Number of BG in the Britcon armies

[stenic]

Hmm, this is actually really a rather hard probability problem.

Some numbers of note (assuming even POA and average troops):
8 dice will generate 4 hits 27.34% of the time
these hits will be split 2 and 2 between sets of 4 14.06% of the time
in the situation where exactly 4 hits are inflicted then there is a 48.57% chance that one of the smaller BGs will have lost the combat

Overall I think this means that the smaller BGs are less likely to lose a base in a drawn fight but that it is nowhere near as bad as Ethan sugested and there is a fairly high chance that one of the smaller BGs will be taking a cohesion test as well as having a chance of losing a base.

I beg to differ, it is bad. In my 1st round Expo game this year exactly this happened. All along the line most results were draws with my 8base BGs taking on 20 4base BGs, it so happened I'd do 4 and take 4, he'd do 2 and take 2 and the other BG would do the same. I I get a death roll of 2, he doesn't care as he's at +2 for drawing. Never rolled so many 1s and 2s in my life

After that it went downhill very fast.

Steve P

[hammy]

I beg to differ, it is bad. In my 1st round Expo game this year exactly this happened. All along the line most results were draws with my 8base BGs taking on 20 4base BGs, it so happened I'd do 4 and take 4, he'd do 2 and take 2 and the other BG would do the same. I I get a death roll of 2, he doesn't care as he's at +2 for drawing. Never rolled so many 1s and 2s in my life

After that it went downhill very fast.

Steve P

Steve, I would contend that if you had a load of combats that all worked out as pairs of 2 2 draws and then you rolled lots of 1s and 2s for death rolls you were pretty unlucky.

It is not a sure fire win for you by a long shot but it is certainly not much different to an even fight and if you commit you commanders I suspect the odds should be in your favour even if your opponent does the same.

If you are bored one day try fighting 4 BGs of 8 HW in a line vs 8 BGs of 4 Lt spear swordsmen. Give both sides 2 commanders and see what happens. I would say it will pan out fairly even, certainly no worse than 55 45 either way.

[ethan]

If you are bored one day try fighting 4 BGs of 8 HW in a line vs 8 BGs of 4 Lt spear swordsmen. Give both sides 2 commanders and see what happens. I would say it will pan out fairly even, certainly no worse than 55 45 either way.

If it is even I would argue we have a problem. This means that small vs large is equa lin straight up melee, but the maneuver advantage is all on the small side...

I am fine with a trade-off of maneuverable/fragile units vs. big tough ones but then the big ones actually have to be tough...

I don't know what the full combat results trade-off is, I don't have the energy (or programming cleverness) to make a full sim, but if it is indeed about "even" I see that as an issue.

[AlanYork]

If you are bored one day try fighting 4 BGs of 8 HW in a line vs 8 BGs of 4 Lt spear swordsmen. Give both sides 2 commanders and see what happens. I would say it will pan out fairly even, certainly no worse than 55 45 either way.

If it is even I would argue we have a problem. This means that small vs large is equa lin straight up melee, but the maneuver advantage is all on the small side...

I am fine with a trade-off of fragile units vs. big tough ones but then the big ones actually have to be tough...

I don't know what the full combat results trade-off is, I don't have the energy (or programming cleverness) to make a full sim, but if it is indeed about "even" I see that as an issue.

I agree. I field my Wars of the Roses billmen in 3 big units of 8 purely because it is more historical than having lots of units of 4 bases running about everywhere but seem to get no real advantage out of it, sometimes I'm positively handicapping myself.

If generals had to pay a certain number of army points per unit (in the old WRG days it was 10 pts per regular unit, 25 pts per irregular unit) then it may well resolve the issue. An army with big units would, in effect, save points but sacrifice some maneuverablility. I know this has been suggested and rejected before but perhaps it's time for another look at it.

[kevinj]

All of the calculations seem to have assumed that the 2 BGs line up and fight 4 bases vs 4. If the melee is offset, i.e. 1 of the 4s is lined up against tthe 2 middle bases of the 8 and the other has 1 base in contact and 1 in overlap, although they get the same number of dice it works in favour of the 8 as they receive the same but focus 6 dice on one BG, increasing the chances of beating one and then outnumbering the other.

[Robert241167]

I'm sure this has probably been pointed out already but the 8 base BG only needs 1 general to improve it in combat whereas the 2 4 base BG's would need 2 to match it. Assuming equal points fighting then only 1 4 base BG would have a general which would give the 8 base BG the slight edge on the one without a general.

Rob

[guthroth]

I'm sure this has probably been pointed out already but the 8 base BG only needs 1 general to improve it in combat whereas the 2 4 base BG's would need 2 to match it. Assuming equal points fighting then only 1 4 base BG would have a general which would give the 8 base BG the slight edge on the one without a general.

Rob

This particular piece of gaming maths was demonstrated in a recent club game. My BG of 6 armoured, superior lancers with general charged 2 BG of 4 identical troops plus one general. I won without losing a base.