[ Back ] [ Up ] [ Next ]

Articles on Middle Earth 1650 No 2

And yet more Articles.....

Diplomacy by Colin Forbes
Top 10 Middle Earth Blunders by Colin Forbes
Bribing Characters by Brian Mason
Bribing Characters II by Brian Mason
Bribing Characters III by Brian Mason
Population Centre Improvements by Brian Mason
The Art of Losing in a Winning Position by Greg Reid
Rookie Mistakes by Darrell Shimel
NPC Skill ratings by Tom Walton
Population Centre Developments by Brian Mason
Economics in Middle Earth by Tom Walton
Will my Assassination work? by Wes Fortin
Mages in Battle by Tom Walton
Will my Threat Work? by Paul Comber
ME-PBM Questionnaire by Kevin O'Keefe
Kidnap or Assassinate? by Rob Pegg
How to make killer agents by Kevin O'Keefe
How to eliminate the Dragon Lord (1650) by Kevin O'Keefe

IT'S A TEAM GAME......

From Colin Forbes

There are not many PBM's out there that are first and foremost team games. To be fair, most PBM's give some scope for diplomacy, but a game that takes team play as far as Middle Earth does is rare. As a result it has to be said that many PBMers are not used to playing as a team - something has been shown up in several games of Middle Earth.

So what exactly is the difference between a normal cut-throat PBM and this game? Well first and foremost of course, whatever position you play be it the wealthy Haradwaith or the weedy Woodmen, you have no chance at all of winning unless your team wins. Far too many Middle Earth players ignore this and take the attitude of "well we'll pull through somehow". True enough, on a number of occasions where a team has not worked well together, their side has still won, and those that just sat on the sidelines often did well. But hold on a moment. How many people can truly say that they enjoyed playing in such a game? I'm fairly sure that most Middle Earth players like feeling part of a team, they like to know there's someone there to back them up, and (most importantly of all in my book) aren't games where the team works well more enjoyable?

To take a couple of examples of games I've played in, i.e. games 10 and 17. Game 10 was a close fought battle for 26 turns, and it was not until the last three or four turns at most that we began to think that as Dark Servants we might actually pull it off. We'd had armies all over Mordor, and several team members had been reduced to little more than a major town and a couple of camps at some stage. Still, teamwork won the day, for we were able to co-ordinate to the extent that those armies in Mordor were disposed of by agent action, and nations on the verge of bankruptcy were selflessly bailed out by those with money (i.e. Harad and the Dark Lieutenants). On the contrary in game 17 both sides seemed fragmented from the very beginning. By the time I (as Dunland) joined the Dark Servants the game was already degenerating into faction fighting. In the end I was attacked by two of my so-called allies, making it very difficult for me to actually go on and wipe out the Dwarves and Sinda (the only two Free People's left). In the end I won, but I must say that the game was nowhere near as enjoyable as game 10. I don't think it was a co-incidence that the enjoyable game was the one where I was part of a team.

So what makes for a good team? Well to begin with a newsletter is vital, and something that is often underestimated. A newsletter can serve several functions. Not only does it keep all team members informed of the other's activities, but it can also build morale (thus cutting down on drop-outs). Newsletters may also play an important role in convincing neutrals to join your side. I for one would be far more likely to join a side if I was receiving regular communication from them, and a newsletter indicates that they are well organised, in other words people you want as your friends, not your enemies!

It is essential in a team game for everyone to play as team members first and individual players second (at least in the vital first half of the game). From the Free People's point of view this is important as a number of positions, especially the Noldo Elves, tend to lend themselves to those whose style of play is simply to sit there and do nothing. This is counter-productive and endangers the teams chances of victory - at the very least it will unduly prolong the game. The Noldo have great characters and really should use them aggressively, especially those emissaries and of course Elrond can challenge just about anyone and win. The Mantle of Doriath should be used to hide vulnerable population centres, preferably by being given to a character with a Teleport spell.

Both sides should, at the beginning of the game, seriously consider swapping a few major towns, Olbamarl for Lug Ghurzun is a typical example as this gives the Long Rider a useful recruiting base and the Dragon Lord a much needed safe haven. The Eothraim should really see that their survival is dependant on a co-ordinated attack on Mordor early on together with North and South Gondor. Similarly the Dark Servants will get nowhere acting individually in the early stages of the game, but together they can assemble a powerful military force. I've heard of at least one Ice King player and several Blind Sorcerer's that have disbanded their forces on turn one. This is irresponsible, and if such a player survives to the later stages of the game, they will probably find themselves with only a small number of 'allies' remaining.

As the game moves on it may become necessary to save nations from going under by giving them a major town. Players should not hesitate to do this, especially the Gondors, the Noldo and perhaps the Sinda who are in the best position to help in this way. The Dark Servants have a more difficult task in this respect, but the Blind Sorceror, Dog Lord or Fire King should stand by to help out the Ice King should it become necessary.

The neutrals are of course in a slightly different position in that they do not start as part of a team, and they will often sit around for some time before deciding which way to jump. But here again a team game is important, if only to attract the neutrals to one side in the first place. Whilst there are people that will join a losing side just for the fun of it, there are even more neutrals that want to join a side they perceive as winning. Solid team play and a good newsletter will help this perception. But what happens once a neutral joins? All too often neutral players seem to want to retain some 'special' status once they have declared, when surely they should be a part of the team? To take a prime example, Harad should be prepared to finance nations on the brink of bankruptcy. I've seen this happen in more than one game, and in all cases it's been vital to that team's eventual victory. I should say that I don't really think Harad suffers too much doing this, by virtue of their position they will always be in a good position to place well, if their team wins!

To conclude, Middle Earth is designed as a team game, and it should be played as one. Any group of ten people willing to make some sacrifices will find themselves enjoying the game far more than if they played it as a bunch of individuals. Artifacts, armies gold and even characters are all essentially disposable, and should be sacrificed if need be for the good of the team. Of course the most enjoyable games of all are those with two opposing teams! Then its fast and furious from the off - very much a case of all for one, and one for all!

- - Colin Forbes.

Top 10 Middle Earth Blunders (UK)

From Colin Forbes

My apologies to those involved - I should perhaps point out that I am trying to avoid responsibility for two and a half of them myself.

Dwarves, game 5: Marching out of Khazad-dum to fight the Dragon Lord, but heading west by mistake, then killing Rhudaur and trying to pretend nothing had gone amiss.

Noldor, game 20: Why did Elrond hide Metriath just after the Witch King took it? As if that wasn't enough he then hid Goblin Gate, thus raising the siege that the Dwarves were attempting.

South Gondor, game 62: Attacking the Quiet Avenger capital on turn two, but forgetting that the fleet would sink when they destroyed the harbour.

South Gondor, game 51: Why did they send 20,000 gold to the Blind Sorcerer instead of the Northmen? I hope the BS made good use of it..

Dwarves, game 20: It probably wasn't the best idea to guard Bain with 5 agents and also to challenge Ji Indur. The result? Seven dead characters in one turn.

The Free Peoples, game 10: Why did they all drop, when they still stood a chance of winning the game? I don't think a simple mistake by the GM is a sensible reason.

North Gondor, game 5: Not attacking a Dragon Lord major town, when it would have knocked the Dark Servants out of the game. The game continued for at least 15 more turns as a result.

South Gondor and the Northmen, game 11: Attacking Haradwaith, and thus causing a total breakdown of Free People relations.

Rhudaur, game 2: Picture the scene. Arthedain and Cardolan have dropped. Dunland are friendly. The Dark Servants are friendly. You attack Arthedain, right? Wrong, you just sit there and wait. Oh dear.

Any game: Playing the Woodmen.

On the Bribing and Recruiting of Characters

by Brian Mason

While there has been very little input, I suspect the prime reason for this is the lack of orders. However, allow me to summarise results. I don't think there is enough data to establish a trend, much less determine cut-offs for success. However, the results are interesting. Possibly the most informative result is that if you fail in a bribe attempt the gold is not paid out.

So be daring! Attempt a bribe! (but send your results to me for further tabulation. :-)

Thanks to Holger Eichmann, Jeff Holzhauer and Thomas Meier for their contributions.

On the Bribing and Recruiting of Characters II

by Brian Mason

There has been some more input since this was last presented a while back, and while there is still not enough data to make any hard and fast statements there are a few observations which can be made.

1. For enough gold, you can recruit just about anybody.

2. If your emissary rank is high enough you can recruit just about anybody.

3. There is a large random factor.

To cut down on undersampling of the data more input is needed. If you can pass any along, please do so. Also, does anyone know if it is possible to recruit npcs?  So be daring! Attempt a bribe! (but send your results to me for further tabulation. :-)

Thanks to Holger Eichmann, Jeff Holzhauer,Thomas Meier, Chelsea Wood and Greg Reid for their contributions.

On the Bribing and Recruiting of Characters III

by Brian Mason

Unlike the results presented for population centre improvement, the results for bribing and recruiting are not as clear. First, allow me to present the data, as before.

Population Centre Improvements

Brian Mason

In a recent issue of "From the Mouth of Sauron" Brian Lowery posed the following question regarding the above order.

Population Centre Improvement (550):  Until recently the sum of loyalty and emissary rank required to improve a population centre was:

> 70 Village

> 90 Town

> 110 Mtown

> 130 City

For over a year I never saw the above fail. Recently in 2950 game 16 half of my camp improvements with a Emis/Loyal totals of  70-74 have failed. Any thoughts?

From checking my own database, I find the following data. The columns are the pop centre upgraded to, the numbers are the combined emissary and loyalty rank, while the yes/no flag is whether it works or not. These are for both 1650 and 2950 games.

While the results seem to confirm the numbers above, their are a few  exceptions. If anybody else has any other data, please send it along and we'll tabulate the results.

Pondering the Hall of Heroes of Middle-earth Play-By-Mail, c.1650, or The Art of Losing in the Winning Position

by Greg Reid

The first part of this article is an analysis of the facts: who has won and who has not, how many times every position has placed, and the weighted total of points (3 for each 1st, 2 for each 2nd, and 1 for each 3rd place ranking). For this I borrow shamelessly from an article in "Whispers of the Wood" vol. XI issue 10, entitled "Reflections on the Hall of Heroes as of December 1994", by John Shirey. The second part of this article is an attempt at analysing why the winners win, and why the losers lose.

As of the November '95 issue of Whispers, 146 games have been finished, with 54 of these wins being by the Free Peoples and the remaining 92 by the Dark Servants. This represents a winning percentage of 63% by the Dark Servants, an improvement over the previously calculated percentage of 69% (as per the aforementioned article), but still worth discussing considering that the Free Peoples are still considered by most to have tremendous advantages.  Statistics follow.

For purposes of this article I have broken the positions into three groups: the top ten by points, the bottom eight by points, and the remaining middle seven. The top and bottom groups will be discussed in some detail. In addition the role of the neutrals will be analysed, as well as why the Free Peoples, who enjoy such an overwhelming economic and military advantage, do indeed lose so often.

Winning Positions:

Of the top ten positions, four are neutrals, including the highest and second-highest totals, the Corsairs and Haradwaith. All of these positions except one, the Witch-king, can expect to enjoy some degree of isolation and build-up, either by virtue of their neutral status (Corsairs, Haradwaith, Easterlings, Dunlendings) or protection from the front by other front- line positions (Noldo Elves, Dark Lieutenants, Cloud Lord, Long Rider, Blind Sorcerer).

It would certainly seem, then, that being allowed to correct weaknesses and gather strengths before entering the war is an enormous boon to almost any nation.

Other positions that would seem to be isolated are Southern Gondor and Cardolan, but their proximity to neutrals whose status is highly variable, as well as the necessity of these positions to support their northern neighbours, often force these two nations to go immediately into a strong military-attack mode, as well they should.

The Witch-king would seem to be quite the anomaly here, as he could be called, with very little dispute, THE front-line nation. Indeed, only the Dragon Lord and, perhaps, the Eothraim face more potential foes early in the game. His enormous strengths, however, certainly give him an edge in combat against any single opponent; his characters are good enough so that he isn't under as much pressure to develop them as other positions are, and he actually starts with a kingdom, unlike other Dark Servant positions. But why does he even survive, let alone do well enough to place and win more often than most other nations?... The answer to this lies with the reason the Free Peoples lose so often, which is discussed later in the article.

Losing Positions:

I think it's pretty easy to see why the bottom eight are in the bottom eight. Only one of the Dark Servant positions, with their excellent characters, have sunk low enough to get to this cut; six of the eight lowest are Free Peoples, with the only neutral of the bunch being Rhudaur, easily the loser-most of all the neutral powers. Nearly all of them are front-line nations that are often picked on by several other opponents. The Eothraim has lousy characters and a horrible economy; the Dragon Lord, while having a fine group of characters, is completely surrounded by foes while sporting only a medium-strength army and vulnerable pop centres;  Rhudaur is in a similar situation as the Eothraim, being surrounded by potential enemies, vulnerable, with several low-fortification or no-fort population centres. The Northmen and the Woodmen have horrible characters and are often picked on by several nearby Dark Servants. Northern Gondor has several Dark Servant positions pointed directly at it and is often a prime target of agent attacks out of Mordor.

The only two positions of the bottom eight that evoke some mystery are Cardolan and the Dwarves. Nevertheless, some justification can be presented as to why these two are as low as they are. Cardolan, although far from the Witch-king and many Dark Servants, is extremely vulnerable to assault by neighbouring neutrals, whereas the Dwarves are suffering from Dragon woes in the mountains and have a spread-out position with no really good way or place to expand. In addition, both of these positions have suspect characters with little agent skill, making them prime targets for Cloud Lord agents wet behind the ears.

The Neutrals:

It seems fair to say at this point that the neutrals are winning more than their fair share of games. Two of the neutrals, Corsairs and Haradwaith, account for 20% of the wins among the 25 positions; when the top four neutrals are factored in, those four nations account for 30% of the nations among the 25 positions. It is, to put it mildly, an imbalance. I have a hard time seeing why GSI always has such a hard time filling the neutral positions, as it's apparent to any long-time player of ME-PBM that four of the five neutrals are clearly favoured to win. Only Rhudaur drags the average down; he brings the total average for the neutrals to 31.5%, which in and of itself is not terribly abnormal.

The reason the top four neutrals do win is because they are allowed to sit out the opening turns of the war and build their characters and nations, and often when they do join it is in the form of a nasty surprise attack that acquires them much territory for little cost. In addition, neutrals are often showered with gifts to join, an unfortunate practice that has been perpetuated over time and merely serves to strengthen their firm grip on the high-win spots.  (I have, in fact, made it a credo of mine to not ask for gifts as a neutral, especially as the Corsairs -- this is, IMJO, the last neutral position that should be given presents. They already have an excellent tax base, good characters, and a virtually impregnable stronghold in the south. What in the good Lord's name do you need to make him even stronger for?!)

Why the Free Peoples Lose:

This is far too complicated a question to answer easily.  Nevertheless, I'll give it a shot. I think this issue has been too long unaddressed to continue ignoring it. There are several reasons that spring to mind:

- inferior characters. What ME-PBM boils down to is that it's a character-based game. Characters are what issue orders, and high-level characters are more resistant to encounter death, challenge death, and agent assault. As the Dark Servants have far more good characters than the Free Peoples do, they inevitably have more and better-quality orders, which in the long run is a good way to achieve victory.

- dragons. Dragons are what allow the Dark Servant positions to defeat early Free army superiority. This in turn sets the stage for their superior characters to pull it out for them later in the game. The fact that no good way has been discussed to defeat them makes them, as Tom Walton has many times pointed out, no-brain nuclear weapons. However, this is, IMJO, the least compelling reason the Dark Servants win the game; dragons mostly assist the Witch-king and Dragon Lord, which are both positions that could use some help.  And don't forget that there are many other army encounters that are Free-aligned, such as Ents (which can be acquired just by running an army through Fangorn), Eagles, Woses, and Throkmaw. Why don't the Free attempt to recruit these as heavily as Dark Servants recruit Dragons?...

- neutral tendencies. Four of the five Neutral positions (Corsairs, Haradwaith, Easterlings, Rhudaur) clearly benefit more from a declaration for the Dark Servants than they do from a declaration for the Free Peoples. The fact that two of the most powerful neutrals are often inclined to go Dark Servant (if for no other reason than to avoid character attacks on their not-stellar character sets) often spells the doom of the Free Peoples. This is especially because in games where neutral powers are asking for bribes, the Dark Servants simply have more artifacts to bribe with than the Free.

- lack of team play. For various reasons, I've discovered that Free Peoples generally exhibit far more selfishness than the Dark Servants. This is because the Free Peoples have been broken into regions, which is conducive towards them joining forces within their home region and allowing others to go their own way. (How many horror stories of Noldo selfishness have we heard, anyway?) The Dark Servants, on the other hand, are mostly closely packed together in Mordor, forcing them to work together. The extreme disparity in force that the Witch-king and Dragon Lord face also make other Dark Servants with available resources willing to assist them, as they so clearly need help.

- lack of team play, part II. Even should the Free Peoples be more team-oriented than the Dark Servants, characters are far better than armies at carrying fights and assistance to distant lands. As the Dark Servants have a far superior character base, they can simply send their better agents and emissaries where they will to provide much-needed relief to their allies in hard-pressed areas (such as Eriador and Mirkwood). Positions such as Arthedain and Cardolan, even should they rapidly defeat the Witch-king, will find it difficult to send armies to the aid of their hard-pressed southern neighbours.

- incompetence and drops. Because of the above two paragraphs, inept and missing Free positions hurt the Free side far more than they hurt the Dark Servants. As each Free is incapable of giving good support to regions outside their sphere of influence, they must each hold up their end in their respective regions; and let's face it, usually at least two or three people on each team are, well, rather less than competent, if they're there at all. With the Dark Servants, powerful positions such as the Cloud Lord take up the slack (or a neutral is bribed into helping the Dark Side).

These are, by the way, reasons that the Witch-king usually manages to stay alive in Eriador. Lack of team play and incompetence among forces around Eriador/Mirkwood often force Arthedain or Cardolan to withstand the initial strike of Angmar alone... a dubious situation for the Free Peoples. Also, the Witch-king is the squeaky wheel that gets the grease, with Cloud Lord agents often coming north to assist the Witch-king against Arthedain and Cardolan, who are ill-equipped to withstand agent attacks.

Well, that would about do it. Comments and criticisms are welcome. My own experience with ME-PBM is not as extensive as some of y'all.

Rookie Mistakes to be Avoided in MEPBM

by Darrell Shimel

I'm quite disappointed with the lack of content in recent issues of the Mouth. In a past article, I tried to start some controversy over "Determining Winners in MEPBM." Unfortunately, this effort was sabotaged by an editor who wrote a supplementary article. The person playing SG in 2950-48 would do well to read this article.

[Tom's note: sabotaging efforts is one of the substitutes for actual pay when doing the editorial gig.]

Now I'll try to solicit input on a topic that I could really use.  Here is a list of rookie mistakes that I have made (or seen made).   I hope others will add items, so that I can avoid them. I'm not talking about the simple, "missed a mailing date", "wrote a number incorrectly", or "missed a required information". These are concept errors.

1) Troops eat after they transfer armies. 

1st army 3000 troops, 5000 food.

2nd army 6000 troops, 17000 food.

I transferred 5900 troops from army 2 to army 1, then tried to execute full movement. The army didn't arrive at its expected location, because the troops transferred before eating. When time came for movement, they had no food.

2) I'm not sure how many times I saw this stressed, but I still misunderstood it. Artifacts effect the chance of success, but not the result.   A 20(35) commander will NamComm a 20 commander, not a 30.

3) This one is almost too stupid to include, but I actually did it. NatTrans can only be done to one of your pop. centres. Don't try to NatTran directly to an allies pop. centre.

4) Gold transfers come at the end of the turn, but costs must be paid up front. Don't expect a gold transfer from an ally, to pay your bills on the turn that it is made. You'll be bankrupt with gold in the bank.

5) Don't assume that a powerful enemy character in your capital has something better to do than challenge that emissary you just named. You'll end up with an empty character slot, and Cirdan will get some cheap training that will come back to bite you later.

6) If you have overwhelming force on an enemies capital, are about to take them out of the game, and they have a small army with a commander better than yours, expect a challenge. Refusing might even be a good idea.

7) The converse of this is also true. When an enemy has a couple of powerful armies on your capital, and you have an army with a potential challenger, don't assume they'll refuse and attack.  They may attack and move to your backup, causing the situation described in 6) above.

All for me this time, I hope to see items I can learn from.

NPC Skill Ratings

by Tom Walton

All dragons are listed as Marshals/Archmages, but their skill ranks  are obviously beyond 100.

Celeborn: Command 60-69, Agent 10-19, Mage 20-29

Daeron: Command 20-29, Agent 10-19, Emissary 70-79, Mage 100+

Galadriel: Command 20-29, Agent 20-29, Emissary 70-79, Mage 100+

Gandalf: Command 30-39, Agent 30-39, Emissary 60-69, Mage 80-89

Saruman: Command 30-39, Agent 10-19, Emissary 70-79, Mage 100+

Sauron: Command 100+, Agent 80-89, Emissary 100+, Mage 100+

Shelob: Command 40-49, Agent 10-19, Mage 70-79

Tom Bombadil: Command 100+, Agent 100+, Emissary 100+, Mage 100+

Estimated Challenge Ranks based on skills alone:

Celeborn: 79

Daeron: 121+

Galadriel: 122+ (212+)

Gandalf: 115 (165)

Saruman: 123+

Sauron: 143+

Shelob: 95

Tom B: 156+

Note that it's possible for an NPC to have a skill rank greater than 100. It's also been speculated that some NPC's have challenge ranks higher than their skill ranks would indicate (the Wizards), and that a number of NPC's have health ranks greater than 100 (dragons, Sauron, Tom Bombadil).

The challenge ranks seem to be close to what seems to be correct for Celeborn, Gandalf, and Shelob. Daeron's challenge rank is probably somewhat higher than this, as his mage rank is almost certainly above 100. Same goes for Saruman and Galadriel (Saruman doesn't carry any artifacts, but seems to be stronger than Gandalf anyway).

Concerning Sauron and Tom Bombadil, the figures are obviously low.  Tom is far more powerful than any other creature except Sauron, and perhaps even Sauron would lose that battle. Sauron's challenge rank without artifacts has been estimated to be greater than 300; he's never been defeated in challenge, to my knowledge (although it'd be interesting to see what would happen if a character carrying the One Ring personally challenged Sauron, or transferred it to him if Dark Servant).

Population Center Development

by Brian D. Mason

Abstract

One of the most important aspects of the early game is deciding where to create or post camps. While many nations lack the emissaries with the necessary skill level to create camps, despite it being an easy skill, almost all possess one or more commanders with the skill level necessary to post camps, an average difficulty order. One of the most difficult decisions in the early game is deciding where camps should be located. This article will discuss some of the reasons behind the placement of camps: which type of character should do it, resource production, financial considerations, and security. Then the strengths and weaknesses of various nations will be discussed, as well as some possible camp locations.

Who Should Place the Camps?

Many of the nations have commanders who, when travelling with an army, have the command skill which would allow order 552 (Post Camp) to be executed with a very good chance of success. Also, very few nations have emissaries with even the modest skill level needed to execute order 555 (Create Camp) with a good chance of success.

Despite this, those nations without good ( > 30) emissaries would be advised to create one using order 725 (Name New Character), and then subsequently have that emissary execute order 734 (Name New Character as Emissary) as many times as necessary. Having a character in an army posting camps is not advisable for several reasons: one, it does not improve the command skill of the commander, two, when posting camps rather than training troops or training the army the commander does not improve his command rank and the training rank of the army or troops is not improved, and three it costs twice as much. For the additional cost of posting three camps you could name an additional character and have gold to spare. A stable of about three good emissaries can be used at all stages of the game, in creating camps when their skill levels are low, in improving population centres and bribing/recruiting characters or double agents when their skill levels are moderate or high. As it becomes more difficult to place camps at later stages of the game, it is important that you create emissaries fast and get your camps created quickly, especially if you start the game with few good emissaries.

Resource Production

The most important factor in camp placement is determining what types of which resources you need production, and where in nearby hexes these can be located. The spell reveal production is relatively easy to research (if you do not already have a character who can cast it) and this can determine locations which can supply the most needed commodity. Another option is having an agent Scout Hex (915), however, that has the detrimental effect of only determining production value of one hex (although with much greater precision). Another disadvantage of the Scout Hex option is that it takes an agent into a hex with no objectives where he may be unable to cast a skill order on the following turn. It is usually better in the early game to have agents improving their ranks or outperforming more specialised agent tasks. Below is a list of the mean production of each hex type taken from several games, and set-ups of many different nations, as well as additional contributions from other players. The production has been modified such that this is the production value of a camp in warm weather (that is, 100 percent production values). Keep in mind that the climate in your area will effect these mean production values and that mountainous terrain also will typically have one or two grades cooler climate than surrounding plains. The first column gives the resource type, the second column describes the rows, the first row being the terrain type, the second row the number of sites in the sample. Within each production type the first row is the number of sites in which that product is present, the next row the average of those sites and the final row the average of all sites. Some of these (especially desert terrain) may suffer from small number statistics, so the results may skewed. Also, note that no information is given for swamp hexes.

Table 1. Statistical Treatment of Resource Development