Bizarre odds in melee

[Polkovnik]

Does nobody care about? Well, I don't care too.

Why are you spending so much time modelling it and then arguing about it then ?

Anyway, whatever the statistics say, "the proof is in the pudding", in other words, if small BGs really were that much better then everyone would always use the smallest BGs possible, which is not generally the case. If tournaments were dominated by swarms, then the authors probably would be concerned. But they aren't.

[hammy]

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.

I honestly believe your staistics. I cannot argue otherwise from a point of fact. However in my experience there is no significant advantage to more smaller units. The only times I remember getting more smaller units into an othewise even combat I seem to lose more often than I win. That said I have not tested it 100 time, never mind 1,000,000. A 55/45 split is not a massive difference and would be hard to notice in game play.

I do remember having 2 average BGs of 4 armoured light spear sword BGs fighting a BG of 8 unprotected superior MF bowmen with a commander and getting defeated in detail. I advanced into shooting range, both BGs were shot at then they were both shot again and one went disrupted, I charged and the disrupted BG passed the test so I got in with all 8 bases. The disrupted BG lost the impact 3 average dice at + vs 4 elite dice at - and 2 at -- which cost me a base so I was then down to 2 dice on that BG, then the weakened BG lost in the melee 2 dice at ++ vs 4 elite dice at -- and my BG broke. The remaining BG lasted two more melee rounds before it to broke. I was rather shocked by this result and I looked at the round by round odds to find that in most of the cases where I lost it was actually not that unlikely. OK to lose repeatedly was a problem but once average BGs of 4 bases start to lose combats they have a horrible habit of exploding very quickly. Lose a combat 3 hits to 1 (actually not that unlikely even when the overall combat is 4 hits per side) and the BG that loses has a 50% chance of losing a base and a 13/18 chance of disrupting. Disrupt and lose a base and you are in very serious trouble.

[philqw78]

Well Mario, I believe I can fly. No matter what proof you put in front of me you will lose the argument.

[ethan]

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.

I care .

I believe there is a basic problem that is going on.

The "my experience" group is based on what they observed in actual games. This includes lots of random swings of luck, more complex situations (involving skimrishers, other units, generals, etc) and of course the entire rest of the battle.

The "simulation" group is interested in understanding what happends in small isolated components. At least for me, some of the interactions are pretty subtle and while I can reliable predict my superior knights will slaughter MF armed with swords - I probably would not have predicted the advantage in the fight discussed here was on the side of the small BGs. It looks to me at least like that is true for a number of people reading this thread.

The real thing to take away is that there is no "right" answer here all the pieces are useful in thinking about the game. I personally find the "bulding block" from the simulation pretty useful. Just like a good poker player knows the odds of drawing a particular hand (and there have been studies, turns out those guys are amazingly good at estimating subtle probability differences) to form the basis of their play. Equally, good poker players aren't just computers they play in a much bigger game that invovles a lot of elements that aren't just pure probability.

Neither position "I find in most games that I don't really think the small BGs have an advantage" is not incompatible with "two small BGs on their own vs on large will, in general, favor the smaller BG side" is wrong. If you want to learn something from it it, then there is a lot more discussion and detail that matters (generals, shooting, skirmishing, how you play out the fight, etc).

All that said, if you really think probability and simulation of this sort have no value and that you can win "based on a feeling" I highly suggest you head out to Vegas and make a fortune...Simulating this combat is no different than simulating craps, roulette or anythign else...just throwing dice after all...

[hammy]

While I don't have a program that will simulate multiple rounds of combat I do have a crude one round calculator that with a lot of work will produce what I think are the right values. There is a possibility I have made an error as there are a lot of numbers.

Assuming no POA and everything average:

Looking at the 4 base BGs I make it that there is a 17.84% chance of each one losing a base in a round of combat. That means there is a 29.31% chance of one BG losing a base and a 3.18% chance of both losing bases
For the 8 base BG there is a 46.74% chance of losing one base and a 0.46% chance of losing two.

Each 4 base BG will disrupt 18.84% of the time and fragment 4.1% of the time and they will lose cohesion and a base 10.62% of the time. I make this a 35.35% chance of one BG disrupting and a 5.26% chance of both disrupting.
The 8 base BG will disrupt 22.75% of the time and fragment 3.78% of the time with cohesion loss and base loss 21.79% of the time.

Either way it is a very random and messy combat. I would have thought that whichever side loses cohesion first should lose but it would apear from Mario's calculations that this is not the case.

[AlanYork]

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.

I care too!

Whilst respecting all the arguments to the contrary it does seem that lots of small battle groups seem to have an advantage over having fewer but larger battle groups and not just because they make some armies almost impossible to beat.

I've seen suggested FoG army lists for Yorkists where it is recommended that the billmen are fielded in 6 groups of 4 bases with the Northern Border Spearmen split into 2 groups of 4. This is quite simply not how WOTR armies operated, they aren't Romans with small cohorts dotted around the place, they formed up in 3 big blocks with maybe a reserve if the general was feeling like he was a military genius that day.

IMO an army list book that allows me to use my Yorkist army like bill armed Romans in small cohorts and maniples is just plain WRONG. A better argument for unit costs (or "command factors" as they used to be back in the day of WRG 6th edition) I have yet to see.

As for the idea that 4 poor javelinmen are as valuable when routed as the Varangian Guard, don't get me started on that, I tried to explain that FoG concept to a friend of mine whom I play Piquet with on a semi regular basis and he just laughed at the "stupid idea".....

[BlackPrince]

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.

I have been told the guy who thrashed eveyone at CanCon2010 used a Rom Dom swarm as he came from NZ a doubt it was Graham Evans.

[philqw78]

As for the idea that 4 poor javelinmen are as valuable when routed as the Varangian Guard, don't get me started on that, I tried to explain that FoG concept to a friend of mine whom I play Piquet with on a semi regular basis and he just laughed at the "stupid idea".....

I think the way BG become AP in FoG is great. This has been argued many times. But it makes you keep those poor LF out of the way. And if you lose the Varangians it has a lot more effect on your battle plan than losing the LF.

[BlackPrince]

While the LF are Varangian Guard are worth the same AP loss when they rout there is a subtle difference between them in the game play that makes the Varangian Guard more valuable than LF. When the LF rout only skirmishers take a CT if they are within 3MU whereas when the Varangian Guard go everyone within 3MU takes a test and sometimes it hurts.

Keith

[philqw78]

While the LF are Varangian Guard are worth the same AP loss when they rout there is a subtle difference between them in the game play that makes the Varangian Guard more valuable than LF

Less than subtle. I would cry if my Varangian guard routed. The game for Nikes would be over.

[hammy]

As for the idea that 4 poor javelinmen are as valuable when routed as the Varangian Guard, don't get me started on that, I tried to explain that FoG concept to a friend of mine whom I play Piquet with on a semi regular basis and he just laughed at the "stupid idea".....

I think the way BG become AP in FoG is great. This has been argued many times. But it makes you keep those poor LF out of the way. And if you lose the Varangians it has a lot more effect on your battle plan than losing the LF.

If you make BGs of skirmishers less significant when broken then it actually makes skirmishers better as you can be more agressive with them as losing them matters little if at all.

I have heard that in Armati games where only a proportion of the units matter for winning or losing and the rest count for nothing that these unimportant troops end up taking the Star Trek security guard roll and end up being very agressively used as if you can get one enemy key unit for the loss of most of your non key ones it is a notable gain.

[ShrubMiK]

Oh good, it's turning into a "let's bash the stupid rules" session :/

Bottom line: there are no rulesets that have every detail exactly to any one persons taste. If the details you don't like are game-breakers for you, play something else.

Personally I just don't see what the big problem is here. As has pointed out by several people, there are some advantages and some disadvantages to deploying in small BGs. If you feel these largely balance out, decide what size your BGs should be based on personal preference, what use you intend to put the BG to, etc. If you believe it is unbalanced to such an extent that small BGs are always preferable, then always take small BGs. IF you are concerned that your army doesn't allow small BGs and you really want a competitive tournament army, change your army.

A 55/45 split in combat wins in one particular matchup of small vs. large BGs isn't really lopsided enough to add anything to the debate. As already said, you would have trouble noticing that over the table. Especailly when that precise situation doesn't arise that frequently.

If you believe that fior the rules to be fair it should be 50/50 with identical numbers of identical troops on each side, then you are arguing for a complete ground-up revamp of the FoG mechanics. It would be a different ruleset. Ergo, if that's what you want you might as well leave FoG be and go play another ruleset.

Arguing for the introduction of some form of command points is different, it could be done without changing the rules themselves. Or the army lists.

Mario, you haven't answered the question in my previous post. I would be interested to know the answer

[Polkovnik]

I've seen suggested FoG army lists for Yorkists where it is recommended that the billmen are fielded in 6 groups of 4 bases with the Northern Border Spearmen split into 2 groups of 4. This is quite simply not how WOTR armies operated, they aren't Romans with small cohorts dotted around the place, they formed up in 3 big blocks with maybe a reserve if the general was feeling like he was a military genius that day.

Even if you run them as small BGs, it is normally still best to use them in battle lines, so you would still see big blocks of troops, not loads of small units running all over the place.

[grahambriggs]

While the LF are Varangian Guard are worth the same AP loss when they rout there is a subtle difference between them in the game play that makes the Varangian Guard more valuable than LF. When the LF rout only skirmishers take a CT if they are within 3MU whereas when the Varangian Guard go everyone within 3MU takes a test and sometimes it hurts.

Keith

Tell me about it. At the weekend My elite Cauchique veterans broke in a bound against cavalry (insert usual tale of woe). That dropped the Calpolli next door to Broken and they both fled through two LF units - one broke one fragged. So that's 7 APs down. Had it been a LF unit routing it would probably have been just the two AP

[AlanYork]

I've seen suggested FoG army lists for Yorkists where it is recommended that the billmen are fielded in 6 groups of 4 bases with the Northern Border Spearmen split into 2 groups of 4. This is quite simply not how WOTR armies operated, they aren't Romans with small cohorts dotted around the place, they formed up in 3 big blocks with maybe a reserve if the general was feeling like he was a military genius that day.

Even if you run them as small BGs, it is normally still best to use them in battle lines, so you would still see big blocks of troops, not loads of small units running all over the place.

True, but many BGs of 4 gives the army a flexibility to deal with unforseen situations that it simply didn't possess. If I wanted "Roman cohorts" I would've bought Romans.

The fact remains that I can give myself an advantage that the army didn't have in reality by using the multiple BGs of 4 billmen that the list book allows me to field. Sorry if I appear dogmatic or overly critical on this but in a historical context it's my belief that this is just out and out wrong. I actually use 3 or 4 BGs of 8 billmen / Northern border spearmen when I play, to simulate the vaward, main battle and rearward and occasionally the reserve. It does me no favours IMO but like I said, they are Yorkists, not Romans. Even playing out of period I like them to at least look and behave like a Wars of the Roses army, otherwise why not just use blocks of wood to depict units????

As for Varangians being worth as much as Poor skirmishers in rout, yes it's true that the effect on morale checks is different, point taken, but in a competition it's still 2 attrition points each no matter how you look at it. To have skirmishers as worthless throw away troops is IMO totally wrong, I can't fault the logic there, but to have them worth as much as the Varangian Guard in a tournament or even a club night game just seems bizarre. Surely there could have been some "middle ground" reached???

[grahambriggs]

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.

Exactly 50% is a surprise for one million combats with 50% chances. If I remember my university statistics, you would expect a result close to 50%, but not exactly 50%.

Re 55/45, you make a good point, though limited by the narrow focus of the simulation. But the rulebook will not be reprinted yet. Until then, we need practical fixes.

[peteratjet]

Each 4 base BG will disrupt 18.84% of the time and fragment 4.1% of the time and they will lose cohesion and a base 10.62% of the time. I make this a 35.35% chance of one BG disrupting and a 5.26% chance of both disrupting.
The 8 base BG will disrupt 22.75% of the time and fragment 3.78% of the time with cohesion loss and base loss 21.79% of the time.

You can treat combat with no POA as a series of coin-tosses. Some fun with Excel to crunch the numbers over one round gives a very similar answer to Hammy's, unsurprisingly. The large BG has a slightly better chance of not losing the combat than one-or-both of the smaller BGs. It is more likely to lose a base, but it can lose one base with almost no ill effect, while a 4-base BG losing a base will be somewhat screwed. In most cases it will have lost the combat and in over half of those cases it will be disrupted or worse, rolling only 2 dice next time, with excellent chances of auto-breaking from another base loss, never mind the Cohesion test.

The advantage of the smaller BGs lies in having extra manouevre elements , not frontal combat

[ShrubMiK]

Assuming Mario's simulator is accurate, that's an incorrect statement.

[hammy]

I am assuming that Mario's simulation is correct but I am still surprised.

There are a lot of factors to consider going into the second round. One quite significant would would be if the 8 base BG gives as good as it gets but loses a base while one of the 4 base BGs loses and disrupts possibly also losing a base which side of the 8 base BG does the program take the base that replaces the lost base of the 8 base BG from? If it removes it from the rear rank facing the weakened BG then it is significantly reducing the likelyhood that the 8 base BG will win the fight.

Assuming the 8 base BG loses a base in a drawn combat it still has 7 dice, it doesn't matter for the larger BG where they fight but for the smaller BGs if you have 4 bases vs 3 or even 4 vs 3 that are disrupted or fragmented it is very bad news indeed.

[grahambriggs]

It would be interesting to see what benefit the presence of rear support and generals would give. The morale benefits would make the combat last longer. Would that change the outcomes?

Overlaps from adjacent BGs could also be an interesting difference. An overlapped 4 fight 50% more dice, while an overlapped 8 fights only 25% more dice. If each side had an overlap then does the overlapped 4 die more quickly than the overlapped 8?