Points values

[spikemesq]

RBS notes:

I certainly don't think costing Superior at double the cost of Average would be justified. I also think that we need a more detailed approach to costing Superior - the value is not equal for all troop types.

At the risk of a more complex pricing chart, perhaps the quality selection should affect the base cost and the POA prices.

Consider Armoured Cv. Currently the rules charge 3 points more for Superior Armoured Cv. If the quality of a base affected the POA price in addition to the base cost, then troops with multiple POAs would pay a greater premium for quality than "one-trick ponies" (no pun intended). Poor troops might even get POAs for less than the current price. Under this model, the points costs could be allocated to the POAs of greater effect. So mounted POA costs might become:

POA (E/S/A/P)

Swordsmen (3/3/2/2)

Lancers (3/3/2/2)

Light Spear (2/1/1/1)

Bow/CBow (3/3/2/1)

Bow* (3/2/1/1)

Camel (3/2/2/2)

Alternatively, the POA costs might increase where there are multiple POAs.

For instance, mounted with only one POA would pay the basic POA cost. But mounted with Bow/Swordsmen/Lancers (if that combo exists?) might more than the sum of those POA costs (e.g., 2 (Bow) +2 (Swordsmen) +2 (Lancers) +2 (premium).

This second model could be tailored to particularly effective combinations (e.g., +2 for Bow; +2 Swordsmen; +5 for Bow/Swordsmen).

[/code]

[rbodleyscott]

For otherwise identical troops (zero POA), superior have a 58% chance of a hit compared to average 50% .
Therefore to get the same number of hits, average troops need 16% more bases. This makes it an equal chance for either side to lose the combat.
If they lose and need to pass a CT then superior is almost identical (in its effect on probability) to a +1 on the dice (if there are already a lot of minuses then it's not as good as +1).
To get a +1, the average troops would need a BG in rear support but with half the number of troops.

So to have the same chance of losing and the same chance of passing the CT, the average troops need 1.16 x 1.5 as many bases.

Therefore superior should cost 1.74 times as much as average.

However, in theory one BG can support two others, so maybe
1.16 x 1.25 = 1.45 times the cost would be more realistic.

It should be noted that limits on battle group sizes means that it is not always possible to achieve the theoretically optimal ratio of 1:4 for a rear supporting BG (in column) supporting two BGs.

Typically it may be necessary to support two 8s with one 6, or two twelves with one 8, (In column!), giving overall figures of 1.595 or 1.547 respectively.

OTOH, you can give rear support to the front rank BGs using troops of the same grade but much worse equipped and hence cheaper. The better equipped the front rank BGs the greater the discrepancy. So 2 BGs of 6 Average Mercenary Knights costing 22 points each could be supported by 1 BG of 6 Undrilled Crossbowmen costing 6 points each. This gives an overall figure of 1.33. There are several lists allowing BGs of 4 such crossbowmen which would give an overall figure of 1.25.

[shall]

Good to see so much simulation attempts adn theoreis flying around....one of the attractions we hope is that the game is more experiential and big picture.

It isn't so easy as saying I need a even dice roll to kill a base and that 62%. For my part I fidn the need to mic quantitative and qualitative aspects to get a feel for the overall battle odds rather fun....

Si

[lawrenceg]

OTOH, you can give rear support to the front rank BGs using troops of the same grade but much worse equipped and hence cheaper. The better equipped the front rank BGs the greater the discrepancy. So 2 BGs of 6 Average Mercenary Knights costing 22 points each could be supported by 1 BG of 6 Undrilled Crossbowmen costing 6 points each. This gives an overall figure of 1.33. There are several lists allowing BGs of 4 such crossbowmen which would give an overall figure of 1.25.

We can't escape the fact that the value of superior grading (or indeed any thing) depends on what else you can have and this is list-dependent. We won't be able to account for this with a simple points-per-item system that ignores synergy.

I suppose the point I was originally making was that superior at most should cost 1.74 times average (any more and you would always buy additional average troops), and at 1.45 times average they are probably worth it, at least you have to start thinking about tactical employment of the units.

According to RBS calculation above, at 1.25 times average they are nearly always worth it because even with the cheapest possible rear support unit, an average BG is no better than an unsupported superior one.

Currently superior seems to cost about 20-30% extra for most things, with superior protected foot and skirmishers perhaps getting a slightly worse deal. And user comments indicate that superior is under-priced.

So I would be even more keen to try 40-50% extra cost, based on having at least 3 points of mounted POA, 2 for most infantry or 1 for LF. We'd be looking at base costs of e.g.

Super Heavy armoured knights: 23
Super Armoured Cav: 16
Super unprotected LH: 11
super protected foot: 8
super armoured foot: 11

Would people consider paying those costs for at least some units?
Would an army with lots of compulsory (in the sense of not having an average alternative) superior troops be too disadvantaged?