Slitherine

Not sure if this is working correctly. When designing scenarios, some of the units are given historical strengths (or approximates) especially the neat little units that spring up from time to time. However, I kept noticing that smaller units, say 300 man units, seemed to take much fewer losses, than the bigger units, and seemd to cause just as many losses on the opponent. It bothered me to the point I ran a test to try and confirm if this was in fact true.

Understanding the frontages might be the same for a 300 man unit as they might be for a 900 man unit, only the depth would differ. However, the larger units mass and depth should be an advantage. This does not seem to be the case. In fact, the smaller unit will usually cause more losses to the bigger than the other way around.

I ran a test, not super scientific, but has interesting results. A 1500 man, average, protected, sword, impact foot attacked several differing sized average, protected, offensive spear unit. The test was conducted 10 times per size listed.

Results:

Def Strength 2000 1500 1000 500 1000 500 300 50

Avg. Losses
Attk/Def 80.3/156.8 33.3/86.5 37.7/57.5 74.8/47.1 68/67.8 52.4/40.4 99.7/19.1 57.7/2.8

It appears that having units of smaller size throws the losses out of wack. Am I missing something? It also seems that the larger units take heavier losses no matter what sized unit they face.
Thanks.

Thanks

Whew, I thought those were percentages at first! Anyway, seems odd...

All casualties are taken as percentages as I understand it.

Thus if changing unit sizes it is important to keep the ratio of 1500 (heavy infantry):1000(heavy, cavalry, medium infantry):500 (lights) or results will indeed favour the smaller force in terms of numbers (though not of course in terms of actually winning the game or combat).

As i understand it, unit sizes (numbers of men) is not used at all for game combat calculations. It is just a cool looking piece of info for us humans to see
The game don't see 1500, 1000 or whatever, but a BG of a given kind, and the results are balanced with this in mind.
If you want to make smaller scale battles you should reduce all BG numbers in proportion (lets say 1/10th for everybody) so the results are meaningful.
That or use BG that start with skulls... but it will take testing to see if it feels OK, as skulls effects are for losses, not for units starting already depleted, so probably they will fight less effectively (because of demoralization) than it should.
Cheers

Basically a unit takes casualties based off the % of the ORIGINAL men in that unit, so the # of men killed will always be proptional regardless of how many men you make it in the editor. Thus a 1500 man unit is exactly the same as a 500 man unit in terms of staying pwoer combat power etc , all other things being equal

TheGrayMouser wrote:Thus a 1500 man unit is exactly the same as a 500 man unit in terms of staying pwoer combat power etc , all other things being equal

I'm having a hard time getting my head around this...in your example, it doesn't seem like a 500 man unit should have the same staying power as a 1500 man unit, unless they are both fighting same-size units. In other words, in real life, if a 1500 man unit is fighting an analagous 500 man unit, the 1500 man unit should generally win, right?

Why is it different in the game? Or is it different? As I understand it, in the game the 1500 man unit in fact as an advantage because it inflicts more damage than the 500 man unit, thus wearing it down faster...is that correct?

Consider me confused...

Hey 76, it is a little confusing and clearly logic would indicate that a larger unit would have more "combat power"
However, that is not how the game is designed. The key is that a unit takes its causalties based on the % of its OWN original strength (not the strength of the attacker, (except of course for the dice rolls hits the attacker gets)
Every hit a units takes it rolls a random % of causalties based off its OWN original strength.... For all intents and purposes a 1500 unit of legionairs is exactly equal to 750, if it takes the same "hit" in combat, it will take the same % of causalties based on its its original # and thus will be degarded in equal proportions...
Hope this made sense, I wish there was search function as way back in Nov there was a thread about tihs and I posted a long winded statistical illustration of the above.

One last consideration is that although casualties/# of men arent directly invloved in a units combat power, it isnt merly eye candy as the # of men killed will degrade a unit ie pikes lose dice and become more fragile as they lose men, and all units can reach the auto rout when too many men die, also the % of men killed is randomized by a range based off the # of hits a unit takes ie 6-10%. I belive the charts are in the Combat Explanation part of the help index

Essentially the game makes the assumption that all heavy foot will have three men in a unit for every two in a cavalry or medium foot unit and for every single man in a light unit. All the lists seem to work of the 1500:1000:500 ratio I quoted earlier.

Thus if you design a scenario where units represent, say, a cohort sized group, then each heavy foot unit should have 480 men, each cavalry and medium foot 20 and each light 160. Otherwise the casualty numbers will be biased against the bigger units (but the actual fighting power of each unit won't change of course). Surely the number of men lost is not the critical factor, it is the percentage of men lost from starting strength.

TheGrayMouser wrote:Hey 76, it is a little confusing and clearly logic would indicate that a larger unit would have more "combat power"
However, that is not how the game is designed. The key is that a unit takes its causalties based on the % of its OWN original strength (not the strength of the attacker, (except of course for the dice rolls hits the attacker gets)
Every hit a units takes it rolls a random % of causalties based off its OWN original strength.... For all intents and purposes a 1500 unit of legionairs is exactly equal to 750, if it takes the same "hit" in combat, it will take the same % of causalties based on its its original # and thus will be degarded in equal proportions...
Hope this made sense, I wish there was search function as way back in Nov there was a thread about tihs and I posted a long winded statistical illustration of the above.

One last consideration is that although casualties/# of men arent directly invloved in a units combat power, it isnt merly eye candy as the # of men killed will degrade a unit ie pikes lose dice and become more fragile as they lose men, and all units can reach the auto rout when too many men die, also the % of men killed is randomized by a range based off the # of hits a unit takes ie 6-10%. I belive the charts are in the Combat Explanation part of the help index

Unit strength is purely color/eye candy in the game. From the computer's point of view, superior pikes behave exactly the same whether the BG is labeled as Macedonian Agema or as Seleucid Argyraspides. Similarly a superior pike unit with a nominal full strength of 100 men will fight exactly same as one with a nominal full strength of 1500 men. The loss of POAs, attacks etc, is all based on the % of initial strength lost/remaining, not on the number of men.

Chris

Hey Chris I think that is what I said

I do slightly diasagree that # of men isnt pure eye candy because the # of men actually killed is a random % RANGE based off the # of hits . Theoretcially a unit could be pummeled with a # of hits and roll on the lower end of the range every time and reached its rout threshold or its pike effective threshold (75% I think) several turns later than another unit that has same # of hits inflicted on it but rolls on the higher end of the casualty band...

I would like to have size influence combat, but that's not how the game is designed. Keep in mind though that while a 1500 man unit has the staying power of a 500 man unit, the latter is LF/LH which only get two dice against the 1500 man unit and take 4 dice back (usually with lots of + POAs.)

Deeter

Smaller units also tend to suffer on Cohesion tests as well e.g. MF losing to HF. Unit size is built into the combat and morale factors. Keith

deleted my confusion comment.... didnt see the key word "also" in Keith's post

I think that's the case if both units are at full strength. Unit sizes are more related to their function on the battlefield. And you won't see, for example, a fresh 500 man HF unit facing a fresh 1500 unit except in a home grown scenario. I wouldn't advise designing a scenario like that.

Deeter

Ok, I buy the losses as a percentage calculation, and it makes sense for taking losses when hit. But shouldn't a larger unit cause more losses than a smaller unit?

The problem I am running into is in the scenario I have been working on, Greek Light cavalry are 300 man units, while Persian cavalry are 1000 man units, and it really seems to favor the Greeks, these smaller units are almost too good. Same with some of the smaller Peltasts units, of 400 men, facing Perisan units of 1500.

I hate to artificially bump them up to 1000 man units, is there a work arouund for these small units?

Not really as a basic premise of the design is that if one light unit is 500 men, or 300, or 30 then every light must be the same strength. You could always give the Persians three times as many units.

The key is, I think, to count up the total number of a given troop type and divide it by the unit strength to get the number of BGs you need. Trying to use actual formation strengths doesn't seem to work well here. And a larger unit (HF gets 4 dice, LF get 2 back) will do more damage to a smaller unit ... usually.

Deeter

Let me see if I have this right...if a 1000 man MF unit fights a 100 man MF unit, the losses are purely based on percentages, so the 100 man MF unit would have a tremendous relative advantage.

Therefore when designing scenarios, it is important to keep units of the same type at the same size, or you get weird results.

76mm wrote:Let me see if I have this right...if a 1000 man MF unit fights a 100 man MF unit, the losses are purely based on percentages, so the 100 man MF unit would have a tremendous relative advantage.

Therefore when designing scenarios, it is important to keep units of the same type at the same size, or you get weird results.

No, if the units are the same class ie both medium foot then 1000 men in unit A has same value as 100 man unit B, this is because casualties inflicted are based on the ORIGINAL # of men in the unit times the random % rolled Example
1000 man unit takes a 10% hit has 900 men left, 100 man unit takes same hit 10% now at 90 men. If both units get hit again ie get hits that inflict 10% losses each 800 and 80 will be left respectively (remember its the % times the ORIGINAL men in the unit) Thus both units will degrade proportionaly ie both will reach their rout limit at the same rate asuming exact equal punishment is inflicted on them.

Basically there is no point in making a scenario with troops of the same type having wildly differnt #'s of men, uless you are just getting the #'s right for historical accuracy. It shouldnt effect anything except maybe confuse the player who might wonder why unit 1 loses 200 men at a time and unit 2 only loses 20 men per pop

To state things plainly...
Number of men is 100% cosmetic. It does not exist for the game mechanics at all.
Number of men in a BG has the same effect on the game mechanics than the color of their shields.
In FoG one BG is one BG. It does not matter what size A legionary unit 3 men in size fight exactly the same than a legionary unit with 10.000.000. men... as number of men are meaningless for the system.
This is a table top game conversion and what counts are BG's numbers and its characteristics (morale, armour...) nothing more.
So making ten 150 men BG out of a 1500 men BG is increasing x10 the strength of that BG.

Cheers