Slitherine

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 8:34 pm The chance to charge an opponent in the flank is indeed a rare occurrence (...)

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:10 am

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 2:25 pm

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 1:56 pm 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.

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:07 am 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 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:50 am

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:07 am 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 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 7:18 am

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:50 am

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:07 am 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 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:20 am

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 7:18 am

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:50 am

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 wrote: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.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 9:21 am

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.