There are still elements in warbattle we dont know for sure. Like navybattle. As for assassinations. In real world we use intuition and sense, but in the real world we get much more “input” to work with because the real world is far more complex than a game. Knowing the chances for a sucessfull assassination in the game would be simular to how we use our judgement in the real world.
Sverre
I believe this was done for 2 reasons.
The code is failry simplistic. Most veterans I know use the “ease of coding” rule-of-thumb for figureing out how most orders probably work. An example is fed army movement. It would be fairly complex to track which troops in which armies had eaten in the 300 series, then track those troops through the TrComm orders, all the way through to movement in the 850/860 orders. So, instead of doing that, they just wrote the code to see if there is 1 FO in the army when it comes time to move. Doesn’t matter if all the troops were fed or not, as long as the army has at least 1 FO when it is tie to move, the army is “fed”. Now, if they wrote this into the rule books, we’d all see how lame the code really is, right from day 1. Vagueness gives them a little wiggle room.
The games that are most likely to hold people’s attention are those that take a few minutes to learn, and a lifetime to master. A classic example is chess. It only takes a few minuted to learn the “rules”, but people can play all their lives and still not be great. I think the vagueness was intended to do exactly what many here have said. To allow you the fun of discovering exactly how things work for yourself. Unfortunatly, unlike chess, the player base and game length means that it is nearly impossible to get a game of all newbies to give them time to figure it out for themselves. The result is that every new player feels like a complete idiot while getting ground into the dirt or simply letting his more experienced teammates dictate his orders to him.
And frankly, this has always been a part time hobby for me. Sure, I’ve played hundreds of turns in more than a dozen games over the last 10 years or so, but I’ve never done a 100% statistical analysis on every aspect of every order of every game. Even though I play chess, I’ve never read a chess book. The result is that I’m not a particularily good chess player, nor am I a particularily good MEPBM player.
AND here is the real argument of publishing the game mechanics… Do we want someone to be able to be a good player, if they spend a half-dozen hours per week for 8 years, just making plans, coordinating with allies and writing up his orders. OR should being a good player require thousands and thousands of hours of detailed statistical analysis of hundreds of thousands of order executions on top of the time spent simply writing up orders?
Is MEPBM to be like chess, where the rules are available to all, but strategy takes a lifetime to master? OR is it more like a murder mystery, where one must spend mass amounts of time analyzing every miniscule detail of the mounds of available evidence to attempt to discern how it really happened?
Not at all…
The rules would still be just as complex… When trying to assassinate someone, you’d still have to worry about character ranks and pop center loyalty and guards and army command and relations and all the other aspects of the game. You’d still have to the same randomness. As an experienced player that has knowledge of the approximate effects of all these factors, the game would NOT change at all for you. It isn’t dumbing down or removing the risk. The orders would be just as complex, and just as random, and just as risky.
The difference would be that the newbies and casual players would have access to the same level of information that the current old-timers that spend uncountable hours playing murder mystery with the rules currently have.
Exactly my point… Having the formulas would not dumb down the game or remove the risk or make these things any less random. It would simply allow a newbie to get up to spped faster, and would allow an experinced player to be good without doing the statistical analysis necessary to figure out how the rules really work.
No, not so they can drive new players out of the game or even easily stomp the new players’ teams… They want the knowledge protected so that they can beat the other experienced teams they come up against, if those other teams haven’t done the same level of statistical analysis of all the orders that they have.
Informations wins wars in both the real world and in MEPBM. However, if I were in a war in the real world, I would expect it to be a full time job. For MEPBM, it is a part-time hobby. One that I should be able to be good at without turning it into a full-time job of statistical analysis.
And on that we’ll have to disagree. Some get thousands of hours of pleasure form thousands of hours of analysis. For me, it is a chore that I must do to keep up with the players that do. MEPBM should not be a chore. You should not have to put in that many hours of statistical analysis to be good at a game.
AND THERE, is the argument in a nutshell.
Should rules and formulas be clear, and being good simply be a mater of your ability to devise effective strategies within the well understood system…
OR…
Should rules and formulas be odd and obscure, making the “best” players the ones that do the most number of hours of research and statistical analysis?
IS assassination really that much more fun than personal challenge, simply because odds of assassination are obscure and understood by an elite few, while formulas for personal challenge are clearly published for all to see?
OR, does the fun of each of these rules come from how well you employ them as a tactic in acheiving your overall stratigic goals???
Persons unuse to command or unuse to operating in obscure and shadow strewn environments always seem to think there is a magic formula that will make them “good”. Usually, the magic formula is information.
I bring to the membership’s attention the book “Intelligence In War” by the outstanding British historian John Keegan. He examines several case studies of how intelligence and information did not win battles or make a commander competent. The one I enjoyed most was the Nazi airborne invasion of Crete. Thanks to Ultra the British had complete and total knowledge of the enemy’s intention, order-of-battle, invasion date, locations, missions, etc, etc. The British still lost even though they had a four to one numerical superiority. Why did they lose? The Nazi commanders had the mental flexibility and determination to both not give up but figgure a way out of the fix they were in.
Certainly I am neither an infohog nor a “thousand hour number cruncher”. You can bet that if I was still in a hiring/promtion position I would probably not hire or promote such individuals. A person who can operate well in complex situations, with inadequate and incorrect information would be a pearl beyond price. They are rare. Part of the genius of this game is the ability to sort out those persons.
All else being equal, I’d much prefer to know the exact location of all of my enemies assassins, then the exact formula for determing the chance of success of any given assassination order.
However, that isn’t what we’re talking about. We’re talking about making the knowledge that the number crunching, experienced players are much closer to (how the rules really work) available to all.
Would I expect this information to instantly transform me into a Kevin Given??? Hell no. I’d still make stupid mistakes and not be as good at coordinating 12 diverse nations into a single battle strategy.
However, it would help us understand why an allies pop center stopped me from assasinating an enemy character or why my E70 failed to perform a average difficulty order for the 3rd time… (trying to double an A90 for example).
Oh Hi Ed
Just to comment on Crete, yes Ultra was an impressing advantage. These guys were Fallschirmjäger (Paratroopers), they had not only a very high moral, training, weapon and armour. They had some losses that were higher than that. Talked with a surviver, not a pretty story.
To get back to the thread, mostly I side with Brad Jenison, my selfproclaimed advisor. He had some very good points about teamwork and team-interaction. If you ask questions, your teammates will be more than happy to help you as it is their best interest. If you dont ask and wish for formulaes the social aspect will get lost, that would be a shame.
One cent more
Loke:D:D:D
I don’t see why having the formula will help anyone, the example of the E70 failing three times is a common occurrence, if we then had people running around complaining " but he had an 87% chance of success and he has failed three times, why" the answer would still be the same “Sh!te Happens”
Regards Herman
What will it effect?
Well, let’s say the formula is 50 + your Emi rank - (total targets natural ranks) + relations (-25 hate, -10 dislike you, 0, +10, +25) - 25 if they are already doubled by someone else…
Well, then your E70 shouldn’t even bother trying to double Elrond if your ally already has him doubled. With a starting total of 170 in natural ranks, the formula would result in (50+70-170-10(or 25)-25 = -85 or -100). That isn’t “Sh!te happnes”. That is impossible.
However, if the formula is (your emi x 2) - (enemy agent + emi) + relations (-10,-5,0,+5,+15) + 25 if the character is already doubled…
Well, then your E70 may as well and try to double Elrond as the result would be (140 - 60 - 10(or 25) + 25 = 95 or 80 % chance of success)
Now, it only takes a couple successful doubles of Elrond to prove formula 1 wrong, or a failures to prove formula 2 wrong (or your character already doubled to Noldor).
However, all the rule book tells us is that chance of succes is effected by whether or not the character is already doubled… Great… If Ji and Din show up on my pop where I have a huge army with 2 commanders, and only 1 emissary present… and Ji is already doubled to an ally… Which should I try to double? Does Ji being doubled by an ally make him easier to double, or harder?
Experienced players with hundreds of turns under their belt, that have spent thousands of hours statitically analyzing every aspect of the game will have a pretty good idea if being already doubled to another nation helps or hurts the odds of redoubling. Newbies, or people who play this game as a hobby rather than using it to add meaning to their otherwise empty life… No clue!
Having that data is likely the difference between a couple thousand troops rampaging through enemy pops, or the army going away and causing a 4 to 6 turn delay in your attack plans.
I see NO HARM in publishing this kind of information, except leveling the playing field for newbies and non-data crunchers.
Again, is personal challenge any less fun than assassination, simply because the odds of success are reasonably well understood by the majority of players?
I know if I through a desparate challenge at Elrond and win… I was really lucky. If I throw a desparate double at Ji and succeed, was I really lucky or simply using effective strategy? Would doubling Din have been a better strategy? How does knowing hurt the game?
Hi,
I’ll ask again the question why players want to have access to all info, when players are asking for ramdomize artifacts / different respondes to dragons enc. / other location for the hidden pops ect…
Dose two question dosn’t work together in my mind.
I’m not trying to keep my info for myself as I really don’t have any beside those you can find on the net, and what my few braincells allow me to remember from other games.
Cheers,
Ben
Personally, I’m against simply randomizing artifacts, unless as suggested, RA is modified to give info on multiple artifacts with one casting. Otherwise, artifact hunting is a huge waste of time as most of the artifacts are just +500 and +750 combat artifacts.
AND, these really are two separate issues. Randomizing artifacts and dragon responses would preserve a level playing field between newbies ans old-timers, as they’d be randomized every game, so prior knowledge of old-timers wouldn’t help.
Making the formulas available to all would level the playing field, providing newbies with as much information as the old-timers. Currently, the old-timer number crunchers have a much better idea of how the rules really work, than the newbies. Make assassination or double as easily understood as personal challenge currently is. What is the harm besides stripping the old-timers and number crunchers of their current advantage?
Who is doing all this analysis? You’re the only one getting down and dirty with detailed formulae… I preach personal responsibility and common sense. And when I get the Duns I’ll toss out a few 940-412’s on suspect items, just to see. When my newish emissary hits an encounter, I’ll try something where my sheets show a blank. What would you say to me if we were teammates and I got myself killed this way? I’d hazard a guess that you’d call me irresponsible for not taking the “known and easy” way out of the situation. I’d shrug my shoulders and advise “relax and chill on the statistical analysis dude, this is a hobby, not some chore forced upon you to add meaning to your otherwise empty life…” 
Brad
Who?
The people that learned that initiative is nation-by-nation, not character-by-character. If CL company with 3 agents lands on a hex with a single enemy assassin, CL doesn’t have a 3/4 chance of firing first; it is 50-50. If his nation fires first, then all his assassins fire first. If the enemy wins, then he fires before all three of the enemy. Therefore, you’re better off with agent companies of mixed nations. If you run into a single enemy, you greatly increase your odds of firing first. Ditto if you really want to move onto an enemy pop before he can move off to block you. If you have 3 armies moving on, and he has 1 moving off, he has a 50% chance of blocking you, not 25%.
The people that figured out that your own character’s orders fire in the order they are listed in the .xml file. Ever want to split army, then split again, but didn’t know which would fire first? Well, check your xml file’s character order… Who the heck figured that out!!!
The people that figured out that most emissary create camp failures are based on a per-turn limit, not based on an individual roll. Combining the rules on initiative with this camp limit, it means an E60 is no more likely to create a camp than an E40. Turn 2-4, a total of about 10 camps can be created. Turn 5-7, about 20 camps can be created. Turn 8 up, the limit is again higher… This only apples to Third age. Fourth age doesn’t have these limits. PostCamp counts against the limt and fires first. Emissaries have to split whatever camps are left under the limit, if your nation fires before the per-term limit, then you have a good chance of getting down multiple camps. If your nation fires after the limit, you’ll go 0 for …
I don’t know the totals, but I know a teammate knows exactly how many pops are allowed per scenario. He likes to tell us when we have more pops than the enemy or the enemy has more pops then us.
Others have done analysis on the market and claim to know exactly the formula on how prices are set that lets them determine exactly the gold and exactly the commodities on hand of their enemy.
Others had to point out to me that it is very rarely worth trying to double a character with a higher emissary rank than you, but agents seem a bit easier. An E60 can double an A70, but rarely an E70.
In one game I was in, a teamate sat around looking at everyone’s VPs and comparing to their pop, character, gold and army scores to figure out how many enemy have more gold than which of our nations, how many enemy have stronger military than which of us… characters… pops…
Others claim to know the exact combat strength and challenge ranks of each of the dragons and other NPCs.
So Darrell,
You want to take this on? We can team up - you send me the information you know (rambling on like the post above if you like) and I’ll compile it into a document for general publication (info ordered by Order Number or General Sequence of Events, where applicable). What do you think? You’re on the side of balancing the scales of knowledge in order to best improve overall team strategy, and I’m offering to help you do something about it. MEGames can put it up, publish in Bree, etc. You know darn well that nothing beats personal initiative AND you’d likely not be happy with whatever documents someone else creates (barring a complete code publication - which won’t happen), so let’s create something you can call your own. I’ll throw in the dragon info…
Brad Brunet
In that situation you would take into account, Who do you have at hated, which one is the higher ranked, Do they have any artifacts known to be on them and pick the one you feel to be the lower ranked (Well that’s what I would do) 
The experienced gamers are good because they have experience, they have gotten a “Feel” for situations, they are not always right, as they would all admit. The chess analogy is a good one, just knowing the rules and how the pieces work doesn’t make you a good chess player, lots of games under the belt against talented oppositions make you a good chess player. Play, practice, learn, have fun and before you know it you will be one of the experienced players with a store of knowledge and tricks of your own.
Regards Herman
I think that I only know about 10% of what the real data analysts know, and none of the real good stuff.
I agree… Chess is a great example.
AND in chess, there aren’t any hidden formulas that people can kind of “figure out” if they do thousands of hours of data crunching. The rules aren’t intentionaly vague or misleading.
In chess, the rules are clear, easily understood, and equally available to all.
In chess, it is your skill at using the rules, not the amount of hours you’ve spent analyzing results in an attempt to figure out the rules, that wins.
In MEPBM, frequently it is your knowledge of how the game really works, not your skill in using the rules, that determines the winner.
Does this mean ‘no’?
Accept?
Decline?
Counter offer?
You have either a really unrealistic opinion of some of these “greats”, who don’t really matter to the vvvvaaaaaasssssssssssssst majority of the rest of us, or you have a very low opinion of yourself.
Brad
No bloke, in chess it is the amount of hours you have spent analysing games, moves and the amount of games played that makes you a great player.
None of the really great MEPBM players I know have any secret formula that helps them make decisions, they have some hard fast rules that they always play by, things like “Agents go out to steal from allies in the mid 40’s and then on the enemy in the mid 60’s.” Funny enough they nearly always steal stuff. They didn’t get this “knowledge” by spending hours sifting through results, they learnt by trial and error, below certain numbers too many failures occurr so wait till they reach a level where they nearly never fail. MEPBM is all about effective use of orders, the most effective team wins. It’s simply trial and error, if something fails too often it’s bad policy change the approach. That’s called learning, we do it every day in everything we do. You can’t become an instant expert in anything, it has to be learnt.
Regards Herman
And right back to the question at hand:
Option 1: Make everyone learn from scratch, at their own pace, in their own way, according to their own efforts.
Option 2: Give everyone access to the same foundation of knowledge that makes “trial by error” redundant. (more like “trial by tome reading”…but I digress…)
The argument for Option 2 is that newbies who insist on stealing from enemy city/citadel capitals with a37’s won’t if they have the same “information” as those statistical analysts who’ve done all this pre-learning. Sort of like standing on the shoulders of our forefathers and moving ever onwards…
Knowing human behavior and motivation just a wee bit, I don’t necessarily buy it. I believe that human personalities will percolate in the exact same way they already do: stubborn newbies will still insist on using their 50 mages to Reveal Production after retiring armies, while the humble and realistic ones will ask what the heck is going on…and listen when answered.
The rules are quite clear on most aspects of the game and yet people still have to bang their heads on that low beam of “experience” before even attempting to read them, talk about “use” the information at hand.
The small minority of people will be able to enter into MEPBM as a new environment and actually use this type of information to their advantage. My “theory” is that these people would acquire this information anyway…
I actually don’t see this as an information discrepancy problem, I see it as a frustration some have with the quality of play. I see this proposed solution as woefully inadequate and misdirected.
Brad