The power of dices

[76mm]

this thread was quieting down a bit, wanted to post a couple of my recent results. I have the game show percentage rather than man losses but the results can still be rather incredible:

1) an enemy cavalry unit was engaging one of my own. I charged the enemy cav unit in the rear with a heavy cav unit and MY unit suffered 18% casualties and was disrupted. This kind of thing happens much more frequently than I would expect. While I can see how sometimes an enemy unit charged in the rear might be able to avert disaster if some portion of the unit turns to the rear in a timely fashion, this sort of maneuver would be purely defensive, and it sort of boggles the mind that they could inflict 18% casualties on a unit attacking them in the rear (especially if they are already engaged in melee).

2) Similarly, an enemy LF archer unit was engaged in melee with one of my LF units. I had one of my elite legions attack the enemy archer and was astounded when the elite legion suffered 23% casualties! You can talk all you want about soldiers picking up standards, small bands of archers darting out, etc. , but the only plausible explanation I can come up with is hand grenades. This is especially the case if a LF BG has 300 men, and a legion BG has 1500. What we're saying is that somehow an archer unit of 300 men which was already engaged with another unit somehow succeeded in inflicting more than 300 casualties on the legion. I just don't buy it.

[hidde]

This to me is the crux of the matter. I don't see a problem with luck and the weaker units in 76mm:s examples avoid getting crushed and hold for a turn or two. But the causalties as 76mm describes it happens to often in my opinion. I don't buy causalties having no consequence. If the legion lose 300 men it's that much closer to a loss of one POA than if the causalties was more reasonable. That's how I interpret the rules anyway

[Morbio]

I had promised myself that I wasn't going to respond to this thread anymore (flogging a dead horse and all that), but I'm weak, oh so weak!

Generally I think the game percentage work well, but I do agree that there are certain scenarios where the numbers are incredible - the examples you give are good ones. I think perhaps that a tweak to the combat logic is in order to modify certain circumstances. Using the examples listed above then perhaps the upper 1 or 2 entries on the percentage damages possible should be excluded for units already engaged. Perhaps similarly the next possible damage range should be excluded if you are being attacked in the rear.

Let's assume the damage table is something like... (N.B. Fictitious numbers to illustrate the point).
A 20-25%
B 15-20%
C 10-15%
D 5-10%
E 0-5%

So, using the LF example: Since the unit is already engaged then this would exclude option A and B from the possible damage.

Using the Cavalry example: Since the unit is already engaged then this would exclude option A and B from the possible damage. Since it is being rear-charged then this would exclude option C too.

I suggest leaving the percentage chances of getting these damage ranges the same, so that if the miracle roll happens that would give damage range A, then since this is an excluded range, then it simply transfers to range C or D.

[batesmotel]

this thread was quieting down a bit, wanted to post a couple of my recent results. I have the game show percentage rather than man losses but the results can still be rather incredible:

1) an enemy cavalry unit was engaging one of my own. I charged the enemy cav unit in the rear with a heavy cav unit and MY unit suffered 18% casualties and was disrupted. This kind of thing happens much more frequently than I would expect. While I can see how sometimes an enemy unit charged in the rear might be able to avert disaster if some portion of the unit turns to the rear in a timely fashion, this sort of maneuver would be purely defensive, and it sort of boggles the mind that they could inflict 18% casualties on a unit attacking them in the rear (especially if they are already engaged in melee).

2) Similarly, an enemy LF archer unit was engaged in melee with one of my LF units. I had one of my elite legions attack the enemy archer and was astounded when the elite legion suffered 23% casualties! You can talk all you want about soldiers picking up standards, small bands of archers darting out, etc. , but the only plausible explanation I can come up with is hand grenades. This is especially the case if a LF BG has 300 men, and a legion BG has 1500. What we're saying is that somehow an archer unit of 300 men which was already engaged with another unit somehow succeeded in inflicting more than 300 casualties on the legion. I just don't buy it.

In example 2, there is either a bug in the game or you have mis-recorded the results. In the future it would be very helpful to include the number of hits each BG inflicted and suffered as well as the % casualties.

The LF unit would only have 2 attacks against your HF (unelss the HF was fragmented and then could not charge). These are the range of possible casualties from the help:

# If a battle group received more hits than it inflicted:

* 0 hits : 0.01% to 1%
* 1 hit : 2% to 9%
* 2 hits : 5% to 14%
* 3 hits : 9% to 18%
* 4 hits : 12% to 24%
* 5 hits : 17% to 27%
* 6 hits : 22% to 28%

Other results:

* 0 hits : 0.01% to 1%
* 1 hit : 0.25% to 3%
* 2 hits : 0.5% to 5%
* 3 hits : 2% to 9%
* 4 hits : 5% to 14%
* 5 hits : 9% to 18%
* 6 hits : 12% to 24%

The LF can inflict a maximum of 2 hits with two attacks. Assuming that your HF lost by inflicting 1 or less hits, then the maximum percentage loss it could have suffered is 14%. To lose 23% it would have had to have suffered at least 4 hits! Please see if you can duplicate this result with a screenshot and email it to info@slitherine.com if you can do so with the summary display open to show details of the combat.

Chris

[batesmotel]

I had promised myself that I wasn't going to respond to this thread anymore (flogging a dead horse and all that), but I'm weak, oh so weak!

Generally I think the game percentage work well, but I do agree that there are certain scenarios where the numbers are incredible - the examples you give are good ones. I think perhaps that a tweak to the combat logic is in order to modify certain circumstances. Using the examples listed above then perhaps the upper 1 or 2 entries on the percentage damages possible should be excluded for units already engaged. Perhaps similarly the next possible damage range should be excluded if you are being attacked in the rear.

Let's assume the damage table is something like... (N.B. Fictitious numbers to illustrate the point).
A 20-25%
B 15-20%
C 10-15%
D 5-10%
E 0-5%

So, using the LF example: Since the unit is already engaged then this would exclude option A and B from the possible damage.

Using the Cavalry example: Since the unit is already engaged then this would exclude option A and B from the possible damage. Since it is being rear-charged then this would exclude option C too.

I suggest leaving the percentage chances of getting these damage ranges the same, so that if the miracle roll happens that would give damage range A, then since this is an excluded range, then it simply transfers to range C or D.

I assume you mean for this to only apply in impact combat? Troops fighting in melee lose attacks already so are penalized that way. In Impact troops are penalized for being charged in the rear by POAs so they should inflict fewer hits on average but they can still get lucky.

Is the number of hits the issue or should it just be fewer casualties?

Chris

[SRW1962]

I am like morbio on this one, weakness? its more like an addiction!

I have run a simulation with HF legionaries attacking LF javelin at least 200 hundred times now, sad I know, but I was curious to see the long term results. Admittedly the LF were average javelinmen and the HF were superior legionaries, but the highest amount of casualties in a single combat that 500 javelinmen caused was actually 273 which is about 18%, so 23% could be in the realms of possibility, but how often that might happen is the question and as I said in at least 200 simulations I have encountered that amount of casulaties. Having said that, every single combat between LF javelinmen and HF legionaries ended with the javelinmen routed.

As for your archer unit, why was it only 300 men, the default is 500 men, unless it had picked up 200 casulaties already, was it superior, average or poor?

The cavalry example is interesting, what was the type and training of the chargers and also the type and training of the charged unit? I would like to do a simulation on that one!

I cannot comment on the cavalry example as there wasn't enough info etc. to make any conclusion, but the LF/HF example I know must have ended in the LF being routed as it has happened every single time in the simulation I have run. Maybe a good thing would be to run simulations of your own to answer the questions you are asking, you could easily setup the scenarios you have mentioned and run them a hundred times to give you an idea of the possible results, all I do is setup 10 examples on a single map and run it 10 times. That way you know that you can trust your own findings rather than rely on other peoples examples etc.

[76mm]

ooops, I thought LF units had 300 men, not 500, but that doesn't change the result that much.

The incident with the LF/elite legion literally just happened so the results of the combat have not been determined. While but I too expect that the LF will rout by the end. the point is that in the meantime is it realistic that they could EVER inflict 23% casualties on an elite legion upon impact/melee? I would say no...

I will have to wait for my turn in the game with the cav to provide more detail, I don't remember. I assume that the unit I charged in the rear was superior heavy cav, as was my unit, but will try to check next turn (although all of the units will presumably have moved on, so not sure this will be possible).

I tried setting up some test scenarios this week but found the scenario editor a bit user-unfriendly. In particular, while I could place units, once placed I could not move them for some reason (and yes I selected the "move unit" button). Will try to play around with it again next weekend. Probably my first subject for testing: the results of cavalry charging infantry in woods--the cavalry seems much too effective to me based on battlefield experience but additional testing is necessary...

[SRW1962]

ooops, I thought LF units had 300 men, not 500, but that doesn't change the result that much.

is it realistic that they could EVER inflict 23% casualties on an elite legion upon impact/melee? I would say no...

Probably my first subject for testing: the results of cavalry charging infantry in woods--the cavalry seems much too effective to me based on battlefield experience but additional testing is necessary...

I honestly have no data on actual battlefield casualties for individual real life examples of light troops vs legions, so I cannot comment about how realistic or not that is, I would say that in my opinion it seems excessive to say the least, which is why I generally ignore such events and simply concentrate on the overall result. If the LF routed the HF then that for me would be totally unrealistic in the impact/melee situation.

As for cavalry in woods, the best example I can use is the battle of Idistaviso 16AD - where Germanicus sent his heavy cavalry through the great forest to attack the german tribesmen, which they routed.

[76mm]

As for cavalry in woods, the best example I can use is the battle of Idistaviso 16AD - where Germanicus sent his heavy cavalry through the great forest to attack the german tribesmen, which they routed.

Was not familiar with this battle, but I don't recall many (actually any) other examples of cavalry charging through the woods. Not to say it didn't happen, but frankly the thought of cataphracts plunging into the woods to root out MF is completely counterintuitive to me. Tree branches alone would serve as a significant threat even without those pesky enemy spearmen/swordsmen.

[SRW1962]

Cataphracts would be buggered, totally and utterly if they fight on anything other than smooth terrain. For Cataphracts simply look at them as mounted pikemen.

Not to denigrate the Great Forest in any way or blow my example out of the water as it were, but in England at least I do know that in medieval times a forest was in fact simply a royal game park, and as such didn't need to have any trees at all, so for example Sherwood Forest being a royal game park need not have had any trees in it, or it may have had lots. This was England though and whether the idea was the same elsewhere I don't know, especially during the ancient period.

[76mm]

Cataphracts would be buggered, totally and utterly if they fight on anything other than smooth terrain. For Cataphracts simply look at them as mounted pikemen.

And yet in a recent game some numerous nasty Bosporan cataphracts repeatedly attacked my poor Illyrian warriors seeking shelter in a woodline. While the woods provided some shelter, my warriors took more, and the cats took less, casualties then I would have expected.

[omarquatar]

it happens a couple of times in each game...now 3 veteran legions and a velite unit attacking from rear (!) weren't able to rout a LH archer
of course they'll win the engagement next turn, but the enemy unit has attracted 4 of my BGs...while in reality, they would simply gallop away from danger
that's always very frustrating

[deeter]

In 76mm's cavalry example, I'm wondering if the unit attached in the rear flashed the "rear" noticifaction and, if so, did it lose cohesion immediately before the dice roll? I wonder because, of course, you have to start in the rear to get a rear attack so that could be a mistaken rear attack. On the other hand, I swear I've seen valid rear attacks that did not disrupt the victim even though it said "rear."

Deeter

[batesmotel]

In 76mm's cavalry example, I'm wondering if the unit attached in the rear flashed the "rear" noticifaction and, if so, did it lose cohesion immediately before the dice roll? I wonder because, of course, you have to start in the rear to get a rear attack so that could be a mistaken rear attack. On the other hand, I swear I've seen valid rear attacks that did not disrupt the victim even though it said "rear."

Deeter

I believe that all the rear notification indicates is that the attacker will be using the rear attack POA (++). You can get this whether or not you start in the rear of the unit. The latter is required to cause the automatic cohesion drop so I believe you can get the Rear attack notice without causing disruption.

Chris

[petergarnett]

The %age lost is dependant upon how many hits and whether you inflict more than the enemy does.

None of the examples being quoted tell us this so it's difficult to comment.

From the help file:-

0 hits : 0.01% to 1%
1 hit : 0.25% to 3%
2 hits : 0.5% to 5%
3 hits : 2% to 9%
4 hits : 5% to 14%
5 hits : 9% to 18%
6 hits : 12% to 24%

Or if more hits received:-

0 hits : 0.01% to 1%
1 hit : 2% to 9%
2 hits : 5% to 14%
3 hits : 9% to 18%
4 hits : 12% to 24%
5 hits : 17% to 27%
6 hits : 22% to 28%

[Toby42]

In 76mm's cavalry example, I'm wondering if the unit attached in the rear flashed the "rear" noticifaction and, if so, did it lose cohesion immediately before the dice roll? I wonder because, of course, you have to start in the rear to get a rear attack so that could be a mistaken rear attack. On the other hand, I swear I've seen valid rear attacks that did not disrupt the victim even though it said "rear."

Deeter

I believe that all the rear notification indicates is that the attacker will be using the rear attack POA (++). You can get this whether or not you start in the rear of the unit. The latter is required to cause the automatic cohesion drop so I believe you can get the Rear attack notice without causing disruption.

Chris

So, what does the (++) mean?

[batesmotel]

...
I believe that all the rear notification indicates is that the attacker will be using the rear attack POA (++). You can get this whether or not you start in the rear of the unit. The latter is required to cause the automatic cohesion drop so I believe you can get the Rear attack notice without causing disruption.

Chris

So, what does the (++) mean?

The chance of scoring a hit against an opposing BG is determined by your Points of Advantage versus that BG. The allowed range of POAs is from -- (least chance to hit) to ++ (highest chance to hit). In combat (Impact and Melee) your BG's POA is the complement of the opposing BG's, e.g. if you have a ++ then your opponent has --. In combat a ++ POA means you would score a hit on a roll of 3-6 on a D6, a -- POA means you would score a hit on a roll of 5-6. See the "combat mechanism" entry in the on line help for more information.

Chris

[Toby42]

...
I believe that all the rear notification indicates is that the attacker will be using the rear attack POA (++). You can get this whether or not you start in the rear of the unit. The latter is required to cause the automatic cohesion drop so I believe you can get the Rear attack notice without causing disruption.

Chris

So, what does the (++) mean?

The chance of scoring a hit against an opposing BG is determined by your Points of Advantage versus that BG. The allowed range of POAs is from -- (least chance to hit) to ++ (highest chance to hit). In combat (Impact and Melee) your BG's POA is the complement of the opposing BG's, e.g. if you have a ++ then your opponent has --. In combat a ++ POA means you would score a hit on a roll of 3-6 on a D6, a -- POA means you would score a hit on a roll of 5-6. See the "combat mechanism" entry in the on line help for more information.

Chris

Thanks Chris. I read it once, I'll try it again and see if It makes sense to me....

[76mm]

OK, I have a confession: I played another turn, and the offending archer unit referred to in my post was one of those pesky Pontic medium archers, not a LF archer as I thought. This certainly changes the equation a bit, but still seems rather excessive to me.

Couldn't get more data on the cav example, by the next turn I couldn't even figure out which battle it had been in...

[rbodleyscott]

OK, I have a confession: I played another turn, and the offending archer unit referred to in my post was one of those pesky Pontic medium archers, not a LF archer as I thought. This certainly changes the equation a bit, but still seems rather excessive to me.

There is a bit in one of the ancient histories, probably Appian, about Pontic archers attacking Romans hand-to-hand with bunches of arrows.

(It doesn't alter the case you describe, but I thought it might be of interest).