Points values

[rogerg]

I have played a few games now and I am very much of the opinion that superior grade troops are underpriced. The ability to re-roll 1's is a very big advantage. As a simple probability calculation on the combat dice it isn't that much. However, one extra hit can make a very big difference. Combat tends to be close. The difference in effect between not losing, losing by one hit and losing by two hits, is very big in cohesion testing. Further, adding to that the ability to re-roll 1's in the cohesion test makes a huge difference. I would suggest that superior troops should be costed at approximatley double that of average troops. Elite's might even be worth doubling again.

Has anyone tried facing an army of mainly superior troops with an army largely of average? Are we all just doing what we have done for the past couple of decades and upgrading everything we are allowed to?

[bddbrown]

It does feel like upgrading everything you can to superior and elites is the way to go. Not sure that elites are quite such a leap from superiors as average to superior but point taken.

For example I would never take Average, Armoured, Bow, Swordsmen cavalry and would always take Superiors at the moment.

Either they need to be more expensive or the effects of re-rolls needs to be limited in scope a little more. Maybe just to cohesion rolls?

[dave_r]

I completely agree with this. At the moment Re-Rolling ones is a huge advantage, I think you can re-roll the following:

- Hits in Close Combat / Shooting
- VMD
- Cohesion Tests
- Manoever Tests

This will result in a lot of re-rolled dice.

That is an awful lot of value for points - for Cavalry (unless armoured), it costs two points per base to upgrade to Superior. Considering most Cav BG's are four elements this is 8 points, which is nothing when compared to the considerable benefits.

Perhaps the way forward is to have a standard cost for all troops and then levy a toll on each BG as to the class. I guess there has already been a fair amount of thought on points values already - but it seems to me that there is a lot of Superior troops floating about and not any poor, which kind of suggests at the moment the values are a bit skewed.

Perhaps it would be better to levy point on BG's as a whole, i.e. use equpment costs (which seem to work fairly well) as they stand and then add (or subtract) for poor / superior / elite. This would make numerous above average units more expensive than a couple of extra units which to my mind is an additional benefit.

[hammy]

When I put together armies if I have a choice between superior and average I will generally go for superior which does make me think that it is perhaps too cheap.

If I do choose to have average rather than superior it will normally only be for cheap troops who are not that likely to get stuck in. I would say choose average light horse archers over superiors if there are plenty of other decent troops in the army.

Overall I think anything where the choice is not painful is an indication that something is too cheap.

Hammy

[rbodleyscott]

My take on this is as follows:

1) Given the choice, I would always pick Superior for armoured or better cavalry, cataphracts or knights.

Therefore, the relative cost of Superior for these certainly needs to be greater.

2) Given the choice, I usually pick Average for LH or Protected cavalry. They are not my main attack force, and not worth tying up the extra points in. I think the differential here is probably OK already. Superior Protected cavalry are not a "favoured" troop-type and need to be encouraged, not discouraged.

3) I am ambivalent re Superior LF. Poor LF are pretty good too!

4) I would probably pick Superior for any MF or HF that I intended to use as a main attack force. However I am not convinced that this necessarily reflects a points discrepancy as I can see advantages to saving the points by having Average infantry when they are not the main attack force. If there is any points discrepancy, it is small.

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.

[rogerg]

Related to this is the +2 on death rolls for not losing a melee. The small groups of superiors who gain the extra combat hits to tie up the melee as a draw are then difficult to kill. Given that they also need reducing to less than 50% means they happily hang in there for a long time. This is leading to some very long melees. Is there any real justification for having +2 on death rolls for anyone in a melee?

Alternatively, make everyone autobreak on 50% losses. Ths would simplify the rules too. Probably removing the +2 and making a 50% autobreak for all would not be a problem. The superiors mainly hold up because the re-roll on tests keeps up their morale. The easier loss of cohesion for average troops, leading to fewer combat dice, is what really hurts them. Not only are they more likely to lose the melee, but the reduced ability to inflict hits reduces the death roll problems of their opponents.

[paulcummins]

Thracians against Abasids - the infantry crunch was between 2 bgs of 8 superior MF Impact foot (Dailami) and 6 BGs of 6 MF heavy weapon (Thracians with rhomphai or however you spell it)

The dailami went through the Thracians in short order - not actually doing much at impact, but chopping them to pieces when out numbered in melee.
One BG of dailami charged in unsuported and was quite happy for the two rounds of melee. When the second BG joined it went very bad for the Thracian.

I had thought that the weight of numbers and IC in there would do the job, but the superiority of the dailami made them a bit damn tough.

I would pay the extra points anyday for my main troops.

[hammy]

Thracians against Abasids - the infantry crunch was between 2 bgs of 8 superior MF Impact foot (Dailami) and 6 BGs of 6 MF heavy weapon (Thracians with rhomphai or however you spell it)

The dailami went through the Thracians in short order - not actually doing much at impact, but chopping them to pieces when out numbered in melee.
One BG of dailami charged in unsuported and was quite happy for the two rounds of melee. When the second BG joined it went very bad for the Thracian.

I had thought that the weight of numbers and IC in there would do the job, but the superiority of the dailami made them a bit damn tough.

I would pay the extra points anyday for my main troops.

Blimey, I wouldn't expect that...

The Dailami have a net + at impact but are on even POA in melee. Yes superior helps but with no support it would be 12 dice to 8 for the Thracians.

[robertthebruce]

All people picks superior troops because in quality/price balance they are the best ones.


This difference is more remarkable in troops like the cavalry or Knights, its advantage already is too great like still favoring them with a low cost.


The Superior Troops must to increase its cost, but of an important form in troops with great Combat Capacity.



David

[lawrenceg]

Blimey, I wouldn't expect that...

The Dailami have a net + at impact but are on even POA in melee. Yes superior helps but with no support it would be 12 dice to 8 for the Thracians.

I make it that 8 dice superior have a 21% chance of winning a round of melee and 15% of a draw against 12 dice average, with no POA.

So the odds certainly favour the Thracians (average), but the Dailami (superior) winning two rounds in a row is not as unlikely as a 6-1 in DBM.

I also note that if one of the 6-base Thracians is fully engaged by 6 dice of Dailami, then that Thracian BG has a 50% chance of losing each melee round.

It is still a bit surprising that 16 bases of Dailami could beat 36 bases of Thracians. What was the geometrical arrangement of the Thracians? Did some of them not get into combat?

[lawrenceg]

I would point out that the decision to buy superior depends also on what else you can have. If you have a limited number of proper combat troops and the rest are mediocre, then it is nearly always worth upgrading the decent troops even if the cost is high.

So if I could only have 4-8 elements of armoured cavalry in an infantry army, say, I would always upgrade them to superior if possible, even if they were very costly. If the army had 16+ elements of armoured cavalry then I'd be more likely to buy extra elements (i.e. I'd see upgrading as less value for points).

I think the implication of this is that we should balance the points so it's a hard decision in the case where you can have many elements of that kind.

What happens to the points if you calculate it purely on combat results?

e.g. if in simulations 10 bases of troop X (average) has a 50% chance of beating 8 bases of troop X(superior) then you make superior cost 25% more.

[rogerg]

I do not think this calculation is that relevant. The ability to re-roll the cohesion test on a loss and stay in the fight is probably more important. In a typically situation to roll say, 7 or less, to fail a cohesion test, then half of the possible initial rolls wills contain a one. I will do the calculation when I get off line. However, immediately having a re-roll in over half the cases of failure is a big bonus.

Roger

[robertthebruce]

What happens to the points if you calculate it purely on combat results?

The superior troops are not better in combat only. VMD, CT, CMT....



In AOW the quality of the troops is very important, the difference of quality between troops and others would have to be reflected in the their points cost.



David.

[rogerg]

The cohesion test pass if 8 is required is 57% when re-rolling 1's, 42% otehrwise. If a 7 is required it is 72% and 58% respectively. This is not huge, but 14-15% is not small either.

[lawrenceg]

I do not think this calculation is that relevant. The ability to re-roll the cohesion test on a loss and stay in the fight is probably more important. .

Yes, I meant a full simulation including CTs until one side breaks. For missile troops you would need to consider a shoot-out as well as/instead of an impact+melee.

I think it would be informative to simulate one set allowing overlaps and one set enforcing a fixed frontage (i.e. the extra bases of poor quality troops would be in rear ranks). I think this would make quite a big difference and probably the fixed frontage case would more closely reflect the actual values of the quality grades.

[shall]

The development team has tended to simulate the whole tree for such things - this always being Impact - spread 1 for results - CTs and Death rolls - Melee - spread 2 - CTs and Death Rolls..

It will be itneresting to see what you all find when you get to the end of the tree.

Note that a single combat spreads out into 5 different results (big win win draw lose big loss) and 3 CT results (pass or fail or bad fail) and 4 Death Roll results (loser or winner losses a base/neither lose a base/both lose a base) - so 60 a the first spread. Same at the second for about 3600 outcomes for each single combat in the full tree..........in order to get the answer you are looking for.

Si

[paulcummins]

The ability to re-roll the cohesion test on a loss and stay in the fight is probably more important.

So the odds certainly favour the Thracians (average), but the Dailami (superior) winning two rounds in a row is not as unlikely as a 6-1 in DBM.

I also note that if one of the 6-base Thracians is fully engaged by 6 dice of Dailami, then that Thracian BG has a 50% chance of losing each melee round.

It is still a bit surprising that 16 bases of Dailami could beat 36 bases of Thracians. What was the geometrical arrangement of the Thracians? Did some of them not get into combat?

6 BGs all in a line, the 2 Dailami BGs hit 4 of them. The bound I had one dailami in contact I tried to move a BG up to move round on to the flank.

While I had the flanks I won the combat, but did nothing to them. The Dailami then won the next impact (when the second bg came in) and melee phases, doing lots of damage. The next bound the now disrupted and fragmented BGs of thracians were well beaten, one broke and took another with it. All over as the Dailami now had the overlaps.

[shall]

That's what Impact Foot are supposed to do when it goes well........

Historically if their strong charge sometime swept away what was in front of them before the rest of the battle ha d chance to do anything about it. A reasonmably frequent event with both shock mounted and foot through history.

So the odds are against it happening but knowing that it can do so 15% of the time say..........how do you use the Thacians to nullify this risk and take full advantage of your numbers? Of course it won't always work.

Si

[lawrenceg]

The development team has tended to simulate the whole tree for such things - this always being Impact - spread 1 for results - CTs and Death rolls - Melee - spread 2 - CTs and Death Rolls..

It will be itneresting to see what you all find when you get to the end of the tree.

Note that a single combat spreads out into 5 different results (big win win draw lose big loss) and 3 CT results (pass or fail or bad fail) and 4 Death Roll results (loser or winner losses a base/neither lose a base/both lose a base) - so 60 a the first spread. Same at the second for about 3600 outcomes for each single combat in the full tree..........in order to get the answer you are looking for.

Si

Not having the resources to do a full tree or monte-carlo model, I've tried some simple reasoning:

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.

Of course, depending on the tactical situation, that extra BG of average troops may be able to do something else that is useful, so this is an upper bound on the cost of superior. Also in theory one BG can support two others, so maybe
1.16 x 1.25 = 1.45 times the cost would be more realistic.

I'm quite surprised how high these numbers are, given the relatively small effects superiority has on individual die rolls.
I'd be interested to see how it worked out in practice between two experienced players, one taking mainly average troops, the other mainly superiors paying 45% extra.

[shall]

Not having the resources to do a full tree or monte-carlo model, I've tried some simple reasoning:

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.

Of course, depending on the tactical situation, that extra BG of average troops may be able to do something else that is useful, so this is an upper bound on the cost of superior. Also in theory one BG can support two others, so maybe
1.16 x 1.25 = 1.45 times the cost would be more realistic.

I'm quite surprised how high these numbers are, given the relatively small effects superiority has on individual die rolls.
I'd be interested to see how it worked out in practice between two experienced players, one taking mainly average troops, the other mainly superiors paying 45% extra.

It's more the certainty of not losing that is the primary thing to analyse.

In addition less bases means you have more flank risks - if hitting in the flank a poor unit does 2x the hits of an elite on on avarage....

So an adaption Lawrences nicely simple method would be to say..all things being equal the odds change from 40/20/40 win/draw/lose to 60/20/20 win/draw/lose (roughly to show the logic only). So superior troops would take half the tests of average troops in ahaed ot head. The avarage tropps pass 60% of the time, superior 80% (again rough). So in outcome terms you have survivial rates of

Average = 1 - (0.6 (odds mof testin) x 0.6 (oods of passing)) = 0.64
Superior = 1 - (0.2 (oods of testing) x 0.8 (odds of passing)) = 0.84

So if I were to ball park them head to head everything else equal I would do it this way. I haven't done such a shorthand calcualtion accurately but this is a much better approach than looking at hit generation which is a means to an end with a big spread within it.

Another shortcut is tolook at the number of extra dice needed to compensate for elite and superior. IRRC its about 2.5 dice on 6 to overcome superior.

You might want to take a look at this too alternative shorthands lawrence as they are closer to the full tree in effect.

Si