Impact

[Athos1660]

I really like RNG because it creates unexpected results : two enemies move towards each other, frontally meet ; then the weaker has a chance to win or, at least, do better than expected. But at the same time, strangely enough, I prefer P&S's auto drop for flank/rear charges, including on unengaged units, like SnuggleBunnies (ie. no RNG for rear/flank charge).
Why ?
Maybe the answer is here :

The chance to charge an opponent in the flank is indeed a rare occurrence (...)

ie. far more than with two units meeting frontally, finding oneself in a situation of being charged or of charging in flank/rear is already (at least partly) the result of a series of unexpected events and of chance; a historically fatal situation driven by chance that, once in place in game, may deserve an automatic fatal outcome in my mind ?

[Cunningcairn]

One combat is impossible to cause 25 percent casualties.

Odds are 1/600

In the cohesion test you receive a -1 if you suffer 5% or greater casualties and a further -1 if your casualties are far greater than those you inflicted. As a heavy infantry my spearmen would have received +1 which as far as I can see would make the worst case -1 on the CT. Although my first question is still unanswered my second question is how does a HF OSp on higher ground charge an enemy HF OSp in the flank and firstly lose the combat and secondly receive significantly more casualties than it inflicted?

Edit: I have received my opponents move. I see that I did suffer significant casualties ( 65 ) in my impact and did not inflict many myself. I'm not sure how many exactly but about 30. This means I had a net total of -1 on my cohesion test so the fragment is possible. I have also made an error on the POA for the hill as it has a height of 50 and you only get +1 for a height of 75 or greater. This makes my overall POA on impact +50 and not +75.

I would still appreciate it if someone could answer my questions.
1. What are the odds on charging with a +50 POA and then fragmenting as explained above?
2. How can a unit suffer so many casualties when charging a similar unit in the flank?

1) So you said that both units were fresh right? There is some RNG involved in spawning unit sizes so a 480 man unit can spawn as a 460 man unit. Even with 65 casualties, that is not enough to bring the unit down to the first casualty breakpoint so you don't need to worry about that. The two -1 modifiers you mentioned are almost always inflicted by steady non-light foot units fighting each other and the RNG produces a winner. It is so standard that I bake them into the die rolls when I calculate.

You double drop on a modified score of 2 on 2d6. You have your basic -2 as discussed. You get your +1 for being Heavy Foot. So total modified score of -1. You double drop then on snake eyes or a roll of 3. Snake eyes is 1/36. A roll of 3 is 2/36. Combined your odds are 3/36 or 1/12. +50 PoA gives you about a 2% chance to lose or 1/50. Multiply the two together to get your chance for the event. 1/50 x 1/12 = 1/600. Or 0.16% chance of occurrence.


2) The game doesn't care about you charging in the flank when producing casualties. That is just a PoA modifier that goes into RBS's black box of combat mechanics and RNG spits out a winner. It is not different than if you had gotten your +50 PoA by having a General in the unit from what I can tell.

Mike I've just been told by PompeytheFlatulent in another post you get +25 POA for <=75 levels higher which I had "read" as >=75. Sorry for the confusion If there is a 0.16% chance of double dropping with a +50 POA what would that be for a +75 POA ?

[MikeC_81]

As Paul stated in the other thread, it is still going to be +50 PoA. Even if it was +75, I don't think it would knowing the answer would satisfy you regarding what happened to your spears.

If you really care about the stats, I'll clean up my spreadsheet and PM it to you.

[Cunningcairn]

As Paul stated in the other thread, it is still going to be +50 PoA. Even if it was +75, I don't think it would knowing the answer would satisfy you regarding what happened to your spears.

If you really care about the stats, I'll clean up my spreadsheet and PM it to you.

Paul is incorrect I think. I have replied to him in that thread. The rules say Minimum Overall NET POA if target is unengaged which was the case. It would be great if you could PM me the spreadsheet.

[rbodleyscott]

As Paul stated in the other thread, it is still going to be +50 PoA. Even if it was +75, I don't think it would knowing the answer would satisfy you regarding what happened to your spears.

If you really care about the stats, I'll clean up my spreadsheet and PM it to you.

Paul is incorrect I think. I have replied to him in that thread. The rules say Minimum Overall NET POA if target is unengaged which was the case. It would be great if you could PM me the spreadsheet.

Paul was right. The Minimum Overall NET POA is exactly what it says, a guaranteed minimum overall Net POA, it isn't an additive POA in its own right.

You only get more than the Minimum Overall NET POA for a flank attack if the net POA without the flank attack would be more than the Minimum Overall NET POA.

So your unit would have been on +50 POA, not +75 POA.

[Cunningcairn]

As Paul stated in the other thread, it is still going to be +50 PoA. Even if it was +75, I don't think it would knowing the answer would satisfy you regarding what happened to your spears.

If you really care about the stats, I'll clean up my spreadsheet and PM it to you.

Paul is incorrect I think. I have replied to him in that thread. The rules say Minimum Overall NET POA if target is unengaged which was the case. It would be great if you could PM me the spreadsheet.

Paul was right. The Minimum Overall NET POA is exactly what it says, a guaranteed minimum overall Net POA, it isn't an additive POA in its own right.

You only get more than the Minimum Overall NET POA for a flank attack if the net POA without the flank attack would be more than the Minimum Overall NET POA.

So your unit would have been on +50 POA, not +75 POA.

OK so what is the Maximum Net Overall POA?

[rbodleyscott]

Paul is incorrect I think. I have replied to him in that thread. The rules say Minimum Overall NET POA if target is unengaged which was the case. It would be great if you could PM me the spreadsheet.

Paul was right. The Minimum Overall NET POA is exactly what it says, a guaranteed minimum overall Net POA, it isn't an additive POA in its own right.

You only get more than the Minimum Overall NET POA for a flank attack if the net POA without the flank attack would be more than the Minimum Overall NET POA.

So your unit would have been on +50 POA, not +75 POA.

OK so what is the Maximum Net Overall POA?

It is (always) +200. But it isn't relevant to the issue of flank attack POAs.

The Minimum Overall NET POA is exactly what it says, a guaranteed minimum overall Net POA, it isn't an additive POA in its own right.

You only get more than the Minimum Overall NET POA for a flank attack if the net POA without the flank attack would be more than the Minimum Overall NET POA.

[Cunningcairn]

You only get more than the Minimum Overall NET POA for a flank attack if the net POA without the flank attack would be more than the Minimum Overall NET POA.

OK thanks.

[rbodleyscott]

Your unit's chance of losing the combat at +50 POA was about 5%. In order to double drop it would have to lose badly, the chances of which are not easily quantified, but probably 1 or 2% at most.

At that point, if no other CT modifiers apply, your unit would be testing at -2. That means that a score of 4 or less on 2d6 would result in a double drop. That is a 1 in 6 chance.

So the chance of your unit double-dropping was perhaps between 1 in 300 and 1 in 600.