Slitherine

Duke68 wrote:Having tryed it a few times I cannot agree at 100%.

Things are not so simple, first of all we are talking about percentage of victory that are true only in statistic, but statistic only works on large number of dice, in an impact or melee we could use only 2 or 4 dice per side and there's no sense in calling in statistic percentage on such few dice.

In such case luck work better than statistic so every result could arise like the superior legionaires being badly beated by poor pikemans.

Wether you are rolling one dice or a thousand dice statistics work you have the same chance no matter what. When you roll more dice your decreasing the variance but the chances of success are the same. Every result could arise no matter the dice numbers. Maybe I'm just too much of a math geek to understand the several posts that seem to scoff at probabilities simply because of the number of dice rolled. If you roll more dice all your changing is the number of dice your picking up. The way they make the game work is to not place overwhelming importance on one RESULT. Which I think they accomplished by using an impact phase plus a melee phase and the fact if one round of combat goes badly your not completely eliminated but get to keep fighting. But still basically all they are doing though is just making a more complex way of coming up with the statistical chances of getting a victory.

rbodleyscott wrote:As has been pointed out, both POAs and re-rolls modify the chance of a hit. Thus they both operate through the medium of chance.

Re-rolling 1s or 6s modifies the chance to hit by approximately half a POA. Thus the difference between Superior and Poor amounts to approximately one POA.

We made a design decision (not without some discussion) that a single quality difference should not have as much effect as a major advantage in fighting style/weapon system (POA).

We felt that allowing a single quality difference to negate a POA would significantly dumb down the game, and would not be historically realistic.

(Why worry about what your troops are armed with or how effective their fighting/weapon system was historically against the opposing fighting/weapon system, when all you need to do is have an army of all Superior troops with trusty fruit knives?).

Good point.

hammy wrote:You can never be certain with statistics but you can accurately calculate the probablility that one side or the other will win. The problem with poor pike vs superior legionaries is that the reroll even on 2 dice does significantly swing the chances. The legions really want to hit with 2 bases and get 4 dice as that makes things more likely to go with the better quality. Once the pikes lose the impact there is a very high chance they will be disrupted and once they are disrupted they are no longer at a + in melee, have less dice to roll and are still dissadvantaged on rerolls or in other words they are toast.

Superior (or elite) troops have an indiscussed advantage over poor troops but only statistically and I'm afraid for you statistic only works on hundreds or thousands of rolls not on 4-8 dice.

For the sake of simplicity let's consider both average so at least we don't have to take in account rerolls.

I agree that at impact the pike and legions are on the same POA and have the same chances of hitting so it is a totally even fight in terms of hits.
You have however missed a significant part of the rules on the 1HP3B rule in that the fourth rank of any formation does not count towards bases needed for 1HP3B so 2 hits will put a -1 on the pike in exactly the same way it does on the legionaries.

Also while the fight is even the CT after the fight is not. If the legions win which will happen 35% or so of the time then the pike will be testing at an extra -1 for facing impact foot and an extra -1 is not to be sniffed at.

Pike are good against legionaries but then historically they were. Where is the problem? Poor pike are much cheaper per frontage than legionaries but are much worse, average pike cost the same as average legionaries and their combat power is similar.

I've missed the 4th rank exception in the CT (my fault) however with 0 poa impact is totally random (if both are average) and happens only 1 time, then we have a lot more round of melee where pikes are at + vs legionaries (and vs many other enemies).

I am sorry, poor quality pike are really not that good. They are very vulnerable to missiles (assuming you play the HP3B rule correctly), being poor is almost the same as minus half a POA and when they die they are just as dead as any other BG.

Ok protected troops are vulnerable to archers but more or less only if they are MF because LF archers have too few dice to hope stopping the pike before they reach you.
Sadly romans have very few MF archers so they have to use other strategies.

I dissagree, average pikes cost almost as much per frontage as the best legionaries, 24 points per base frontage is a lot and can still be beaten by both legionaries and armoured spearmen.

Armoured spearmen and armoured legionaires cost 20pts per base frontage only few points less than pikes and works differently in combat.
Armoured spearmen vs pikes are at - in impact and even in melee so maybe they could be a good match for the pikes but there are very few armored spearmen BG around the army books and a lot more average pikes.

Both arm spear and legions have the same problem vs pikes, they have half stands at comparable point cost so lose a stand and you get -25% losses malus on CT, lose 2 stands and your BG autobreak (if it's average).
8 stands of pikes have to lose 2 stands to get the first -25% malus on CT (if I haven't missed something) and have to lose 4 stands to go autobreak (if they are average).

You really don't need tricks to beat pikes. Either ignore them if they clump together or use overlaps against them if they don't.
So far there have been very few tournaments that have been won by pike armies, infact in open tournaments pikes may be a touch underpowered.

Overlapping implies the use of more and more points and only works at the edge of the "brick" formation of pikes (more BG of pikes side by side).
I can ignore them (not completely of course because at least they are on table) but then I've to mind how to stand in front of cataphract or elephant (seleucid army can have both) with legions

IMHO it's better than I start thinking about some tricks

Until now the only winning strategy that I've found is overextending the front, flank marching and hoping that my cavalry (average in morale and proficiency) could arrive in time&place to catch him in a weak flank

Duke I see some of what you are saying but I don't think the numbers stack up. If ever you are in London look me up and we can try it out but I would want the Roman side of the equation. As for the hit the flanks, that is the idea. How many examples are there of Poor Pike or Average Pike being beaten by their historical Roman opponents in totally flat terrain, where the phalanax dess not get hit in the flank. I can't recall many.

flameberge wrote: Wether you are rolling one dice or a thousand dice statistics work you have the same chance no matter what. When you roll more dice your decreasing the variance but the chances of success are the same. Every result could arise no matter the dice numbers. Maybe I'm just too much of a math geek to understand the several posts that seem to scoff at probabilities simply because of the number of dice rolled. If you roll more dice all your changing is the number of dice your picking up. The way they make the game work is to not place overwhelming importance on one RESULT. Which I think they accomplished by using an impact phase plus a melee phase and the fact if one round of combat goes badly your not completely eliminated but get to keep fighting. But still basically all they are doing though is just making a more complex way of coming up with the statistical chances of getting a victory.

Statistic is a difficult and strange science, trust me

If variance wouldn't be important every time I would roll 2 dice at 4+ I would get 1 hit, but obviously it's not always true

Regarding losing a round: if I fail the CT I lose 1 level of cohesion so in next round I'll lose part of my dice dice and "probably" from then I'll keep losing the melee and "probably" I'll keep losing CT (being disr or frag makes the CT easyer to fail).

If I fail the death roll things start going even worse.

So "probably" losing a round means losing the BG in a few rounds.

And then there's another problem, the BG that is victorius "probably" is fresh as a daisy (no CT done and no DR done or done with +2) and ready to fight my second line (if I have it).

I guess I tend to see things in black and white. I'm not trying to attack you but to me statistics is not strange. The number of dice is irrelevant. What I think people are doing is failing to realize that when you change the number of dice in a certain way you are changing the probability of the win. You have changed the odds and therefore the number of dice used is irrelevant. What I'm trying to say is if the the designers want superior troops to have say a 58% chance of winning it doesn't matter whether you re-roll ones, add some kind of modifier to the dice roll, roll 50 dice or just roll a single percentile die no matter what you get the 58% chance of winning and so I don't understand why it matters how the rules makers achieved the 58% probability. I just think people are going off of a personal feeling on how they would like to roll dice rather than are they getting the actual results they should be getting. If the original post had said something like "I don't think that superior troops have enough of an edge" and you want them to have a higher probability of winning, then that I could understand. I simply just don't understand how a re-roll doesn't have a tangible fixed advantage that only relies on luck while a combat modifier that still relies on dice rolls somehow is an advantage that doesn't rely on luck.
Your comment of "If variance wouldn't be important every time I would roll 2 dice at 4+ I would get 1 hit, but obviously it's not always true" is incorrect. Rolling 2 dice at 4+ does not statistically mean you would always get a hit, only a 75% chance. 25% of the time you would get no hits and 25% of the time you would get two hits. The variance only means the average result on your dice would not be significantly off from 3.5 per die the more dice you roll, which is unimportant. You have to make sure when you get more dice you have to di it in a way as to not change the probabilities.
I hope my posts aren't coming off as angry or any kind of attack because I'm not intending them to. At this point I think I beating a dead horse and we'll probably have to agree to disagree.

flameberge wrote:I guess I tend to see things in black and white. I'm not trying to attack you but to me statistics is not strange. The number of dice is irrelevant. What I think people are doing is failing to realize that when you change the number of dice in a certain way you are changing the probability of the win. You have changed the odds and therefore the number of dice used is irrelevant. What I'm trying to say is if the the designers want superior troops to have say a 58% chance of winning it doesn't matter whether you re-roll ones, add some kind of modifier to the dice roll, roll 50 dice or just roll a single percentile die no matter what you get the 58% chance of winning and so I don't understand why it matters how the rules makers achieved the 58% probability. I just think people are going off of a personal feeling on how they would like to roll dice rather than are they getting the actual results they should be getting. If the original post had said something like "I don't think that superior troops have enough of an edge" and you want them to have a higher probability of winning, then that I could understand. I simply just don't understand how a re-roll doesn't have a tangible fixed advantage that only relies on luck while a combat modifier that still relies on dice rolls somehow is an advantage that doesn't rely on luck.
Your comment of "If variance wouldn't be important every time I would roll 2 dice at 4+ I would get 1 hit, but obviously it's not always true" is incorrect. Rolling 2 dice at 4+ does not statistically mean you would always get a hit, only a 75% chance. 25% of the time you would get no hits and 25% of the time you would get two hits. The variance only means the average result on your dice would not be significantly off from 3.5 per die the more dice you roll, which is unimportant. You have to make sure when you get more dice you have to di it in a way as to not change the probabilities.
I hope my posts aren't coming off as angry or any kind of attack because I'm not intending them to. At this point I think I beating a dead horse and we'll probably have to agree to disagree.

POAs and rerolls modify (in different ways) the probability of winning (or losing).
In absolutely no way one method rely on luck and the other not, both defines a percentage and follows the rules of statistic.
Is the statistic that only works on large numbers of rolls, or more precisely the result of the rolls will be more similar to the percentage expected incrementing the number of rolls, assume it like a kind of mathematical limit theory.

Odds of hitting. Elite + is Elite with a general.

Three reasons for rerolls on the non-statistical psychological level:

- Many people like second chances, whether do-overs or saving throws, though a few hate the very idea.

- Consolation for people with paranormal disabilities causing them to roll excessive numbers of low dice.

- Many gamers just like rolling bunches of dice - and miniatures are cheaper than Vegas.

MikeK wrote:Three reasons for rerolls on the non-statistical psychological level:

- Many people like second chances, whether do-overs or saving throws, though a few hate the very idea.

- Consolation for people with paranormal disabilities causing them to roll excessive numbers of low dice.

- Many gamers just like rolling bunches of dice - and miniatures are cheaper than Vegas.

All reasons I can understand.

Hi all

It was my Later Ptolemaic army than bladerunner came up against and came off second best. Yes, my poor Egyptian (wanna-be Macedonian) pike repulsed a legion, purely on a dicing outcome that didnt favour my opponent. The odds were all in his favour, and I acknowledged that before the impact, however the gods looked favoruably upon the Egyptians and the Romans were skewered on the mass of pikes.

Whether your superior, average or poor, a pike is still a pike. The type of weapon used in a massed group that anyone has difficulty against in that first charge. You come of second best then things will turn against you. I think the POA in this case is fairly represented.

It was that in this instance, on this day, the pike came out best. I did play against bladerunner previously with his Komnenan Byzantines. The Varangian guard, albeit a bit better than the legionnaires, sliced through my 'superior' pike like it was cheese. By the time the impact and melee phase was over they routed.

We have had a chat since the last game and he will play me again. But not before his friend challenges me tomorrow night with his Romans in an aim to prove that it can be done. Just quietly, they havent realised that I am just a superior tactician, and yes, oh so lucky with those dice rolls when it counts.

Duke68 wrote:

hammy wrote:You can never be certain with statistics but you can accurately calculate the probablility that one side or the other will win. The problem with poor pike vs superior legionaries is that the reroll even on 2 dice does significantly swing the chances. The legions really want to hit with 2 bases and get 4 dice as that makes things more likely to go with the better quality. Once the pikes lose the impact there is a very high chance they will be disrupted and once they are disrupted they are no longer at a + in melee, have less dice to roll and are still dissadvantaged on rerolls or in other words they are toast.

Superior (or elite) troops have an indiscussed advantage over poor troops but only statistically and I'm afraid for you statistic only works on hundreds or thousands of rolls not on 4-8 dice.

I agree that statistics are for hundreds and thousands of tests but we aren't talking about statistics, we are talking about probability and that is a totally different beast. If we were to sit down and play a simple game of rolling a dice once and see who gets the higher number and you have to reroll any roll of 6 while I reroll any roll of a 1 would you be willing to offer me an even money bet on who will win?

For the sake of simplicity let's consider both average so at least we don't have to take in account rerolls.

OK, but that does rather change the points equation of poor pike being half the price of superior skilled swordsmen legionaries. You are now comparing 48 points of pike with 48 points of legionaries (assuming supporting light foot)

I agree that at impact the pike and legions are on the same POA and have the same chances of hitting so it is a totally even fight in terms of hits.
You have however missed a significant part of the rules on the 1HP3B rule in that the fourth rank of any formation does not count towards bases needed for 1HP3B so 2 hits will put a -1 on the pike in exactly the same way it does on the legionaries.

Also while the fight is even the CT after the fight is not. If the legions win which will happen 35% or so of the time then the pike will be testing at an extra -1 for facing impact foot and an extra -1 is not to be sniffed at.

Pike are good against legionaries but then historically they were. Where is the problem? Poor pike are much cheaper per frontage than legionaries but are much worse, average pike cost the same as average legionaries and their combat power is similar.

I've missed the 4th rank exception in the CT (my fault) however with 0 poa impact is totally random (if both are average) and happens only 1 time, then we have a lot more round of melee where pikes are at + vs legionaries (and vs many other enemies).

I agree that the outcome of the impact is totally random in terms of which side wins or loses but the outcome in terms of which side gets disrupted or fragmented is not even because the legionaries if they win put an extra -1 on the CT of the pike. It makes a slight difference at impact but not one you would want to rely on (22.9% chance of disrupted legionaries and 27.6% chance of disrupted pike).

What makes more of a difference is that if the pike lose a base then one of their files will be down a POA, If the legionaries lose a base they will have their second rank filled by a LF archer and will still fight at full effect. If the legionaries become disrupted they will lose a dice while if the pike become disrupted they lose a dice and the legionaries gain a POA. If the legions become fragmented (2.4% chance they are in trouble as they lose 2 dice), if the pike become fragmented (4%) then they are toast as they lose 2 dice and 2 POAs while the legionaries gain a POA as well.

I am sorry, poor quality pike are really not that good. They are very vulnerable to missiles (assuming you play the HP3B rule correctly), being poor is almost the same as minus half a POA and when they die they are just as dead as any other BG.

Ok protected troops are vulnerable to archers but more or less only if they are MF because LF archers have too few dice to hope stopping the pike before they reach you.
Sadly romans have very few MF archers so they have to use other strategies.

Actually LF archers are perfectly capable of disrupting pike, if the LF archers are in effective range and 2 ranks deep (a normal situation) then there is a 1 in 4 chance of getting 2 hits and assuming there is a general nearby a 1 in 6 chance the pike will become disrupted. It isn't a huge chance but it is there. The LF will get a lot of shots and a lot of chances to disrupt. Against poor pike the chances of disruption are significantly higher.

LF archers are far less likely to hurt legionaries because they are armoured so the archers hit on 5s not 4s and there is only a 1 in 9 chance of forcing a test

I dissagree, average pikes cost almost as much per frontage as the best legionaries, 24 points per base frontage is a lot and can still be beaten by both legionaries and armoured spearmen.

Armoured spearmen and armoured legionaires cost 20pts per base frontage only few points less than pikes and works differently in combat.
Armoured spearmen vs pikes are at - in impact and even in melee so maybe they could be a good match for the pikes but there are very few armored spearmen BG around the army books and a lot more average pikes.

Both arm spear and legions have the same problem vs pikes, they have half stands at comparable point cost so lose a stand and you get -25% losses malus on CT, lose 2 stands and your BG autobreak (if it's average).
8 stands of pikes have to lose 2 stands to get the first -25% malus on CT (if I haven't missed something) and have to lose 4 stands to go autobreak (if they are average).

You really don't need tricks to beat pikes. Either ignore them if they clump together or use overlaps against them if they don't.
So far there have been very few tournaments that have been won by pike armies, infact in open tournaments pikes may be a touch underpowered.

Overlapping implies the use of more and more points and only works at the edge of the "brick" formation of pikes (more BG of pikes side by side).
I can ignore them (not completely of course because at least they are on table) but then I've to mind how to stand in front of cataphract or elephant (seleucid army can have both) with legions

IMHO it's better than I start thinking about some tricks

Until now the only winning strategy that I've found is overextending the front, flank marching and hoping that my cavalry (average in morale and proficiency) could arrive in time&place to catch him in a weak flank

The strength of pikes in FoG and in reality was that they are probably the toughest infantry frontally there were in the Ancient world. If you play to your opponents strenghts then you will struggle. Historically the Romans did not find fighting pikes easy, they did beat them on occasion but they also lost to them. With average pike and average legions my money would be on the pike but the pike can still lose a striaght up frontal fight. With poor pike and superior legions I would be betting on the legions all the time. That is not to say that the legions will always win but in the long run they will wim far more often than they lose.

hammy wrote:The strength of pikes in FoG and in reality was that they are probably the toughest infantry frontally there were in the Ancient world. If you play to your opponents strenghts then you will struggle. Historically the Romans did not find fighting pikes easy, they did beat them on occasion but they also lost to them. With average pike and average legions my money would be on the pike but the pike can still lose a striaght up frontal fight. With poor pike and superior legions I would be betting on the legions all the time. That is not to say that the legions will always win but in the long run they will wim far more often than they lose.

I agree, pikes were probably the toughest infantry in ancient world (if contacted frontally), so it's correct that in fog more or less nobody have an advantage against them and many have minor or major disavantage.

What is not correct (imho) in fog is their cost, why a so tough unit have to cost so few points?

Another point of discussion could be: do they should be rated drilled?
Being drilled let them do many type of movement without testing CMT that probably a real phalank of pikes wasn't able to perform in real life (think how complicate could be a 90 or 180 turn with 5-6 rank of men with a 7mt long pike pointed forward) or maybe they could do that but it wasn't a quick maneuver.

Duke68 wrote: Another point of discussion could be: do they should be rated drilled?
Being drilled let them do many type of movement without testing CMT that probably a real phalank of pikes wasn't able to perform in real life (think how complicate could be a 90 or 180 turn with 5-6 rank of men with a 7mt long pike pointed forward) or maybe they could do that but it wasn't a quick maneuver.

This is a much better point to be debating IMO.

think how complicate could be a 90 or 180 turn with 5-6 rank of men with a 7mt long pike pointed forward

Not much more difficult than with a 12 foot spear. Lift to vertical, spin around, lower spear. If you wanted some fun: lift to vertical, look at the top, spin around a few times, lower spear, fall over. especially fun after the Ouzo ration has been issued.

What is not correct (imho) in fog is their cost, why a so tough unit have to cost so few points?

Because they only work in files of 4 and so will suffer terribly when they lose their first stand; because they only work in one terrain type compared to most other troop types that can do their job in different terrain (this even includes legionaries); because they absolutely explode if contacted in the flank; because they are very vulnerable to shooting especially from units they have no hope of catching. Shall I go on?[/quote]

carlos wrote:Because they only work in files of 4 and so will suffer terribly when they lose their first stand; because they only work in one terrain type compared to most other troop types that can do their job in different terrain (this even includes legionaries); because they absolutely explode if contacted in the flank; because they are very vulnerable to shooting especially from units they have no hope of catching. Shall I go on?

I'm sorry but I do not agree on your point of view:
1) they aren't the only unit that work only in clear terrain
2) everyone more or less explode if contatcted in the flank
3) they aren' the only unit vulnerable to shooting
4) if 4 rank of pikes cost me like 1 or 2 rank of other troops for many aspect they are better because the raw number of stands counts for calculating hit per base (in shooting and close combat) or percentage of stands lost so being numerous is an advantage not a disadvantage.

A BG of 6 protected spears has more or less the same problems with terrain, flank or shooting than a BG of 8 protected pikes but it has 2 stands less, cost the same and is less powerful (read it has less poas in its favour).

Duke68 wrote: A BG of 6 protected spears has more or less the same problems with terrain, flank or shooting than a BG of 8 protected pikes but it has 2 stands less, cost the same and is less powerful (read it has less poas in its favour).

However in an isolated combat between 6 protected spear and 8 average pike the pike will roll 4 dice needing 4s to hit so expect to get 2 hits and the spears will roll 6 dice needing 5s so expect to get 2 hits.....

Duke68 wrote:

carlos wrote:Because they only work in files of 4 and so will suffer terribly when they lose their first stand; because they only work in one terrain type compared to most other troop types that can do their job in different terrain (this even includes legionaries); because they absolutely explode if contacted in the flank; because they are very vulnerable to shooting especially from units they have no hope of catching. Shall I go on?

I'm sorry but I do not agree on your point of view:
1) they aren't the only unit that work only in clear terrain
2) everyone more or less explode if contatcted in the flank
3) they aren' the only unit vulnerable to shooting
4) if 4 rank of pikes cost me like 1 or 2 rank of other troops for many aspect they are better because the raw number of stands counts for calculating hit per base (in shooting and close combat) or percentage of stands lost so being numerous is an advantage not a disadvantage.

A BG of 6 protected spears has more or less the same problems with terrain, flank or shooting than a BG of 8 protected pikes but it has 2 stands less, cost the same and is less powerful (read it has less poas in its favour).

One will always be able to find situations where one troop type is better value for points than another troop type or vice versa. Points are supposed to reflect the overall utility of the troop type in an army.

If you think one troop type gives better overall value than all the others, then get yourself an army with plenty of that troop type. When you win everything and everyone copies your army, then the authors will recognise you were right and probably change the point value.

lawrenceg wrote:One will always be able to find situations where one troop type is better value for points than another troop type or vice versa.

And one of the key player skills is to try to ensure that your troops fight in the "better value" situations and not in the "worse value" situations.