Bizarre odds in melee

[hammy]

I have never seen an army based around 4s do well in comps and would expect to easily beat one if I faced it. Perhaps I am wrong.

I think you are definately well off the mark there Hammy. Think before you type.

I was refering to the Santa Hooey Doh dah where you have the choice of 4s 6s or 8s for the spears and I know a number of people have tried the 4s version and I don't believe it has done well.

I am fully aware of the Dom Rom but when I have used it I found that in frontal contact even against something like Christian Nubian archers 8 bases of Christian Nubian archers with a commander were actually quite capable of beating 2 4s of auxillia. If the Auxilia get a disruption early then they are OK but the moment one BG loses a combat, loses a base and disrupts you are in big touble.

[hammy]

Is the Dom Rom swarm so quickly forgotten

Excuse my ignorance, but what is Dom Rom swarm? I suppose something like Dominate Roman with a lot of small BGs, but what happened with this army and what relation there is with the present discussion?

Take a dominate Roman army, use the minimum of cheap legionaries and then have 9 BGs of armoured average auxillia. Add as many BGs of superior skirmishers as you can afford. You should get about 18 BGs in an 800 point army. If your name is Graham Evans it works very well indeed.

[philqw78]

The relevance of the Dom Rom swarm is that every BG is 4 bases, though they could be, if foot, up to 8. It is rarely beaten, but takes a good player to win with it.

[ShrubMiK]

Ok Mario, I hear you!

I too have thought sometimes that perhaps there should be something like a unit command points cost. I don't think the advantages of small units are such that it is a big issue though. And I wouldn't want to see the game flip too far in the other direction - battles always consisting of a small number of large BGs and limited manoevre. And I do think the VP/army break system is a bit too simplistic for my liking. But I don't find that last point much of an issue in friendly games.

On the subject of resilience to shooting, so far we've talked about what happens when the target BGs are in a nice even line. And there do seem to be pros and cons, but we choose to interpret the importance of those pros and cons differently. Fair enough. The fact that different people have different opinions does tend to suggest that this is reasonably balanced.

Small BGs become more vulnerable than large ones when either operating independently, manning the end of the line, or the line becomes ragged.

The last point is particularly important against skirmishing shooters, since your BGs may be doing a lot of charging during the course of the game. The more BGs you have in the line the more chances there are for it to become ragged in the charge, combine that with the greater vulnerability of these small BGs to concentrated shooting afterwards, and that seems to spell a lot of potential for getting into trouble.

[grahambriggs]

I have never seen an army based around 4s do well in comps and would expect to easily beat one if I faced it. Perhaps I am wrong.

I think you are definately well off the mark there Hammy. Think before you type.

I was refering to the Santa Hooey Doh dah where you have the choice of 4s 6s or 8s for the spears and I know a number of people have tried the 4s version and I don't believe it has done well.

I am fully aware of the Dom Rom but when I have used it I found that in frontal contact even against something like Christian Nubian archers 8 bases of Christian Nubian archers with a commander were actually quite capable of beating 2 4s of auxillia. If the Auxilia get a disruption early then they are OK but the moment one BG loses a combat, loses a base and disrupts you are in big touble.

It is perhaps a different situation for spears. Lose a base and you lose POAs as well as dice. The standard way for 8s to prevent this is to be in 3 ranks. 4s cant be in 3 ranks.

Regards

graham

[marioslaz]

It is perhaps a different situation for spears. Lose a base and you lose POAs as well as dice. The standard way for 8s to prevent this is to be in 3 ranks. 4s cant be in 3 ranks.

I agree. In effect I like spear in 6s, because you can use them 2 or 3 deep, with different role. But the point here is, in simple words, if it is enough to have a cost per base, like games where there is just bases, or if it would be appropriate adding also a cost per BG, because you acquire bases, but your army is made by units you grouping your bases, and more units = more flexibility (and not only).

[petedalby]

Personally I'm fine with the current system - it's good to have the flexibility and choice.

As has already been discussed, there are pros and cons, and how you plan to use the army plays a big part in your design.

I've fought the Dom Rom swarm, and although not run by GE it was still a well ranked opponent with 19 BGs, against my 12 BG Ottoman, and I found 4 base BGs to be very brittle - especially against an 8 BG of Janissaries with a General.

And doesn't fortune favour the big battalions? (Apologies for an appalling misquote)

[bertalucci]

Sorry to get technical

Statistically the distribution curve for the larger unit (assuming its fighting with all possible elements) is wider and flatter than that for a small unit.
Therefore its probability of a fluke, extremely bad or extremely good, result is much lower than a smaller unit (it tends to roll average)

So for example in the impact phase our unit of 4 average troops in 2 ranks get 4 dice and have a 1 in 1,296 chance of rolling four 1's
Whereas the size 8 units's chance of rolling eight 1's is 1 in 1,679,616.

This also applies to getting very good rolls so small units are more volatile, while big units are more steady.

Of course this only applies if all elements of the big unit can fight.

[marioslaz]

Sorry to get technical

Statistically the distribution curve for the larger unit (assuming its fighting with all possible elements) is wider and flatter than that for a small unit.

You didn't say anything of new for me. But this is true if you confront a BG in 8s and a BG in 4s alone. If you get some BG in 4s in a battle line, they perform better then a battle line with BG in 8s, because it's harder to make a kill on BG in 4s than on BG in 8s, since hits are splitted (you must look at the start of this thread). This result cannot be deducted simply by looking to a distribution curve, because this involve many factors which are difficult to express in formulas. This is the reason because I made a model and I ran a simulation of 1,000,000 of full melee to get the win chances of both formation. BG in 4s are also more flexible; for instance, with a battle line of BG in 8s you can only overlap opponent's battle line, while with a battle line of BG in 4s you can send a BG on a flank of opponent's battle line.

I suggest you to read all the thread.

[Polkovnik]

If you get some BG in 4s in a battle line, they perform better then a battle line with BG in 8s.

Your argument is, I think that two BGs of 4 perform slightly better in combat than one of 8, so should be more points. But you also need to take account of vulnerability vs shooting to arrive at their overall relative worth. BGs of 4 are much more vulnerable to shooting. Why don't you run a simulation where the BGs (2 x 4 or 1 x are shot at by a BG of 4 LH ? The BG of 8 is invulnerable, the BG of 4 will need a CT 25% of the time, testing at -1 so less than 50% chance of passing.
Also, how about adding a general to your simulation. All the BG of 8 get re-rolls, only one BG of 4 does. How does that affect the 55% / 45% win ratio ?

[peteratjet]

Sorry to get technical

Statistically the distribution curve for the larger unit (assuming its fighting with all possible elements) is wider and flatter than that for a small unit.

You didn't say anything of new for me. But this is true if you confront a BG in 8s and a BG in 4s alone. If you get some BG in 4s in a battle line, they perform better then a battle line with BG in 8s, because it's harder to make a kill on BG in 4s than on BG in 8s, since hits are splitted (you must look at the start of this thread). This result cannot be deducted simply by looking to a distribution curve, because this involve many factors which are difficult to express in formulas. This is the reason because I made a model and I ran a simulation of 1,000,000 of full melee to get the win chances of both formation. BG in 4s are also more flexible; for instance, with a battle line of BG in 8s you can only overlap opponent's battle line, while with a battle line of BG in 4s you can send a BG on a flank of opponent's battle line.

I suggest you to read all the thread.

Did your simulation include the effect of cohesion tests? As Hammy pointed out, in any given round you increase the odds of losing at least one combat and taking a test with unfavourable modifiers by having two 4-base battlegroups instead of one 8-base group, and you generally win the game by making your opponent fail cohesion tests. Base losses are a second-order effect, especially in large battle groups.

For instance, in a 4:4 overall draw, there is a 1/3 chance of a base loss from the 8-base BG, compared to 1/6 chance for one of the 4-base BGS, but there is also a 5/16 chance that one of the 4-base BG ~loses~ a combat , which assuming no extraneous factors will incure a cohesion test with a -2 modifier (hits-per-base and lost by 2) with a 13/18 chance of failing (ouch!)

5/16 * 13/18 = 0.225

Which is not to say that there is no net advantage to having larger numbers of small battlegroups, but it's not due to a marginal superiority in frontal combat, if such exists. Having more units means more attrition points, which is good, and in the hands of an expert more chances of working a spare unit onto a flank. Should there be a points cost to balance this? Maybe, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

[ShrubMiK]

>Having more units means more attrition points

Yes...but it also means you can lose those attrition points quicker, e.g. if your 2x4 BGs lose vs. the 1v8.

If you have a mix of small and large BGs, losing X number of bases of the small BGs will get your closer to an army break than losing X number of bases of large BGs.

[marioslaz]

Did your simulation include the effect of cohesion tests?

Yes. When I say full melee I mean I made a simulation of all the aspects in a melee. I intentionally didn't take into account PoA, for example spears which lose a PoA when they lose a base.
Can I suggest you to read all previous posts?

[marioslaz]

If you get some BG in 4s in a battle line, they perform better then a battle line with BG in 8s.

Your argument is, I think that two BGs of 4 perform slightly better in combat than one of 8, so should be more points. But you also need to take account of vulnerability vs shooting to arrive at their overall relative worth.

We examined shooting in previous posts of this thread. Did you read previous posts before to write your?

Anyway, I add a thought about shooting. Shooting resistance is a factor much more difficult to consider. To explore the difference in shooting resistance of a BG in 4s you need unopposed skirmishers, a situation which involves army type, tactic, and so on. Instead, if you perform better in melee, everytime you substitute a BG in 8s with 2 BG in 4s you get a better performance. This doesn't mean if you have a loser you can change it in a winner, but a loser in a slight less loser. Just another example. With a BG in 8s you lose a melee round and roll a CT. You make an awful score and your BG loses 2 cohesion steps; this mean 8 bases lose 2 cohesion steps. Same situation with 2 BGs in 4s. You need 2 awful scores to demoralize 8 bases; with just an awful roll only 4 bases lose 2 cohesion levels.

[hammy]

With a BG in 8s you lose a melee round and roll a CT. You make an awful score and your BG loses 2 cohesion steps; this mean 8 bases lose 2 cohesion steps. Same situation with 2 BGs in 4s. You need 2 awful scores to demoralize 8 bases; with just an awful roll only 4 bases lose 2 cohesion levels.

Actually if 2 BGs of 4 are fighting one of 8 and one of the BGs of 4 loses big then the other BG of 4 won't last long. A BG of 4 that loses a base and loses cohesion ends up fighting with 2 dice only. Once it breaks and with 2 dice against 4 that shouldn't take long the remaining BG is on the wrong end of 8 dice against 4 and will have had to take a CT for seeing a friend break.

As I said earlier I don't have a simulator that can work things out and if your calculations suggest the 2 BGs of 4 have the advantage then that is not what I would have expected. I would be very surprised if the ods came out at exactly 50/50 though so your 55/45 is perfectly possible.

[Polkovnik]

We examined shooting in previous posts of this thread. Did you read previous posts before to write your?.

Yes, you used a particular example of a line of MF shooters shooting another solid line of foot. But most shooting in this game is by skirmishers, and is often at the BG on the end of a line. Of course you can come up with specific examples to back your point of view, but in reality large BGs are much more resilient to shooting over the course of a typical battle.

[ShrubMiK]

This leads on to another question I was intending to ask Mario...you quote a 55/45 win ratio for the 2x4 BGs. How does the 55% break down into both of the x4 BGS surviving, and one of them breaking?

This is another factor to bear in mind when considering cost effectiveness of the BG sizes. If it was a straight 50/50 split, I would argue the BGs of 4 were less cost-effective since some of the time you lose 4 bases in removing 8 of the enemies bases, whereas when the 8 base BG wins it destroys 8 enemy bases for no cost (ok, there will sometimes be a base or two lost in the combat...but you know what I mean!)

EDIT: Polkovnik, that also was addressed elsewhere in this thread

[dave_r]

I was refering to the Santa Hooey Doh dah where you have the choice of 4s 6s or 8s for the spears and I know a number of people have tried the 4s version and I don't believe it has done well.

I tried the SHNC version with the spears in 4's. It didn't work well against other big units of infantry. I quickly changed to having them in 8's, my preferred size for spearmen BG's.

I also tried the "Ralph the Timid" army with millions of BG's of 4 Armoured, Superior, OS and that didn't work very well either.

The thing about statistics is that they cater for what happens on average. Whereas in real life there are variations. Big BG's can cope well with little blips, but small BG's can't. For instance if one BG of 8 is fighting 2 BG's of 4 then on average you will get four hits each. However, if that means one of the small BG's get's beaten 3-1 then it is obviously in big trouble, but the big BG isn't bothered because the greater the number of dice, the more likely you are to get an average result.

[bertalucci]

Sorry to get technical

Statistically the distribution curve for the larger unit (assuming its fighting with all possible elements) is wider and flatter than that for a small unit.

You didn't say anything of new for me. But this is true if you confront a BG in 8s and a BG in 4s alone. If you get some BG in 4s in a battle line, they perform better then a battle line with BG in 8s, because it's harder to make a kill on BG in 4s than on BG in 8s, since hits are splitted (you must look at the start of this thread). This result cannot be deducted simply by looking to a distribution curve, because this involve many factors which are difficult to express in formulas. This is the reason because I made a model and I ran a simulation of 1,000,000 of full melee to get the win chances of both formation. BG in 4s are also more flexible; for instance, with a battle line of BG in 8s you can only overlap opponent's battle line, while with a battle line of BG in 4s you can send a BG on a flank of opponent's battle line.

I suggest you to read all the thread.

And I suggest you read what I wrote.
4's are more volatile than 8's where the 8 is faced by two units of 4 at impact the 8 is more likely to roll an average number of hits whereas the 4's are more likely to individually roll either very good or very bad, with a net effect of average.

This before you move to melee where against a solo unit of 4 the 8 should win almost no contest, due to weight of numbers, against two units of 4 the smaller units are still going to be more volatile.

Then as other contributors to the thread suggested losses and other effects tend to favour the larger unit.
I did not feel it necessary to restate these.

I suggest that instead of running pointless random number dice rolling tests, basic stats formula tell you that a coin will land heads 50% of the time - and you don't need to run a massive simulation to prove it - you read up on statistics where the formulas do indeed reflect the real world, upper and lower quartiles spring to mind as being relevant.

However, I cannot dispute that the 4's are more flexible and that large numbers of battlegroups assist in upping break point, to restate the obvious.

[marioslaz]

I surrender! I cannot argument against " I believe that..." or "My experience is...".
I make a good and accurate software model which simulate what happen in one million of melee. If I run it with 2 identical units I get they win at exactly 50% (wow! what a surprise!) and if I run it with 2 blocks of same bases' number BG, but with different formations, I get they win at 55% and 45%. Does nobody care about? Well, I don't care too. Do you want to put your head beneath the ground like an ostrich? Do it, I don't care at all.