be
I would agree. If everyone thinks this is such a major issue that it is a
game breaker (is it really?), then instead of scrapping them fix the basic
problem of even if they are armored and weaponed in ST, they are
substantially weaker than HI.
    The savings in turn cost was supposed to make them worthwhile. It
doesn't in most cases. So tweak their Troop Terrain Combat Performance
bonus, tweak the nation terrain combat modifiers, tweak the cost of units,
give them starting weapons or armor, there are ways to fix the issue. These
lighter troop types don't have to match the heavier troop types in power, but
having them 50% weaker (or so) than naked HI doesn't pass the smell test.

Mark Ferris

Message: 2

···

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 07:54:23 +0000
   From: "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: ME 1650 2nd edition disbanding armies

ferrismk@cs.com wrote

Forget changing the way armies disband if you lose a challenge. That is
part of the game balance. You have a choice to refuse, no one holds a gun

to

a commander's head and says step into the ring.

It's daft to say "that's part of game balance" and suggest that
therefore it can't be changed. It can be changed, you may have to reset
the balance, by doing something else.

However, many people believe that the game is ALREADY imbalanced. For
example, many would say that agents are too strong, and that the DS are
consequently too strong, winning 2/3rds of all games. Making it harder
to disband armies would redress the current imbalance, not necessarily
cause a new one.

The chief objection in terms of internal consistency btw is not when an
army is disbanded following lost challenge, but when an agent takes out
the commander, and 5000 men go home as a result.

So armies where the commander is challenged out, should take a morale
drop. Possibly armies where the commander has been assassinated should
take a morale drop. Any army with low morale should be subject to
desertions each turn. But armies should not disband on mass, just
because they have no senior officer. They should stay still, like
anchored ships, suffering from morale drops and consequent desertions,
waiting for a commander to arrive, and rally them.

This proposed change tips the balance slightly away from agents, and
towards the FP (because they start with big armies not the +20 ClL
bonus). It adds greatly to the internal consistency. It makes just a
very small addition to complexity (one new order Pick up Army, or Rally
Army).

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

#2

Hi there. I believe the poster was referring to the stats on Bobbins page.
You can find this at : http://www.middleearthpbm.co.uk/main/statisti.htm

Have fun.

···

-----Original Message-----
From: ferrismk@cs.com [mailto:ferrismk@cs.com]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 10:48 AM
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [mepbmlist] ME 1650 2nd edition disbanding armies

    Ok, show me the data that the DS win 2/3 of the games in 1650. What we
"believe" doesn't mean squat. This is something the Clint is "working on"
By the way, it is my "feeling" that the DS win the majority of games also.
But it that actually what happens? And is that team games, grudge games,
random games, or all games? And which nations win the most, and which
nations die the most?

    Provide that data and you have a good start on where problems are in
game
balance, and where changes might need to be made to balance the game to the
point where player skill is what decides the game. Isn't that our objective
here? Or are some players trying to make Middle Earth an entirely new game,
or a game that resembles many other out on the market? I just want to tweak
the game balance so that every nation can win, all things being equal (yeah,
I know, they never are).

    Agents are too strong, a year ago I would have agreed with you. With
the
changes made recently I am not so sure. But using the example of a single
commander leading a 5000 man army isn't a good one in my book. If you have
only 1 guy leading that big of an army, you deserve to be whacked. Agents
work both ways, once you get to about turn 6 or so. And maybe sooner, if
the
Free are on the ball and are compitent players. There are remedies to
assassins, multiple commanders, swaping your commanders to prevent tracking,
not telegraphing your next move, guards, doubling, and several more we all
have up our sleeves.
    Disbands happen. Usually due to either poor play by the owner, good
player by the opponent, or an unsuccessful gamble. I agree, it may not be
totally realistic, but it is part of the game balance. This game was not
ever meant to be totally realistic, you want that, go play Squad Leader. I
don't see how you could change disbands without causing a ripple effecting
the balance throughout the game, or creating a completely new game.

    Another issue floating out there is scrapping MA, LC, LI and maybe AR.
Why? There are current uses for these types, not as many as there should be
I would agree. If everyone thinks this is such a major issue that it is a
game breaker (is it really?), then instead of scrapping them fix the basic
problem of even if they are armored and weaponed in ST, they are
substantially weaker than HI.
    The savings in turn cost was supposed to make them worthwhile. It
doesn't in most cases. So tweak their Troop Terrain Combat Performance
bonus, tweak the nation terrain combat modifiers, tweak the cost of units,
give them starting weapons or armor, there are ways to fix the issue. These
lighter troop types don't have to match the heavier troop types in power,
but
having them 50% weaker (or so) than naked HI doesn't pass the smell test.

Mark Ferris

Message: 2
   Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 07:54:23 +0000
   From: "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: ME 1650 2nd edition disbanding armies

ferrismk@cs.com wrote

Forget changing the way armies disband if you lose a challenge. That is
part of the game balance. You have a choice to refuse, no one holds a gun

to

a commander's head and says step into the ring.

It's daft to say "that's part of game balance" and suggest that
therefore it can't be changed. It can be changed, you may have to reset
the balance, by doing something else.

However, many people believe that the game is ALREADY imbalanced. For
example, many would say that agents are too strong, and that the DS are
consequently too strong, winning 2/3rds of all games. Making it harder
to disband armies would redress the current imbalance, not necessarily
cause a new one.

The chief objection in terms of internal consistency btw is not when an
army is disbanded following lost challenge, but when an agent takes out
the commander, and 5000 men go home as a result.

So armies where the commander is challenged out, should take a morale
drop. Possibly armies where the commander has been assassinated should
take a morale drop. Any army with low morale should be subject to
desertions each turn. But armies should not disband on mass, just
because they have no senior officer. They should stay still, like
anchored ships, suffering from morale drops and consequent desertions,
waiting for a commander to arrive, and rally them.

This proposed change tips the balance slightly away from agents, and
towards the FP (because they start with big armies not the +20 ClL
bonus). It adds greatly to the internal consistency. It makes just a
very small addition to complexity (one new order Pick up Army, or Rally
Army).

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

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/

#3

the data set is hopelessly small - the first 27 games finished in the
UK

and read the last thing bobbins wrote:

"5) The Cloud Lord tops the list on nearly all the games for the most
kills. For all those who thought it was impossible to win an agent
war, take a look at game 102. The Cloud Lord killed a staggering 81
free characters but the Free still won!"

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Philip Tripp" <philip.tripp@p...> wrote:

Hi there. I believe the poster was referring to the stats on

Bobbins page.

You can find this at :

http://www.middleearthpbm.co.uk/main/statisti.htm

Have fun.

From: ferrismk@c… [mailto:ferrismk@c…]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 10:48 AM
To: mepbmlist@y…
Subject: [mepbmlist] ME 1650 2nd edition disbanding armies

    Ok, show me the data that the DS win 2/3 of the games in 1650.

What we

"believe" doesn't mean squat. This is something the Clint

is "working on"

By the way, it is my "feeling" that the DS win the majority of

games also.

But it that actually what happens? And is that team games, grudge

games,

random games, or all games? And which nations win the most, and

which

nations die the most?

    Provide that data and you have a good start on where problems

are in

game
balance, and where changes might need to be made to balance the

game to the

point where player skill is what decides the game. Isn't that our

objective

here? Or are some players trying to make Middle Earth an entirely

new game,

or a game that resembles many other out on the market? I just want

to tweak

the game balance so that every nation can win, all things being

equal (yeah,

I know, they never are).

    Agents are too strong, a year ago I would have agreed with

you. With

the
changes made recently I am not so sure. But using the example of a

single

commander leading a 5000 man army isn't a good one in my book. If

you have

only 1 guy leading that big of an army, you deserve to be

whacked. Agents

work both ways, once you get to about turn 6 or so. And maybe

sooner, if

the
Free are on the ball and are compitent players. There are remedies

to

assassins, multiple commanders, swaping your commanders to prevent

tracking,

not telegraphing your next move, guards, doubling, and several more

we all

have up our sleeves.
    Disbands happen. Usually due to either poor play by the owner,

good

player by the opponent, or an unsuccessful gamble. I agree, it may

not be

totally realistic, but it is part of the game balance. This game

was not

ever meant to be totally realistic, you want that, go play Squad

Leader. I

don't see how you could change disbands without causing a ripple

effecting

the balance throughout the game, or creating a completely new game.

    Another issue floating out there is scrapping MA, LC, LI and

maybe AR.

Why? There are current uses for these types, not as many as there

should be

I would agree. If everyone thinks this is such a major issue that

it is a

game breaker (is it really?), then instead of scrapping them fix

the basic

problem of even if they are armored and weaponed in ST, they are
substantially weaker than HI.
    The savings in turn cost was supposed to make them worthwhile.

It

doesn't in most cases. So tweak their Troop Terrain Combat

Performance

bonus, tweak the nation terrain combat modifiers, tweak the cost of

units,

give them starting weapons or armor, there are ways to fix the

issue. These

lighter troop types don't have to match the heavier troop types in

power,

but
having them 50% weaker (or so) than naked HI doesn't pass the smell

test.

Mark Ferris

Message: 2
   Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 07:54:23 +0000
   From: "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@l...>
Subject: ME 1650 2nd edition disbanding armies

ferrismk@c... wrote
>Forget changing the way armies disband if you lose a challenge.

That is

>part of the game balance. You have a choice to refuse, no one

holds a gun

to
>a commander's head and says step into the ring.
It's daft to say "that's part of game balance" and suggest that
therefore it can't be changed. It can be changed, you may have to

reset

the balance, by doing something else.

However, many people believe that the game is ALREADY imbalanced.

For

example, many would say that agents are too strong, and that the DS

are

consequently too strong, winning 2/3rds of all games. Making it

harder

to disband armies would redress the current imbalance, not

necessarily

cause a new one.

The chief objection in terms of internal consistency btw is not

when an

army is disbanded following lost challenge, but when an agent takes

out

the commander, and 5000 men go home as a result.

So armies where the commander is challenged out, should take a

morale

drop. Possibly armies where the commander has been assassinated

should

take a morale drop. Any army with low morale should be subject to
desertions each turn. But armies should not disband on mass, just
because they have no senior officer. They should stay still, like
anchored ships, suffering from morale drops and consequent

desertions,

waiting for a commander to arrive, and rally them.

This proposed change tips the balance slightly away from agents, and
towards the FP (because they start with big armies not the +20 ClL
bonus). It adds greatly to the internal consistency. It makes

just a

very small addition to complexity (one new order Pick up Army, or

Rally

Army).

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

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/

···

-----Original Message-----

#4

ferrismk@cs.com wrote

   Ok, show me the data that the DS win 2/3 of the games in 1650. What we
"believe" doesn't mean squat. This is something the Clint is "working on"

He's working on a full, up to date collection of the data, I believe,
but it has already been collected for US games up to a certain date, and
represents a fairly good sample. One of the guys has the full data on
his web site, and that's where the 2/3rds figure comes from. I don't
have the inclination to go searching for it for you, but it is there.
I've linked to them all from my site (link below) if you're interested.

   Provide that data and you have a good start on where problems are in game
balance, and where changes might need to be made to balance the game to the
point where player skill is what decides the game. Isn't that our objective
here? Or are some players trying to make Middle Earth an entirely new game,
or a game that resembles many other out on the market? I just want to tweak
the game balance so that every nation can win, all things being equal (yeah,
I know, they never are).

Yes, you see, we have totally different objectives. Your first
principle is based on the desire for individual victories. If you want
individual victories, then MEPBM (in its current form) is the worst
possible game you could ever want to play. The nations start with
vastly different strengths, and when the FP win, Noldo get "1st Place"
about nine times out of ten I think (again the stats are in the same
place as the above).

You'd do better off playing Ludo. In that it's 4 counters each, and you
have a fair chance whether you're blue, red, yellow or green!

For me you see, the game is a team game, and the very first thing I'd
drop is the VCs, the VPs and the placing arrangements. The allies won
WWI and America came out as an economic superpower, in 1st place. So
what? Was anyone surprised? Do you have a game where all the nations
have an equal chance of individual victory, or do you have a believable
world, in which there are big nations and small nations, which have to
band together in order to bring about an allied victory. I much prefer
the latter.

I think taking the VCs, VPs and placings out of the game is the best
single change which could be made, though I'll concede that it might
take something out of the game for newbies, and those chaps who hoarded
their "GWCs" so avidly to "show Mom" as some brilliantly retorted (I'm
still sniggering about this one, months later).

Actually, I do think certificates are a good idea, or would be if they
were done well - I think it would be pleasant to have a momento of a
well fought game. Just stop a moment to think about what we pay
Harlequin for a long game 3.90 x 40 turns = 156 UKP. (Wow!) For that,
I think they should be able to stick their hands in their pockets at the
end, and produce a nice bit of embossed A5 cardboard. I'd like it to
show: Game number; game type; nations played by which player with names
spelt correctly; start and end date; which allegiance won. I know
there'd be details to work out.

There was also a long discussion (before the Deft take-over) of a player
rating system. Basically, the suggestion was to replace placings, by a
right to vote at the end of the game for: best player, 2nd best etc. on
your own team, and on the opposition team. Tot up the points, and list
everyone's scores on the web.

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

#5

To be fair, at the time I did those stats (March 2000), these 27 games were
the only 1650 scenario games that had finished. I didn't have access to
the GSI/DEFT data. (Although I'm aware that the '2/3 win for the DS' rule
is supposed to hold true for the USA games).

Now that Harlequin have access to all the GSI records, Clint is letting me
update the page to include all previous games (2950 and FA as well).

This might take a while but I'll post on here when it's done.

Kev

···

At 02:22 03/03/01 -0000, you wrote:

the data set is hopelessly small - the first 27 games finished in the
UK

and read the last thing bobbins wrote:

"5) The Cloud Lord tops the list on nearly all the games for the most
kills. For all those who thought it was impossible to win an agent
war, take a look at game 102. The Cloud Lord killed a staggering 81
free characters but the Free still won!"

#6

I won't get into (another) pissing match on winners certificates, but
there is something about victory conditions that could prove useful
regardless of whether you get benefits for "individual" wins.

Use the individual victory conditions to give newer players a clue
about what the positions are supposed to achieve and reward team
behavior.

e.g.
Noldo victory conditions could include
Ship 100,000 more gold to alliance members than received from them
before turn 20;
kill 10 or more characters (e.g. hint - run an agent nation)

Dwarf victory conditions could include
4013 not captured by any dark servant nation before turn 15

Ice King might include
Steal 100,000 or more gold from free people population centers before
turn 20

Dog Lord/N Gondor might have
Defeat 10 or more enemy armies in battle before turn 20

For Southern Gondor
Osgilath not captured by any dark servant nation before turn 10

and so on. You can play your nations as you like, but the individual
VCs indicate the things that it is usually important for your nation
to do. In such a system, I'd only award individual VCs to neutral who
declare before, say, turn 12 and have two separate lists for each
alliance they join. The weaker positions would naturally have easier
victory conditions - in effect, a built-in handicap. I'd also make
scores relative to the historical record for individual nations and
give some bonus to the three players who did the best job relative to
their position (in other words, you have to run the board for
individual honors as the Corsairs, but even a respectable showing as
the Woodmen or Dragon Lord can put you on the top of the heap.)

And, yes, the winning members of a team should get something nifty as
a group too.

In the event that anyone is interested, I've cooked up a list somewhat
like this for 2950. It might be interesting to see if folks can agree
on the "important" things that team members should do.

I wish I'd had some sort of clues about what the various nations
should do well in the first few games I did.

cheers,

Marc Pinsonneault

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@l...> wrote:

ferrismk@c... wrote
> Ok, show me the data that the DS win 2/3 of the games in 1650.

What we

>"believe" doesn't mean squat. This is something the Clint is

"working on"

He's working on a full, up to date collection of the data, I

believe,

but it has already been collected for US games up to a certain date,

and

represents a fairly good sample. One of the guys has the full data

on

his web site, and that's where the 2/3rds figure comes from. I

don't

have the inclination to go searching for it for you, but it is

there.

I've linked to them all from my site (link below) if you're

interested.

>
> Provide that data and you have a good start on where problems

are in game

>balance, and where changes might need to be made to balance the

game to the

>point where player skill is what decides the game. Isn't that our

objective

>here? Or are some players trying to make Middle Earth an entirely

new game,

>or a game that resembles many other out on the market? I just want

to tweak

>the game balance so that every nation can win, all things being

equal (yeah,

>I know, they never are).
Yes, you see, we have totally different objectives. Your first
principle is based on the desire for individual victories. If you

want

individual victories, then MEPBM (in its current form) is the worst
possible game you could ever want to play. The nations start with
vastly different strengths, and when the FP win, Noldo get "1st

Place"

about nine times out of ten I think (again the stats are in the same
place as the above).

You'd do better off playing Ludo. In that it's 4 counters each, and

you

have a fair chance whether you're blue, red, yellow or green!

For me you see, the game is a team game, and the very first thing

I'd

drop is the VCs, the VPs and the placing arrangements. The allies

won

WWI and America came out as an economic superpower, in 1st place.

So

what? Was anyone surprised? Do you have a game where all the

nations

have an equal chance of individual victory, or do you have a

believable

world, in which there are big nations and small nations, which have

to

band together in order to bring about an allied victory. I much

prefer

the latter.

I think taking the VCs, VPs and placings out of the game is the best
single change which could be made, though I'll concede that it might
take something out of the game for newbies, and those chaps who

hoarded

their "GWCs" so avidly to "show Mom" as some brilliantly retorted

(I'm

still sniggering about this one, months later).

Actually, I do think certificates are a good idea, or would be if

they

were done well - I think it would be pleasant to have a momento of a
well fought game. Just stop a moment to think about what we pay
Harlequin for a long game 3.90 x 40 turns = 156 UKP. (Wow!) For

that,

I think they should be able to stick their hands in their pockets at

the

end, and produce a nice bit of embossed A5 cardboard. I'd like it

to

show: Game number; game type; nations played by which player with

names

spelt correctly; start and end date; which allegiance won. I know
there'd be details to work out.

There was also a long discussion (before the Deft take-over) of a

player

rating system. Basically, the suggestion was to replace placings,

by a

right to vote at the end of the game for: best player, 2nd best etc.

on

your own team, and on the opposition team. Tot up the points, and

list

···

everyone's scores on the web.

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

#7

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@l...> wrote:

ferrismk@c... wrote
> Ok, show me the data that the DS win 2/3 of the games in

1650. What we

>"believe" doesn't mean squat. This is something the Clint

is "working on"

He's working on a full, up to date collection of the data, I

believe,

but it has already been collected for US games up to a certain

date, and

represents a fairly good sample. One of the guys has the full data

on

his web site, and that's where the 2/3rds figure comes from. I

don't

have the inclination to go searching for it for you, but it is

there.

I've linked to them all from my site (link below) if you're

interested.

As I have said before, I'll wait for the full data packet from Clint.
I'd rather get as many data points as I can before I go jumping of
the Cliffs of Change.

>
> Provide that data and you have a good start on where problems

are in game

>balance, and where changes might need to be made to balance the

game to the

>point where player skill is what decides the game. Isn't that our

objective

>here? Or are some players trying to make Middle Earth an entirely

new game,

>or a game that resembles many other out on the market? I just

want to tweak

>the game balance so that every nation can win, all things being

equal (yeah,

>I know, they never are).
Yes, you see, we have totally different objectives. Your first
principle is based on the desire for individual victories. If you

want

individual victories, then MEPBM (in its current form) is the worst
possible game you could ever want to play. The nations start with
vastly different strengths, and when the FP win, Noldo get "1st

Place"

about nine times out of ten I think (again the stats are in the same
place as the above).

You'd do better off playing Ludo. In that it's 4 counters each,

and you

have a fair chance whether you're blue, red, yellow or green!

Nice cheap shot! Is that what you resort to when you aren't sure
your argument will stand up?

Hate to correct your assumption, but if you had read my postings, you
would have read that I believe that ME IS a team game. How did you
get from my stating I wanted to tweak the game to make the positions
more balanced and fair, to my objective was individual wins? Under
DGE, there was a reason to worry about individual wins, you got a
free set up and position choice. Now there really isn't, other than
bragging rights. But what part of the team wants to be stuck with a
losing proposition like the Northmen?

For me you see, the game is a team game, and the very first thing

I'd

drop is the VCs, the VPs and the placing arrangements. The allies

won

WWI and America came out as an economic superpower, in 1st place.

So

what? Was anyone surprised? Do you have a game where all the

nations

have an equal chance of individual victory, or do you have a

believable

world, in which there are big nations and small nations, which have

to

band together in order to bring about an allied victory. I much

prefer

the latter.

Ok, I hope your teammates let you play the Northmen, Woodmen, QA, etc
from now on.

I think taking the VCs, VPs and placings out of the game is the best
single change which could be made, though I'll concede that it might
take something out of the game for newbies, and those chaps who

hoarded

their "GWCs" so avidly to "show Mom" as some brilliantly retorted

(I'm

still sniggering about this one, months later).

Actually, I do think certificates are a good idea, or would be if

they

were done well - I think it would be pleasant to have a momento of a
well fought game. Just stop a moment to think about what we pay
Harlequin for a long game 3.90 x 40 turns = 156 UKP. (Wow!) For

that,

I think they should be able to stick their hands in their pockets

at the

end, and produce a nice bit of embossed A5 cardboard. I'd like it

to

show: Game number; game type; nations played by which player with

names

spelt correctly; start and end date; which allegiance won. I know
there'd be details to work out.

My personal opinion is that IF the game is balanced to where any
nation has a true chance of victory, depending on game play and how
the breaks fall, then the winner should get his choice of the next
avaiable set up position he wished. Under the old DGE system, it was
a rotating cycle, the Noldo win, they get a cert, they pick the CL,
and so on. That had become a self-fulfilling cycle.

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

Mark Ferris

#8

Kev,
Would you please look at the following data:
Which side won?
Who finished in the top three?
What kind of game was it, team, grudge, or solo (if you can get this
info)

Would also love to see the inactive nations, but I don't kow how
extensive your data is.

And let us know how many games in each category you had for data
points.

Thank you for doing this for all of us.

Mark Ferris

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Kevin <kevin@b...> wrote:

>the data set is hopelessly small - the first 27 games finished in

the

>UK
>
>and read the last thing bobbins wrote:
>
>"5) The Cloud Lord tops the list on nearly all the games for the

most

>kills. For all those who thought it was impossible to win an

agent

>war, take a look at game 102. The Cloud Lord killed a staggering

81

>free characters but the Free still won!"
>

To be fair, at the time I did those stats (March 2000), these 27

games were

the only 1650 scenario games that had finished. I didn't have

access to

the GSI/DEFT data. (Although I'm aware that the '2/3 win for the

DS' rule

is supposed to hold true for the USA games).

Now that Harlequin have access to all the GSI records, Clint is

letting me

update the page to include all previous games (2950 and FA as

well).

···

At 02:22 03/03/01 -0000, you wrote:

This might take a while but I'll post on here when it's done.

Kev

#9

ferrismk@cs.com wrote

You'd do better off playing Ludo. In that it's 4 counters each,

and you

have a fair chance whether you're blue, red, yellow or green!

Nice cheap shot! Is that what you resort to when you aren't sure
your argument will stand up?

Deary me, we do have some folk who get their knickers in a twist rather
easily. It's not a cheap shot, and I did not mean _you_ personally. So
let me rephrase:

"One might as well play Ludo..." etc. The point being, quite simply (
which is why I used what I thought was a simple example) games are only
_fair_to_each_player_ when each player has an equal starting position.
MEPBM is not an equal start game, it's a team game, with different
players playing different rolls. So the whole business of VPs and
individual positions is inappropriate.

This is close to what you say in your response mail, but not where the
original thread was going, which was roughly "we need to adjust the
nations so that Woo, Nor etc. 'get placed' more often'.

Please don't take offence where none was intended.

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

#10

The updated list of FPvs DS wins (and no we don't have the DGE list nor can
we get it) will be up within the next two weeks.

Thanks

Clint

the data set is hopelessly small - the first 27 games finished in the
UK

** actually since Harlequin took over the games.

#11

Actually, I do think certificates are a good idea, or would be if they
were done well - I think it would be pleasant to have a momento of a
well fought game. Just stop a moment to think about what we pay
Harlequin for a long game 3.90 x 40 turns = 156 UKP.

Most 1650 games last about a year. 2950 twice that. Set-up reduces it a
bit in price. We're working on this as well.. :slight_smile:

There was also a long discussion (before the Deft take-over) of a player
rating system. Basically, the suggestion was to replace placings, by a
right to vote at the end of the game for: best player, 2nd best etc. on
your own team, and on the opposition team. Tot up the points, and list
everyone's scores on the web.

I could send out a sheet at the end of the game with a points/voting system
for this if players thought it worthwhile to get another winner?

Clint

#12

From me and Ben Shushan trading info...
2950, all DGE (haven't looked up the top three on the games where my
team lost); 87 and 109 were standby positions for me)
#81 dark normal (from Ben)
#84 free normal (from Ben)
#85 tie game, corrupted data file, turn 30
#87 free normal
#88 dark normal t31 Dragon Lord 2133, Dog Lord 2050, Cloud Lord 1900
#94 dark normal (from Ben)
#96 free grudge (from Ben)
#97 dark grudge (final pdfs on another computer)
#99 dark grudge t26
#100 free normal t24 SG 1850, Dwarves 1467, Northmen 1450
#101 dark grudge t26 Dog Lord 1709, Ice King 1700, Cloud Lord 1608
#108 dark normal t25
#109 dark normal t17
So it is 8-4 dark in the DGE ones I have stats for in 2950.
Mind you, team coordination and quality does seem to be the #1
predictor; as a result of these discussions I think that the
attraction of the dark positions to players who are stronger than
average is probably the imbalancer if the final stats follow the above
trend.

I can add top 3 etc. when I dig up the result sheets for 87, 99, 108.
109 was the first game ended after the switch.

cheers,

Marc

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Middle Earth PBM Games" <me@M...> wrote:

The updated list of FPvs DS wins (and no we don't have the DGE list

nor can

we get it) will be up within the next two weeks.

Thanks

Clint

> the data set is hopelessly small - the first 27 games finished in

the

···

> UK
** actually since Harlequin took over the games.

#13

I looked up announcements on the old GSI and DGE boards, and you can
add the following 2950 games...
dark wins 83, 92 (top three Dark Lt, IK, WW), 95 (turn 20), 102, 103,
110 (turn 5 collapsed grudge)
free win 93 (one ring)
This leaves 82, 86, 89, 90, 91, 98, 104, 106, 107, 111, 112
unaccounted for; 105 and 113 are ongoing.
So the running total is 14 dark - 5 free in the past two years, with
11 either ongoing or unknown.

Marc

--- In mepbmlist@y..., pinsonneault.1@o... wrote:

From me and Ben Shushan trading info...
2950, all DGE (haven't looked up the top three on the games where my
team lost); 87 and 109 were standby positions for me)
#81 dark normal (from Ben)
#84 free normal (from Ben)
#85 tie game, corrupted data file, turn 30
#87 free normal
#88 dark normal t31 Dragon Lord 2133, Dog Lord 2050, Cloud Lord 1900
#94 dark normal (from Ben)
#96 free grudge (from Ben)
#97 dark grudge (final pdfs on another computer)
#99 dark grudge t26
#100 free normal t24 SG 1850, Dwarves 1467, Northmen 1450
#101 dark grudge t26 Dog Lord 1709, Ice King 1700, Cloud Lord 1608
#108 dark normal t25
#109 dark normal t17
So it is 8-4 dark in the DGE ones I have stats for in 2950.
Mind you, team coordination and quality does seem to be the #1
predictor; as a result of these discussions I think that the
attraction of the dark positions to players who are stronger than
average is probably the imbalancer if the final stats follow the

above

trend.

I can add top 3 etc. when I dig up the result sheets for 87, 99,

108.

109 was the first game ended after the switch.

cheers,

Marc

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Middle Earth PBM Games" <me@M...> wrote:
> The updated list of FPvs DS wins (and no we don't have the DGE

list

nor can
> we get it) will be up within the next two weeks.
>
> Thanks
>
> Clint
>
> > the data set is hopelessly small - the first 27 games finished

in

···

the
> > UK
> ** actually since Harlequin took over the games.

#14

Mind you, team coordination and quality does seem to be the #1
predictor; as a result of these discussions I think that the
attraction of the dark positions to players who are stronger than
average is probably the imbalancer if the final stats follow the above
trend.

Generally getting turns in I find to be the obvious one but biggest one.
Then team-work, then skill of play.

I can add top 3 etc. when I dig up the result sheets for 87, 99, 108.
109 was the first game ended after the switch.

Thanks

Clint

#15

Another factor for DS wins can be that the possitions often attracts veteran
players.

Henning

···

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Middle Earth PBM Games [mailto:me@MiddleEarthGames.com]
Sendt: 5. marts 2001 08:35
Til: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Emne: Re: [mepbmlist] DGE wins/losses

> Mind you, team coordination and quality does seem to be the #1
> predictor; as a result of these discussions I think that the
> attraction of the dark positions to players who are stronger than
> average is probably the imbalancer if the final stats follow the above
> trend.

Generally getting turns in I find to be the obvious one but biggest one.
Then team-work, then skill of play.
>
> I can add top 3 etc. when I dig up the result sheets for 87, 99, 108.
> 109 was the first game ended after the switch.
>
Thanks

Clint

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/

#16

Game 106 is still going strong, at least from the DARK SERVANT perspective.
The Free Peoples, while putting up an "eh" offense, seem to be stumbling
around aimlessly looking for a way to even damage our formidable defenses or
blunt our relentless offense!

Actually, 106 is a hoot to play and our Free Peoples adversaries are doing a
great job at keeping this interesting (Thumbs up to Mark Jaede and his
crew). We just had a HUGE mixup where dead bodies on both sides (You have to
hate and love hex 3221) kept piling up. We expect to see more of this
agressive meat grinder happening for both sides in the turns to come!

Jeff the Witch King, formerly the Dragon Lord

···

I looked up announcements on the old GSI and DGE boards, and you can
add the following 2950 games... (snip)
This leaves (snip), 106, (snip) unaccounted for;

#17

Same for game 105 - turn 30 and a battle royale. There are still 19
active nations! In a role reversal, the mighty dark armies are
suffering at the hands of deadly free agent squads.

cheers,

Marc

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Jeff" <webguys@l...> wrote:

Game 106 is still going strong, at least from the DARK SERVANT

perspective.

The Free Peoples, while putting up an "eh" offense, seem to be

stumbling

around aimlessly looking for a way to even damage our formidable

defenses or

blunt our relentless offense!

Actually, 106 is a hoot to play and our Free Peoples adversaries are

doing a

great job at keeping this interesting (Thumbs up to Mark Jaede and

his

crew). We just had a HUGE mixup where dead bodies on both sides (You

have to

hate and love hex 3221) kept piling up. We expect to see more of

this

agressive meat grinder happening for both sides in the turns to

come!

Jeff the Witch King, formerly the Dragon Lord

> I looked up announcements on the old GSI and DGE boards, and you

can

···

> add the following 2950 games... (snip)
> This leaves (snip), 106, (snip) unaccounted for;

#18

Hi all,

I got the following data (scroll down a couple pages past
this intro blurb) on GSI/DGE 1650 games by reading through
my old copies of Whispers of the Wood, the Hall of Hero's
section that listed winners. The data just includes the
winning side and top 3 placements, so I can't fill in the
last turn # or whether it was a grudge game or not.

After the list of 150+ games there are two summaries
of the data, FP vs. DS wins and a list by nation of
the # of placements (1st +2nd + 3rd), you have to
scroll almost all the way down to see it.

BTW I typed the data into an XML document, a form I can
programmatically manipulate (I'm a software engineer),
so I could just as easily produce an HTML document with
a table as this text format.

Notice that game 150 ended without a winner! I don't
know how this happened but I can only guess that both
sides dropped simultaneously, possibly by prearrangement
by weary parties. But if that was the case, why did
the Hall of Heroes say there was no 1st 2nd or 3rd place
finishers? I guess it will remain a mystery.

Jeremy Richman

RESULTS FOR 1650 ME

GAME# Free/Dark 1st-place 2nd-place 3rd-place
2 free Dwarves Arthedain Noldo
3 dark Fire King Long Rider Haradwaith
4 free Haradwaith Noldo none
5 free Woodmen Dark Lieutenants Dwarves
6 free Northmen Noldo Eothraim
7 dark Long Rider Dog Lord Dark
Lieutenants
8 dark Cloud Lord Dark Lieutenants Corsairs
9 dark Dark Lieutenants Cloud Lord Noldo
10 free Easterlings Dwarves Sinda
11 free Sinda Long Rider Cloud Lord
12 free Dunlendings Noldo Arthedain
13 dark Dark Lieutenants Quiet Avenger Ice King
14 free South Gondor Dwarves Noldo
15 free Noldo Long Rider Cloud Lord
16 free Noldo Arthedain Dog Lord
17 dark Fire King none none
18 free Cardolan Noldo Arthedain
19 free Noldo Haradwaith Dwarves
20 dark Blind Sorcerer Witch-King Dog Lord
21 free North Gondor South Gondor Rhudaur
22 dark Corsairs Haradwaith Cloud Lord
23 dark Easterlings Cloud Lord Blind Sorcerer
24 free South Gondor Corsairs Dunlendings
25 dark Witch-King Corsairs Long Rider
26 free Woodmen Noldo Arthedain
27 free Haradwaith Arthedain Dunlendings
28 dark Fire King Easterlings none
29 dark Quiet Avenger Cloud Lord Sinda
30 dark Haradwaith Corsairs unknown
31 dark Dark Lieutenants Witch-King Fire King
32 dark Dark Lieutenants Fire King Cloud Lord
33 dark Dark Lieutenants Haradwaith Cloud Lord
34 dark Long Rider Cloud Lord Blind Sorcerer
35 dark Blind Sorcerer Dunlendings Dragon Lord
36 dark Corsairs Long Rider Cloud Lord
37 dark Easterlings Corsairs Long Rider
38 dark Quiet Avenger Ice King Dunlendings
39 dark Corsairs Cloud Lord none
40 free Noldo Haradwaith North Gondor
41 dark Witch-King Dark Lieutenants Quiet Avenger
42 dark Haradwaith Long Rider Easterlings
43 dark Haradwaith Dark Lieutenants Cloud Lord
44 free Haradwaith Sinda Arthedain
45 dark Cloud Lord Quiet Avenger Long Rider
46 dark Haradwaith Corsairs Dog Lord
47 dark Corsairs Fire King Blind Sorcerer
48 free Cardolan Arthedain Haradwaith
49 free Sinda North Gondor South Gondor
50 dark Witch-King Quiet Avenger Long Rider
51 dark Long Rider Corsairs Cloud Lord
52 dark Fire King Ice King Cloud Lord
53 dark Corsairs Northmen Cloud Lord
54 dark Dark Lieutenants Cloud Lord Dunlendings
55 dark Dark Lieutenants Witch-King Blind Sorcerer
56 free South Gondor Noldo Eothraim
57 dark Dark Lieutenants Ice King Easterlings
58 free Haradwaith South Gondor Woodmen
59 dark Dog Lord Cloud Lord Fire King
60 dark Cloud Lord Quiet Avenger Ice King
61 free Cardolan Long Rider Arthedain
62 dark Cloud Lord Haradwaith Corsairs
63 free Noldo Eothraim Cardolan
64 free North Gondor Dwarves South Gondor
65 dark Ice King Haradwaith Corsairs
66 free Noldo Woodmen Sinda
67 free Dunlendings Corsairs Cardolan
68 dark Dog Lord Cloud Lord Quiet Avenger
69 free Haradwaith North Gondor Noldo
70 dark Blind Sorcerer Corsairs Quiet Avenger
71 free Corsairs Noldo Dunlendings
72 free Dwarves Haradwaith none
73 dark Blind Sorcerer Cloud Lord Haradwaith
74 dark Blind Sorcerer Corsairs Dark
Lieutenants
75 free Arthedain Haradwaith none
76 dark Corsairs Dunlendings Dog Lord
77 dark Rhudaur Witch-King Dark
Lieutenants
78 dark Corsairs Easterlings Ice King
79 dark Fire King Dunlendings Cloud Lord
80 free Dunlendings Arthedain Northmen
81 dark Easterlings Long Rider Ice King
82 dark Corsairs Long Rider Cloud Lord
83 dark Easterlings Noldo Quiet Avenger
84 dark Dunlendings Long Rider Cloud Lord
85 free Haradwaith Noldo Dunlendings
86 dark Dog Lord Witch-King Cloud Lord
87 dark Dark Lieutenants Dragon Lord Witch-King
88 dark Haradwaith Quiet Avenger Witch-King
89 dark Blind Sorcerer Witch-King Dog Lord
90 dark Haradwaith Corsairs Witch-King
91 free Noldo South Gondor Arthedain
92 dark Haradwaith Corsairs Dunlendings
93 dark Dog Lord Long Rider Dark
Lieutenants
94 free Noldo Northmen Sinda
95 dark Quiet Avenger Haradwaith Ice King
97 dark Witch-King Long Rider Ice King
98 dark Easterlings Corsairs Haradwaith
99 dark Haradwaith Quiet Avenger Corsairs
100 free Arthedain Sinda Dwarves
101 free Haradwaith Noldo South Gondor
102 dark Long Rider Witch-King Dog Lord
103 free Arthedain unknown unknown
104 free North Gondor Sinda Haradwaith
105 dark Dragon Lord Witch-King Rhudaur
106 dark Witch-King Dark Lieutenants none
107 free Corsairs Noldo Woodmen
108 free Arthedain Haradwaith Northmen
109 free Dwarves Woodmen Eothraim
110 free Noldo Easterlings Corsairs
111 dark Long Rider Easterlings Haradwaith
112 free Noldo Cardolan Arthedain
113 dark Corsairs Easterlings Dark
Lieutenants
114 dark Fire King Blind Sorcerer Easterlings
116 dark Blind Sorcerer Ice King Cloud Lord
117 dark Blind Sorcerer Long Rider Ice King
118 dark Ice King Dog Lord Long Rider
120 dark Blind Sorcerer Corsairs Dog Lord
121 dark Easterlings Dark Lieutenants Long Rider
122 dark Dog Lord Dunlendings Cloud Lord
123 dark Dark Lieutenants Corsairs Ice King
124 dark Easterlings Dark Lieutenants Cloud Lord
125 dark Cloud Lord Witch-King Arthedain
126 dark Easterlings Quiet Avenger Fire King
127 free Noldo Woodmen Arthedain
128 free Arthedain Northmen Rhudaur
129 dark Corsairs Long Rider Easterlings
130 dark Cloud Lord Witch-King Dunlendings
131 dark Dark Lieutenants Witch-King Long Rider
132 free Arthedain Dunlendings Dwarves
133 free Dunlendings South Gondor Noldo
134 dark Blind Sorcerer Cloud Lord Noldo
135 dark Cloud Lord Corsairs Haradwaith
136 free Sinda Easterlings North Gondor
137 dark Corsairs Easterlings Rhudaur
138 dark Quiet Avenger Corsairs Haradwaith
139 free Dwarves Sinda North Gondor
140 free South Gondor Dunlendings Noldo
141 dark Cloud Lord Dog Lord Dark
Lieutenants
142 dark Haradwaith Easterlings Long Rider
143 dark Ice King Easterlings Corsairs
144 dark Dragon Lord Cloud Lord Ice King
145 free North Gondor South Gondor Noldo
146 dark Blind Sorcerer Dog Lord Long Rider
147 dark Dog Lord Easterlings Ice King
148 dark Cloud Lord Blind Sorcerer Dog Lord
149 free South Gondor Noldo Corsairs
150 none none none none
151 free South Gondor Noldo Woodmen
152 dark Dark Lieutenants Long Rider Ice King
153 dark Cloud Lord Dark Lieutenants Noldo
154 dark Blind Sorcerer Corsairs Quiet Avenger
155 dark Witch-King Dragon Lord Dog Lord
156 free Noldo Sinda Corsairs
157 free Sinda Quiet Avenger Cardolan
158 free Rhudaur Sinda Easterlings
159 dark Ice King Dragon Lord Cardolan
160 dark Dog Lord Quiet Avenger Witch-King
161 dark Easterlings Witch-King Dark
Lieutenants
162 dark Quiet Avenger Blind Sorcerer Fire King
163 free Noldo Sinda North Gondor
165 dark Dark Lieutenants Corsairs Quiet Avenger
166 dark Witch-King Dark Lieutenants Blind Sorcerer
167 free Sinda South Gondor Noldo
168 dark Corsairs Cloud Lord Witch-King
169 dark Dark Lieutenants Haradwaith Cloud Lord
170 dark Haradwaith Cloud Lord Dark
Lieutenants
171 free Dunlendings Haradwaith Corsairs
172 dark Dragon Lord Dog Lord Rhudaur
174 dark Dark Lieutenants Corsairs Long Rider
175 free Arthedain Corsairs Dwarves
176 free Sinda Noldo Dwarves
177 dark Haradwaith Quiet Avenger Blind Sorcerer
178 dark Ice King Quiet Avenger Blind Sorcerer
179 dark Haradwaith Easterlings Quiet Avenger
180 dark Fire King Noldo Woodmen
181 free Dwarves Cardolan Arthedain
182 free Noldo Cloud Lord Easterlings
183 dark Long Rider Dragon Lord Haradwaith
184 free Cardolan South Gondor Sinda
185 dark Haradwaith Witch-King Easterlings
186 free Rhudaur Woodmen Long Rider
187 dark Dark Lieutenants Easterlings Dragon Lord
188 dark Witch-King Easterlings Blind Sorcerer
189 dark Quiet Avenger Long Rider Fire King
190 dark Quiet Avenger Easterlings Witch-King
192 dark Haradwaith Dunlendings Easterlings
193 dark Long Rider Quiet Avenger Corsairs
194 dark Quiet Avenger Long Rider Cloud Lord
195 dark Haradwaith Dragon Lord Quiet Avenger
196 dark Easterlings Quiet Avenger Dark
Lieutenants
197 dark Quiet Avenger Haradwaith Dog Lord
198 dark Dark Lieutenants Corsairs Dunlendings
199 dark Long Rider Noldo Dark
Lieutenants
200 free Dunlendings Haradwaith Arthedain
202 free Haradwaith Dwarves Dunlendings
203 free Northmen Rhudaur Eothraim
204 dark Long Rider Quiet Avenger Cloud Lord
205 dark Long Rider Quiet Avenger Corsairs
206 free North Gondor Dunlendings Noldo
207 dark Witch-King Dog Lord Dark
Lieutenants
208 dark Easterlings Dog Lord Rhudaur
211 free Noldo Woodmen Eothraim
212 dark Dark Lieutenants Corsairs Cloud Lord
214 dark Fire King Dark Lieutenants Witch-King
215 dark Quiet Avenger Easterlings Cloud Lord
216 dark Cloud Lord Long Rider Easterlings
217 dark Dunlendings Quiet Avenger Corsairs
219 free Noldo Dwarves Arthedain
220 free South Gondor Corsairs Haradwaith
221 dark Haradwaith Easterlings Cloud Lord
222 dark Cloud Lord Quiet Avenger Long Rider
223 dark Long Rider Corsairs Fire King
224 dark Long Rider Witch-King Corsairs
225 dark Corsairs Quiet Avenger Cloud Lord
226 free Noldo Arthedain Dwarves
227 dark Quiet Avenger Cloud Lord Ice King
228 free Easterlings Dwarves Arthedain
229 dark Dark Lieutenants Ice King Long Rider
230 free Corsairs South Gondor Woodmen
231 free Noldo Northmen Arthedain
232 free Noldo Corsairs Dwarves
233 free Cardolan Sinda Woodmen
234 dark Ice King Haradwaith Fire King
236 dark Witch-King Haradwaith Cardolan
237 free Noldo Haradwaith Arthedain
238 dark Dark Lieutenants Dog Lord Blind Sorcerer
239 dark Witch-King Dog Lord Blind Sorcerer
240 dark Dog Lord Blind Sorcerer Long Rider
241 dark Quiet Avenger Dog Lord Fire King
242 free Corsairs Woodmen Haradwaith
243 free Noldo Arthedain Cardolan
245 dark Quiet Avenger Haradwaith Cloud Lord
246 free Noldo Corsairs South Gondor
247 dark Blind Sorcerer Easterlings Dark
Lieutenants
248 dark Quiet Avenger Dog Lord Dark
Lieutenants
249 dark Dark Lieutenants Long Rider Fire King
250 free Dunlendings Cardolan Sinda
251 dark Dunlendings Quiet Avenger Cloud Lord
253 dark Dark Lieutenants Dragon Lord Dunlendings
254 free Noldo Haradwaith Arthedain
256 free Haradwaith Noldo Dwarves
257 dark Haradwaith Quiet Avenger Rhudaur
258 dark Dragon Lord Dwarves Dark
Lieutenants
261 free Sinda North Gondor South Gondor
262 free South Gondor Woodmen Noldo
264 dark Ice King Long Rider Witch-King
265 dark Easterlings Long Rider Cloud Lord
266 dark Cloud Lord Ice King Witch-King
268 free Arthedain South Gondor Rhudaur
269 dark Corsairs Dark Lieutenants Ice King
271 dark Easterlings Cloud Lord Long Rider
272 dark Cloud Lord Corsairs Haradwaith
278 free South Gondor Easterlings Dunlendings
279 dark Haradwaith Easterlings Dark
Lieutenants
281 free Noldo Arthedain Sinda
282 free Noldo Dunlendings Cardolan
283 dark Dark Lieutenants Long Rider Easterlings
285 dark Haradwaith Easterlings Dark
Lieutenants
286 dark Cloud Lord Haradwaith Quiet Avenger
287 dark Blind Sorcerer Corsairs Ice King

Summary by Allegiance
Dark Servant Victories: 166
Free People Victories: 92

Summary of nation 1st, 2nd and 3rd placements, by Nation
Nation #Times Placed
1. Woodmen 2
2. Northmen 2
3. Eothraim 0
4. Arthedain 8
5. Cardolan 5
6. North Gondor 5
7. South Gondor 9
8. Dwarves 5
9. Sinda 7
10. Noldo 25
11. Witch-King 11
12. Dragon Lord 4
13. Dog Lord 8
14. Cloud Lord 15
15. Blind Sorcerer 14
16. Ice King 7
17. Quiet Avenger 14
18. Fire King 8
19. Long Rider 12
20. Dark Lieutenants 23
21. Corsairs 18
22. Haradwaith 28
23. Dunlendings 10
24. Rhudaur 3
25. Easterlings 15

#19

Hi again, back now with 2950 HoH data.

I got the following data (scroll down a couple pages past
this intro blurb) on GSI/DGE *** 2950 *** games by reading
through my old copies of Whispers of the Wood, the Hall of
Heros section that listed winners. The data just includes
the winning side and top 3 placements, so I can't fill in
the last turn # or whether it was a grudge game or not.

After the list of 150+ games there are two summaries
of the data, FP vs. DS wins and a list by nation of
the # of placements (1st +2nd + 3rd), you have to
scroll almost all the way down to see it.

BTW I typed the data into an XML document, a form I can
programmatically manipulate (I'm a software engineer),
so I could just as easily produce an HTML document with
a table as this text format.

This table (below) doesn't have the information that
Marc provided but I did put it into the XML, so I could
generate a more complete list that included his data;
I just didn't want to enter duplicate info on this post.

Jeremy Richman

RESULTS FOR 2950 ME (GSI/DGE games)

GAME# Free/Dark 1st-place 2nd-place 3rd-place
2 dark Corsairs Dragon Lord Cloud Lord
4 dark Corsairs Dog Lord Cloud Lord
5 free Dunadan Woodmen Dwarves
6 free Khand East Dunadan Rohan
7 free Dunadan Sinda Noldo
8 dark Quiet Avenger Witch-King Corsairs
9 dark Khand East Blind Sorcerer Cloud Lord
10 dark Dark Lieutenants Corsairs Dog Lord
11 dark Dog Lord Quiet Avenger Corsairs
12 free South Gondor Rhun East Dwarves
13 dark Corsairs Dunlendings Khand East
14 dark Long Rider Ice King Quiet Avenger
15 free South Gondor White Wizard Dwarves
16 dark Khand East Quiet Avenger Corsairs
17 free White Wizard Dwarves Corsairs
18 dark Cloud Lord Ice King Dog Lord
19 free South Gondor Silvan Dunadan
20 dark Ice King Dark Lieutenants Khand East
21 dark White Wizard Dark Lieutenants Corsairs
22 free North Gondor White Wizard Dunadan
23 free Noldo Dunadan North Gondor
24 free Dunlendings North Gondor Northmen
25 dark Cloud Lord Khand East Dog Lord
27 dark Cloud Lord Dog Lord Long Rider
28 free White Wizard Silvan Rhun East
30 free Rhun East Noldo Blind Sorcerer
32 dark Dark Lieutenants Fire King Cloud Lord
33 free Woodmen Silvan Northmen
34 dark Dog Lord White Wizard Dunlendings
36 free White Wizard Noldo Sinda
37 free North Gondor South Gondor Rhun East
38 free Noldo South Gondor Woodmen
39 dark Khand East Long Rider Fire King
40 free Khand East Rohan Rhun East
41 dark White Wizard Corsairs Dragon Lord
43 free Sinda Noldo Silvan
44 free Noldo Dunadan Woodmen
45 dark Ice King Fire King Dark
Lieutenants
46 dark Dragon Lord Witch-King Dog Lord
47 free Noldo Corsairs White Wizard
48 free Noldo Dunadan Sinda
49 free South Gondor Corsairs Dunlendings
50 free Dunlendings Cloud Lord Blind Sorcerer
51 dark Blind Sorcerer Ice King Witch-King
52 dark Khand East Dog Lord Quiet Avenger
53 free Dunlendings Sinda Woodmen
55 dark Quiet Avenger Long Rider White Wizard
56 free Rohan North Gondor Noldo
57 free Silvan Sinda Noldo
58 dark Ice King White Wizard Cloud Lord
59 dark White Wizard Dunlendings Corsairs
60 free Dunadan Northmen Dunlendings
62 dark Corsairs Dog Lord Dark
Lieutenants
64 dark Dunlendings Quiet Avenger Dog Lord
65 free Noldo Khand East South Gondor
68 dark Dunlendings Cloud Lord White Wizard
69 free White Wizard Dunlendings Corsairs
70 free White Wizard Corsairs Noldo
71 free Dunlendings Noldo Corsairs
72 free Noldo Dunlendings Dunadan
73 free Rohan Northmen South Gondor
77 dark Fire King Corsairs Dark
Lieutenants
78 free Dunlendings Noldo White Wizard
79 free Dunadan Noldo Woodmen
82 dark Long Rider Quiet Avenger Dog Lord
86 dark Witch-King Dog Lord White Wizard
87 free Noldo White Wizard South Gondor

Summary by Allegiance
Dark Servant Victories: 31
Free People Victories: 36

Summary of nation 1st, 2nd and 3rd placements, by Nation
Nation #Times Placed
1. Woodmen 1
2. Northmen 0
3. Rohan 2
4. Dunadan 4
5. Silvan 1
6. North Gondor 2
7. South Gondor 4
8. Dwarves 0
9. Sinda 1
10. Noldo 8
11. Witch-King 1
12. Dragon Lord 1
13. Dog Lord 2
14. Cloud Lord 3
15. Blind Sorcerer 1
16. Ice King 3
17. Quiet Avenger 2
18. Fire King 1
19. Long Rider 2
20. Dark Lieutenants 2
21. Corsairs 4
22. Rhun East 1
23. Dunlendings 7
24. White Wizard 8
25. Khand East 6

#20

I just found out that in the previous postings of
results for 1650 and 2950 GSI/DGE games, though the
"raw data" was correct, the summaries of by-nation
results at the end was miscalculated. Here is the
corrected data for 1650 and 2950.

Two interesting tidbits.
1) Of the 150+ 1650 games reported, the Eothraim
are the one nation that never finished in first place.
2) For the 67 2950 games reported, neither the
Northmen nor Dwarves ever finished in first place.

Jeremy Richman

RESULTS FOR 1650 ME (GSI/DGE games)

Summary of nation 1st, 2nd and 3rd placements, by Nation
Nation Any 1st 2nd 3rd
1. Woodmen 15 2 7 6
2. Northmen 8 2 4 2
3. Eothraim 6 0 1 5
4. Arthedain 32 8 8 16
5. Cardolan 15 5 3 7
6. North Gondor 12 5 3 4
7. South Gondor 23 9 9 5
8. Dwarves 21 5 7 9
9. Sinda 22 7 8 7
10. Noldo 54 25 17 12
11. Witch-King 34 11 14 9
12. Dragon Lord 12 4 6 2
13. Dog Lord 29 8 11 10
14. Cloud Lord 58 15 16 27
15. Blind Sorcerer 28 14 4 10
16. Ice King 27 7 6 14
17. Quiet Avenger 43 14 20 9
18. Fire King 20 8 2 10
19. Long Rider 48 12 21 15
20. Dark Lieutenants 50 23 11 16
21. Corsairs 59 18 28 13
22. Haradwaith 60 28 20 12
23. Dunlendings 31 10 9 12
24. Rhudaur 12 3 1 8
25. Easterlings 45 15 20 10

RESULTS FOR 2950 ME (GSI/DGE games)

Summary of nation 1st, 2nd and 3rd placements, by Nation
Nation Any 1st 2nd 3rd
1. Woodmen 6 1 1 4
2. Northmen 4 0 2 2
3. Rohan 4 2 1 1
4. Dunadan 11 4 4 3
5. Silvan 5 1 3 1
6. North Gondor 5 2 2 1
7. South Gondor 9 4 2 3
8. Dwarves 4 0 1 3
9. Sinda 6 1 3 2
10. Noldo 18 8 6 4
11. Witch-King 4 1 2 1
12. Dragon Lord 3 1 1 1
13. Dog Lord 13 2 5 6
14. Cloud Lord 10 3 2 5
15. Blind Sorcerer 4 1 1 2
16. Ice King 6 3 3 0
17. Quiet Avenger 8 2 4 2
18. Fire King 4 1 2 1
19. Long Rider 5 2 2 1
20. Dark Lieutenants 7 2 2 3
21. Corsairs 18 4 6 8
22. Rhun East 5 1 1 3
23. Dunlendings 14 7 4 3
24. White Wizard 18 8 5 5
25. Khand East 10 6 2 2