Slitherine

If 2 enemy units, identicals in every aspect, except that one is 500 men strong and the other is 1000 men strong,engage in fighting, does the larger unit have any advantage over the smaller unit? Does size matter?

No Advantage

Is this really true?

per the manual under combat mechanism

Melee combat

4. Modify the number of attacks for battle group losses

Quantity of attacks = Attacks x current strength / initial strength
This does not apply to knights, elephants, battle wagons or artillery until they are at or below 50% of their initial start strength.

I took this to mean that a units combat strength is modified by remaining men vs original men expressed as percentage...

If the # of men in a unit has no impact on the game at all why even include a causalty count?? Is it just there for "eye candy"??

The strength of a units and its casualties are only relevent to itself! A unit will be at x% of its own current strength and that effects how many attacks in combat it gets. So a 1000 man medium foot unit usually gets 4 and so does a 1500 man HF unit. If they are both at 75% strength they will both be at 3 attacks. Other rules factors effect unit density so LF usually on get 2 attacks and MF losing to HF get a cohesion test penalty etc.

Keith

From what I understand,

You take a certain percentage in casualties instead of a set number, so 1% is 1%. Once you break a certian percentage threash hold based on the original number of personnel in the unit you will autobreak and that this ratio is based on the quality of the troops (Elite, Superior, Average, and Poor). I have made scenerio's based on historical battles and I changed the ratio of troops per unit so that I could replay the battle (Maccabean battle vs Seleucid / 600 vs 2000). When I first put it together I did not changle all of the units size yet and everything played with no handicaps as far as I could tell. I hope this answers both how and why.

Ok I think I understand

One last quantifier

Based on what you are saying, I must assume that when a unit takes casualties based on a hit (the # of men killed being based by a random % range) that the % is actually taken from the ORIGINAL men in the unit everytime the unit takes a hit, and not the remaining # of men left in the unit?? (I hope this makes sense)

If above is so then I think I understand what is meant by casaulties are only "relevant to the unit itself"

So lets say unit A has 1k men and unit B has 2k men, each unit takes hits on 2 turns that deal 10% casualties each turn, thus reducing A to 800 amd B to 1600
Both units will now be at 80% strength.

Based on this, would I be correct in the following assumptions?
A a units casulaties really only effect its ability to deal out "damage" (by modifying the # of attacks)
B there is no advantage in say, creating a low quality unit but with a huge # of men (like 5k)

Thanks everyone for taking the time to answer these questions!

Correct - The number of men each unit represents is more for creating historic scenerio's.

Then it's a cosmetic feature only, and a 10 men unit is as strong as a 1000 men one ?
Disappointing, units different in size should have different strength ! At least the % loss should be computed using the *attacker* nr of men, not the defender's, so a unit twice as strong would inflict twice much losses.

I wonder what would happpen if you make it really low - like a 1. You would probably auto break after taking any damage - so to a certain extreme - numbers could be a factor.

This can be changed by having units start at less than 100% strength if there is a demand for it.

CharlesRobinson wrote:I wonder what would happpen if you make it really low - like a 1. You would probably auto break after taking any damage - so to a certain extreme - numbers could be a factor.

If I understand the mechanics correctly really low #'s like 1, 2 etc would likley cause auto route immedietly upon taking a hit, however a Unit of 10 men would have just as much "staying power" as a unit of 1000

There are few men units in the game. Such as Elephants. They usually have around 20 men in them.

And most of the time they take 0-1 casualties. And I have seen units break after taking 0 casualties if I may add

I would have preferred it been done that indeed the casualties are based upon the size of the attacking unit.

iainmcneil wrote:This can be changed by having units start at less than 100% strength if there is a demand for it.

I am always in favour of more flexibility for scenario design

On a side note, it seems that several players(as is myself) are a little taken aback that the # of men dont have as much influence as one would expect. I realize the game mechanics wouldnt really work if every individual man effected combat modifiers. If they did then a more discreet system of hex sixe (after all how big is a hex supposed to be?) unit frontage/density would have to be taken into account etc.. Then you would open a can of worms where you would need to explore how many rank of men can fit into a hex , how many can actually reach the enemy w their weapons ie 6 ranks for pike 2 spear 1 sword etc.. The game wouldnt even remotally be the same.

However it would be nice to have the # of men in a unit add more value than currently applied and also fit in w the design of the game


For example, what if the game compared two units size in men agianst eachother as a ratio. If a unit A is 50% larger then B, then it gets an additional "plus 1" in Points of Avantage during the combat resolution. Maybe + 2 if 75% bigger etc

TheGrayMouser wrote:

iainmcneil wrote:This can be changed by having units start at less than 100% strength if there is a demand for it.

I am always in favour of more flexibility for scenario design

On a side note, it seems that several players(as is myself) are a little taken aback that the # of men dont have as much influence as one would expect. I realize the game mechanics wouldnt really work if every individual man effected combat modifiers. If they did then a more discreet system of hex sixe (after all how big is a hex supposed to be?) unit frontage/density would have to be taken into account etc.. Then you would open a can of worms where you would need to explore how many rank of men can fit into a hex , how many can actually reach the enemy w their weapons ie 6 ranks for pike 2 spear 1 sword etc.. The game wouldnt even remotally be the same.

However it would be nice to have the # of men in a unit add more value than currently applied and also fit in w the design of the game


For example, what if the game compared two units size in men agianst eachother as a ratio. If a unit A is 50% larger then B, then it gets an additional "plus 1" in Points of Avantage during the combat resolution. Maybe + 2 if 75% bigger etc

Based on my experience with the game system thus far, I am in favour of something like the above.

I am not sure that would work well. Right now the points for a unit is based on various stats but not unit size. This really helps in building historical battles such as The Elephant Victory 273 BC. There were only 16 elephants present at the battle but they obviously had a huge impact on the battle. What you are proposing would mean that points would have to be based on unit size and it would make it very hard to protray battles like this one. Also the point system would end up very different from the table top game and the computer game is supposed to be a digital version of the miniature game. In the miniature game no actualy number of men is assigned to each battle group. Maybe they should have done that for the PC Game since it seems to really draw a lot of debate - not sure. I for one prefer the current system because any changes to this would make it far harder to design historical scenerios and to set up an army builder where you can design armies to 'plug into' battles versus other players and their custom built armies (like in the miniature game). Thanks

I like it the way it is ...

... after some initial perplexity.


(Default setting for casualties should be changed to percentage to avoid distorientation for newcomers.)

I agree.

CharlesRobinson wrote:I am not sure that would work well. Right now the points for a unit is based on various stats but not unit size. This really helps in building historical battles such as The Elephant Victory 273 BC. There were only 16 elephants present at the battle but they obviously had a huge impact on the battle. What you are proposing would mean that points would have to be based on unit size and it would make it very hard to protray battles like this one. Also the point system would end up very different from the table top game and the computer game is supposed to be a digital version of the miniature game. In the miniature game no actualy number of men is assigned to each battle group. Maybe they should have done that for the PC Game since it seems to really draw a lot of debate - not sure. I for one prefer the current system because any changes to this would make it far harder to design historical scenerios and to set up an army builder where you can design armies to 'plug into' battles versus other players and their custom built armies (like in the miniature game). Thanks

Hmm., maybe I dont understand your concern, but I would assume that if Slitherine added a "unit size modifier" as a new feature, they would have that "rolled into" any points calculation.

In reading my above suggestion, I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that every man in a unit "contributes" to the combat rolls ( in the way that HPS Napoleonic games do), but be more of a one time check of proportion/ratio, ie if unit A is twice as big as unit B, gets some type of bonus modifier, whatever it might be, poa/cohesion check etc and it need not be large.
Maybe i should also add that (at least how I envision such a feature would work in the spirit of the game engine) is that it would only apply to units of the same type, so the game would only compare the size differential between a pike to pike melee, or a elephant to elephant melee, but not to an elephant vs cavalry.

You also mention that having a "size matters' feature could interfere w historical orders of batte. From my understanding of how combat works, and I could be wrong, I think it would be enhanced.

For example lets use elephants as the example. Lets say you have a battle where side A has a unit of 20 elephants posted on the left flank and side B has 2 units of elephants of 10 each , posted 1 on each flank. If , in the course of play B is able to bring his 2 units of elephants to engage the single unit of side A, who is always going to win the elphant engagement? Barring any interference w other units, B will always win despite being equal in total #'s of elephants. why?:

For example: unit A moves and attacks unit B1 (assume all other factors being equal) and they both "roll" 10% losses inflicted
A is down to 18 elephants(10% of 20) and B1 to 9 (10% of 10)
Now its B's turn and unit A and Unit B1 engage again (assume melee and impact combat have same mechanisms) and they again both roll 10% damages iflicted
A now has 16 elphants left (10% off the ORIGINAL strength) and B1 8
Now player B bring up unit B2 (lets assume no flank attack and that combat support isnt factored in), again same 10% rolls

At the completion of 1 full round of combat side A has 14 elephants left or 70% while B has 17 elephants left ( 1 unit at 90% and 1 unit at 80%)
After the next full round (if they all again roll the theoretical yet unlikly 10%) then A will have 8 left and B will have 14 ,(B1 w 8 and B2 with 6)
** at this point, A will be below 50% strength and suffers penalties for this already in game , while Unit B2 wont be suffering the same as it is at 60% strength
I think mathmatically unit A will be completely wiped out after 1 and 1/2 more turns, but even if not, unless the unit itself is classed as Supeior it will have autorouted by this time anyways...

Now If side B simply had 1 elephant unit instead of two , the # of elephants in the unit B could be 10 , 20 or 100! and because of the combat routines B and A would have equal chances of winning! This is due to how causultues are inflicted based off a % of the attacked units Original # of men etc, everytime combat occurs.

Now dont get me wrong, I really like the game and have no problem w abstractions.. However because of the combat system it is actually problematic to create historical battles if you are very concerned about the exact # of men/beasts in an individual unit. So if you feel Cohort X had a strength of 359 men and Cohort VI has 623 at the start of the battle, all your realy doing is making "historically accurate mind candy" if you bother to make all those changes in the editor, as both units will have the same combat value and will "attrit" at the exact same rate.
The game really isnt meant to scale down to a finite figures. For example if i tried to create a Roman army at the cohart level and I figured 600 men per unit would have the same frontage as a phanlanx of 1500 men ( a hex), I would need to make my Roman army have 3 times as many units on the map if intending to accuratley represent each armies overall manpower and articulation, unfortunately all those xtra units would make the Romans 3 times more powerfull (actually statistically speaking its likey not 3x but definately 2 x !)

In the end i am not suggestiing any drastic changes to the engine, just a small tweak that would allow actual size in men/elepahants etc to have more influemce in battle between like kind units.
Another poster even suggested to allow the editor to be able to place units at BELOW their nominal strength on map, which I think could give similar effect.

Cheers

I see said the blind man -

The reason that I had suggested that this would not be feasable was that units like elephants and skirmishers had an effect on battle that was not comparable to their unit size - but I did not understand that your suggestion was to only compare unit sizes between like units. Now that makes since. Units of the same type - Heavy Foot vs Heavy Foot would depend some on relative size, but I think the game already does that in combination of rating, ie poor, average, superior, and elite; plus the cohesion levels, steady, disordered, fragmented, and route. The higher your rating the less likely you are to go down in cohesion levels from casualties - this represents such battles as 300 Elite Spartans holding a mountain pass versus overwelming numbers of lesser quality troops (even though both are of the same type - heavy foot). Sometimes I think we can concentrate to much on a single aspect (size) and miss the interaction of the various aspects (size, rating, and cohesion). Just some thoughts - what do you think?

The unit scales do seem to work. They are line line with more other similar games. A battlegroup with 5/6 fogures shown is 1500 men. With 3 is 1,000 and 2 is 500. The is more or less unit density in the same space.

The effect of more men is built into the game factors e.g. LF only get 2 attacks in combat against heavier troops where as HF always get 4. MF also get 4, as they could bunch up at the front but lack depth, but if they lose against anything heavier they generally get a penalty in the resulting cohesion test.

So the units count down in percentages. This is no different to a TT game counting down in removing bases except there are a lot more degrees of effect.

Units can rout from shooting with zero losses, particularly elephants and chariots. They do not like being shot at so run on being shot at. Dead elephants don't run, they do if they look like a porcupine.

There is no perfect unit scale, every options is a case of swings and roudabouts.

Keith