Read This... Or Else!!

mepbmlist
#1

Sorry for the cutesy title - it was partially inspired by
the "lighthouse story." <Ducks hail of detritus flung in his

Seriously, after reading the discussions on stealth and how
characters are captured in combat, I'd like to start a thread on
threats (order 498).

The rulebook says that success is "based on the command rank, the
size of the population center, the loyalty rank, the size of the
threatening army, the presence of any war machines, and the presence
of any fortifications."

I have several observations:

Unless I've been really unlucky, it appears that it's harder to
threaten an enemy capitol than any other enemy pop center. After
reviewing my (admittedly limited) pool of threats executed by me (or
my gaming club) it has shown that we have NEVER managed to threaten
the capitol of an active player, but are 3 for 3 on threatening the
capitols of players who are not active. Of course you could argue
that the loyalty of an active players capitol will be high, but two
of our data points are against Dragon Lord players with "rebellious"
loyalty. (Of course Dol Guldur has a keep).

The number of troops seems to give a penalty if insufficient, but not
a bonus if over.

War machines only seem to make a difference if you have enough to
lower the fortifications

Fortification penalty may not be linear. Keeps and Citadels DO seem
to impose a stiff penalty.

I'm attempting to bang together a rudimentary formula, with limited
success so far.

I'm considering a threat on a MT/fort that's an enemy capital with
(according to our guesstimate) has a 60 - 70 loyalty. The army in
question has about 1000 troops, no war machines and a commander with
a 103 skill rank.

Our best guesstimate is about a 40% chance.

Anyone care to bolster or contradict any of the above?

All comments welcome.

John

#2

I'm considering a threat on a MT/fort that's an enemy capital with
(according to our guesstimate) has a 60 - 70 loyalty. The army in
question has about 1000 troops, no war machines and a commander with
a 103 skill rank.

Our best guesstimate is about a 40% chance.

yes, harder to threat caps, not sure on war machines, nothing new with
this following formula:

Threatening (By Rob Gaul) - from b.e's webpage.

Command rank+command arties+number of troops as a % of the required
force to take the popn (eg 5000 troops for a city). Warmachines count
as 25 troops. <<Total for number of troops can never be more than 100%
btw!!>>

Minus popn loyalty - 20 per fortification level, -20 for capital.

Thus 2000 troops and 10 WM with a C70 against a MT/F with 60 loyalty
(non capital) would be

2000 troops + (10x25=250 troop equiv for WM)= 2250, which is 90% of
the required 2500 force for a MT. +70 (no arties) = 160 total

minus 40 for fortifications - 60 loyalty = 60% total. Your comms tend
to fail these ones alot suggesting that a natural rank needs to be
higher against useful fortifications. High numbers of command items
seem to buoy you no end.

Joel, applying the above in your case would give you:

103 + 40 (1000/2500) minus 70 minus 40 minus 20, gives you: 13%
chance.

Rob's guide was also written several years ago, its my opinion that
threatening is now harder, I've had a couple recently fail that were
well above 120% chance of success according to the formula (and I had
100+ comms in both cases). Just remember its only a guide, when in
doubt, you always light matches!

#3

jmason@selu.edu wrote

Unless I've been really unlucky, it appears that it's harder to
threaten an enemy capitol than any other enemy pop center.

I don't see how you will ever be able to measure whether or not it's
capital status that makes a difference, since a capital almost always,
also has higher loyalty than other pops: Some nations have city caps
starting at 100. Ems are named there, and often InfYour as they leave,
or sit there doing InfYour and NatSells. Armies and characters are
often present, which (I think it's somewhere in the rules) reduces loy
drops due to other causes.

Regards,

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

#4

Hello! Still looking to hear from you Neutrals, or heck, even you DS!
Thanks,
the Sylvans...

#5

Sorry for the cutesy title - it was partially inspired by
the "lighthouse story." <Ducks hail of detritus flung in his
>

Seriously, after reading the discussions on stealth and how
characters are captured in combat, I'd like to start a thread on
threats (order 498).

The rulebook says that success is "based on the command rank, the
size of the population center, the loyalty rank, the size of the
threatening army, the presence of any war machines, and the presence
of any fortifications."

I have several observations:

Unless I've been really unlucky, it appears that it's harder to
threaten an enemy capitol than any other enemy pop center. After
reviewing my (admittedly limited) pool of threats executed by me (or
my gaming club) it has shown that we have NEVER managed to threaten
the capitol of an active player, but are 3 for 3 on threatening the
capitols of players who are not active. Of course you could argue
that the loyalty of an active players capitol will be high, but two
of our data points are against Dragon Lord players with "rebellious"
loyalty. (Of course Dol Guldur has a keep).

The number of troops seems to give a penalty if insufficient, but not
a bonus if over.

War machines only seem to make a difference if you have enough to
lower the fortifications

Fortification penalty may not be linear. Keeps and Citadels DO seem
to impose a stiff penalty.

I'm attempting to bang together a rudimentary formula, with limited
success so far.

I'm considering a threat on a MT/fort that's an enemy capital with
(according to our guesstimate) has a 60 - 70 loyalty. The army in
question has about 1000 troops, no war machines and a commander with
a 103 skill rank.

Our best guesstimate is about a 40% chance.

Anyone care to bolster or contradict any of the above?

All comments welcome.

John

RD: I agree with most of what you say. In my experience, the most important
factor is the command rank of the guy doing the threatening. If this is
high enough, the number of troops he commands seems irrelevant.

If you are threatening an active enemy capital, it is either a MT or city,
it probably has VERY high loyalty, and is more often than not fortified, all
factors which lessen the chance of a threat succeeding. If you are
threatening the capital of an inactive nation, chances are that the loyalty
will have dropped considerably by the time your army got there, greatly
improving your chances.

If a nation is eliminated, and his loyalty drops sufficiently, you can
successfullyThreaten with a mere C40. Done that twice recently.

Richard.

#6

--- In mepbmlist@y..., jmason@s... wrote:

Sorry for the cutesy title - it was partially inspired by
the "lighthouse story." <Ducks hail of detritus flung in his
>

Seriously, after reading the discussions on stealth and how
characters are captured in combat, I'd like to start a thread on
threats (order 498).

The rulebook says that success is "based on the command rank, the
size of the population center, the loyalty rank, the size of the
threatening army, the presence of any war machines, and the presence
of any fortifications."

I have several observations:

Unless I've been really unlucky, it appears that it's harder to
threaten an enemy capitol than any other enemy pop center. After
reviewing my (admittedly limited) pool of threats executed by me (or
my gaming club) it has shown that we have NEVER managed to threaten
the capitol of an active player, but are 3 for 3 on threatening the
capitols of players who are not active. Of course you could argue
that the loyalty of an active players capitol will be high, but two
of our data points are against Dragon Lord players with "rebellious"
loyalty. (Of course Dol Guldur has a keep).

Command rank, command rank, and command rank are the top three
ingredients. I successfully threatened away two consective Woodmen
capitals as the Dog Lord in game 101 - with all of 800 troops. BUT
with artifacts a 120+ commander. As the Noldo I lost a 65 loyalty
MT/castle to Tonn Varthkur in game 85 - same thing, he had less than
1000 troops but a high command rank. Nothing else seems to correlate
with success.

cheers,

Marc Pinsonneault

The number of troops seems to give a penalty if insufficient, but

not

ยทยทยท

a bonus if over.

War machines only seem to make a difference if you have enough to
lower the fortifications

Fortification penalty may not be linear. Keeps and Citadels DO seem
to impose a stiff penalty.

I'm attempting to bang together a rudimentary formula, with limited
success so far.

I'm considering a threat on a MT/fort that's an enemy capital with
(according to our guesstimate) has a 60 - 70 loyalty. The army in
question has about 1000 troops, no war machines and a commander with
a 103 skill rank.

Our best guesstimate is about a 40% chance.

Anyone care to bolster or contradict any of the above?

All comments welcome.

John