Superior,Average, Poor Skilled Swordsman

[Bladerunner]

We had a scenario last night that has made question the rules or maybe the layout of the army list points distribution. The battle which was played last night was between Ptolemy and Participate Roman.

Scenario 1 was as follow

PP
PP This a Pike BG of poor quality, protected worth all up 32 Points
PP
PP VS

LL This BG of Superior quality with attachment Archers Legions where armoured all up 72 points
LL
AA

What I found to be disturbing that the BG of poor quality Pikemen which is worth 32 points fights as + over Superior Legions worth 72 points.
The problem that I'm having getting my head around is Superior Poor Average and the mechanism that the rules say if your of poor quality you re roll 6 and if you are superior you re roll 1.
IMO I do not believe that the ways the rules have structured this is fair, why is because Superior, Average, Poor has been based on luck of the dice, and in reality this was a quality that troops gained through experience not by luck.
As the above scenario shows, how can a BG of poor quality troops worth 32 points be fighting a + over something that is worth nearly double the amount. I believe that Superior Average or Poor needs to be treated as POA that is why people pay the points not pay the points to be based on luck. And I know that a lot of you will not see it my way and that I'm probably fighting a loosing battle as I did last night as the rules have already been published , but I just wanted to know how other people felt about this.

The other issue is Skilled Swordsmen I mean if you look at how much you pay in cost for this in each battle group and which army it is affective against, my question is it really worth the points we pay, when you come against Pike, Spear or mounted swordsmen it really means nothing. All your criticism on this 2 issues will be welcomed.

[LintMan]

Think of it this way. When you hit on 4, 5, 6 and have to reroll the 6 you get less net hits. As superior you reroll the 1's thus having the possibility to turn misses into hits. It get even better as quality effects the cohesion test as well so poor troops that are more likey to run than the better quality troops.

Quality helps you in combat but a bad tactical match up is still bad news

[SirGarnet]

The problem that I'm having getting my head around is Superior Poor Average and the mechanism that the rules say if your of poor quality you re roll 6 and if you are superior you re roll 1.
IMO I do not believe that the ways the rules have structured this is fair, why is because Superior, Average, Poor has been based on luck of the dice, and in reality this was a quality that troops gained through experience not by luck.
As the above scenario shows, how can a BG of poor quality troops worth 32 points be fighting a + over something that is worth nearly double the amount. I believe that Superior Average or Poor needs to be treated as POA that is why people pay the points not pay the points to be based on luck. And I know that a lot of you will not see it my way and that I'm probably fighting a loosing battle as I did last night as the rules have already been published , but I just wanted to know how other people felt about this.

POAs represent advantages of particular fighting styles against others. A porcupine-like Pike block poses the same tactical challenge to swordsmen seeking to get "stuck in" no matter the quality of the troops on either side. Whether they overcome the challenge will depend heavily on quality. Quality translates to effectiveness through rerolls that put the odds more or less in your favor.

As another post a couple months back explained, mathematically rerolls provide a consistent percentage of increase or decreased effectiveness, a superior mechanism to simple +1 and -1 type modifiers to hit rolls.

The combat results in some rules sets are highly predictable, almost chesslike. FoG has a lot more of the uncertainty of war, but, as the designers have written, what is rolled for and the number of dice rolled are intended to limit the impact of any single die roll and to limit the ability to easily and quickly calculate exact odds of particular results. Nonetheless, you can have a sense of the chances and what makes sense, and commit troops accordingly. Quality and skill tend to win, but sometimes the fortunes of war dictate otherwise.

The other issue is Skilled Swordsmen I mean if you look at how much you pay in cost for this in each battle group and which army it is affective against, my question is it really worth the points we pay, when you come against Pike, Spear or mounted swordsmen it really means nothing. All your criticism on this 2 issues will be welcomed.

You are right that the upgrade to Skilled has no effect vs. those troop types. However, it chews through opposing Swordsmen, which is quite valuable if you look at the bulk of Rome's historical opponents.

[MCollett]

PP
PP This a Pike BG of poor quality, protected worth all up 32 Points
PP
PP VS

LL This BG of Superior quality with attachment Archers Legions where armoured all up 72 points
LL
AA

What I found to be disturbing that the BG of poor quality Pikemen which is worth 32 points fights as + over Superior Legions worth 72 points.
The problem that I'm having getting my head around is Superior Poor Average and the mechanism that the rules say if your of poor quality you re roll 6 and if you are superior you re roll 1.
IMO I do not believe that the ways the rules have structured this is fair, why is because Superior, Average, Poor has been based on luck of the dice, and in reality this was a quality that troops gained through experience not by luck.

Having a PoA changes the odds in your favour.
Being better quality changes the odds in your favour.
There is no reason to say that one is 'based on luck' and the other isn't.

In this case, the Poor troops are hitting on 4,5,6, while effectively rolling dice marked 1,2,3,4,5 (this isn't exact, but near enough). That's 40% hits. The Superior troops with PoA against are hitting on 5,6, rolling dice marked 2,3,4,5,6. That's also 40% hits. So the pike and legions will win roughly equal numbers of melee rounds. Ignoring modifiers, when they lose the pike have about a 60% chance of failing their cohesion test, the legions about a 25% chance. Furthermore if the pike drop a cohesion level, they also lose their PoA, so it's pretty much all over for them, while the legions still have a chance from one cohesion level down. It's pretty clear who's favoured in this matchup!

Best wishes,
Matthew

[hammy]

At impact assuming 4 bases per side the POAs are even but the Romans reroll 1s and the pike reroll 6s. This means that the Romans will hit 21/36 on each dice while th pike will hit 15/36. Assuming the Romans win (really rather likely) then the pike will be testing cohesion with a -1 for 1 hit per 3 bases (almost certain) another -1 for being beaten by impact foot and possibly a third -1 for losing by 2 hits (not so likely, actually 28.15%).

If the pike lose by only 1 hit then they need a 9 to pass their cohesion test which means there is a 85.3% chance they will fail and should they lose by 2 hits there is a 94% chance the pikes will disrupt.

Overall the impact in this situation massively favours the Romans and once the pike are disrupted the Romans are on an even POA and have more dice.

I would say that this matchup is a 80/20 in favour of the Romans.

Even if the Romans don't disrupt the pikes at impact there is a good chance they will still be steady and in the melee the Romans will get 4 dice hitting 14/36 vs the pikes 4 dice hitting 15/36 so hardly a huge dissadvantage.

Only if the Romans disrupt at impact are they in real trouble and that means losing the impact (about 20% chance) then failing a cohesion test (43.3%) so overall there is a less than 10% chance the Romans will disrupt at impact.

[rogerg]

After nearly eighteen months of playing I think it is still a little early to decide on points issues. Early thinking was that knights were too good, now it's skirmishers who seem to be dominant. 'Superior' used to be considered as underpriced, but now I'm not sure.

As to the specifics, I would favour the legionaries over the poor pikes. The pikes will probably need to win several melee rounds to beat down the Romans, If the pikes lose once they are likely to be finished.

Skilled swordsmen value is underpriced if anything. They are better than the large number of troop types who are merely swordsmen or heavy weapon armed.

[lawrenceg]

PP
PP This a Pike BG of poor quality, protected worth all up 32 Points
PP
PP VS

LL This BG of Superior quality with attachment Archers Legions where armoured all up 72 points
LL
AA

What I found to be disturbing that the BG of poor quality Pikemen which is worth 32 points fights as + over Superior Legions worth 72 points.
The problem that I'm having getting my head around is Superior Poor Average and the mechanism that the rules say if your of poor quality you re roll 6 and if you are superior you re roll 1.
IMO I do not believe that the ways the rules have structured this is fair, why is because Superior, Average, Poor has been based on luck of the dice, and in reality this was a quality that troops gained through experience not by luck.

Having a PoA changes the odds in your favour.
Being better quality changes the odds in your favour.
There is no reason to say that one is 'based on luck' and the other isn't.

In this case, the Poor troops are hitting on 4,5,6, while effectively rolling dice marked 1,2,3,4,5 (this isn't exact, but near enough). That's 40% hits. The Superior troops with PoA against are hitting on 5,6, rolling dice marked 2,3,4,5,6. That's also 40% hits. So the pike and legions will win roughly equal numbers of melee rounds. Ignoring modifiers, when they lose the pike have about a 60% chance of failing their cohesion test, the legions about a 25% chance. Furthermore if the pike drop a cohesion level, they also lose their PoA, so it's pretty much all over for them, while the legions still have a chance from one cohesion level down. It's pretty clear who's favoured in this matchup!

Best wishes,
Matthew

Matthew is pretty much correct here.

The exact numbers work out at a 39% chance of hitting with the legionaries, 42% chance of hitting with the pike.
This translates into chances of winning a round of melee as 33% for the legion and 39% for the pike.

The big advantage of the superior troops comes in the cohesion test (73% chance of passing compared to 43% with no modifiers).

If the pikemen do drop to disrupted, the odds in the next round become:
Chance of pikemen winning 11%
chance of legion winning 68%

If the legion is disrupted:
pikemen win 50%
legion win 22%

Even if the pikemen win, there is still a fair chance for the legion to pass its cohesion test (even with a -2 modifier there is still a 38% chance of passing).

Also you have ignored the impact combat, where the chances are
pike win 20%
legion win 56%

If the pike lose, they suffer an extra -1 modifier on the cohesion test for losing an impact against impact foot. If there are no other net modifiers, they have a 73% chance of failing the test.

Overall, the legion probably has a sight advantage in this fight.

Of course, this is not the only fight that can occur in FOG. The legion also has many advantages in other situations compared to poor protected pike. The points system on the whole is a pretty good reflection of the overall utility of the various troop types.

[hammy]

There is an argument that skilled swordsman may be undercosted but in this matchup ordinary swordsman would have the same effect.

Skilled swordsman is the same as normal swordsman against pikes, spears, mounted and troops with no melee POA. It is only better against swordsmen and heavy weapons. I suspect that Roger's perception of the value of skilled swordsmen could be weighted by the fact he tends to use armies like WoTR where almost everything is worse off against skilled swordsmen.

In Helsinki, most of the time I found that my skilled swordsmen were little better than plain swordsmen because very few of my opponents had any plain swordsmen, just lots of spears, pikes and mounted

[nikgaukroger]

And always remember that the points costs are aimed at balancing troops against all possible opponents and that in a comparison against a single opponent type they may be advantaged or disadvantaged by the points system.

[terrys]

We developed a combat simulator early on to evaluate these matchups.

For your interest:

4 Superior Legionaries against 8 poor pike works out at:

Winning at impact: Legionaries 55% Pikes 21%
Winning impact by 2: Legionaries 29% Pikes 5%
This means that the Pikes will lose and go disrupted 36% of the time - which means certain death.
The Legionaries will lose and go disrupted 7% of the time.

If the pikes manage to survive the impact and are still on equal numbers the results are:
winning in melee: Legionaries 33% Pikes 41%
winning melee by 2: Legionaries 13% Pikes 16%

I've assumed that there's a general with each (as long as both are either in or out of the combat the percentages don't change). It would significantly change the chances of failing the CT - especially for the pikes.

[Seldon]

Terry this is awesome !!!

I have been working on a simulator myself ( using crystal ball for excell ) and now I am looking forward to checking my numbers with these conclusions...

BTW after doing some numbers myself I also love the way quality of troops is represented, adds a very different dimension that simply adding a POA or a simple +1 in CT, I am glad rules are this way and not in a more elemental way in which quality just give you an extra point in combat. I think that the argument is a lost battle not because the rules are written but because the authors had an interesting idea that they liked implementing and it is part of their core concepts.

I guess the amount of work you guys have put behind this rules is one of the reasons why so many people love it, I am one of them

cheers
Francisco

[Fulgrim]

I think I saw an earlier post (at playtesting?) there the skilled swordsmen workd vs mounted. Was that so during playtesting and, if so, why was it changed?
I have got the impression that the roman legions (aswell as other well trained "hand weapon" foot) were successful vs mounted if they just could hold during the impact of the charge.
There is a line somewhere that sarmatian cavalry where relatively easy to overcome for the legions if they could stand the inital assault, that isnt the case now - its armoured vs armoured, SSw vs mtd Sw = net POA 0 and possibly Superior vs Superior.

[hammy]

I think I saw an earlier post (at playtesting?) there the skilled swordsmen workd vs mounted. Was that so during playtesting and, if so, why was it changed?
I have got the impression that the roman legions (aswell as other well trained "hand weapon" foot) were successful vs mounted if they just could hold during the impact of the charge.
There is a line somewhere that sarmatian cavalry where relatively easy to overcome for the legions if they could stand the inital assault, that isnt the case now - its armoured vs armoured, SSw vs mtd Sw = net POA 0 and possibly Superior vs Superior.

In the early playtests impact foot didn't get a + at impact vs shock mounted but skilled swordsman gave a POA against mounted swordsmen.

After a lot of testing this was changed to the current set of POAs, mainly because legionaries were felt to be too good against lancers, cataphracts especially.

[Bladerunner]

Thank you all for your responses so far, and I'm glad that you have all promptly responded as I must admit you have all showed me a different way of looking at this game. So far all your points have been valid and I understand what you are saying to me. I must admit I had some doubts about the game and you have restored my perception of the game. However when you are on a running streak of rolling bad dices that does not help the cause, I just need to roll better.
However tactical advice on how to handle some of this armies like pikemen , spearmen, mounted lancers would also be welcomed.

[flameberge]

Another reason I think the legions are a lot more points than poor pike is their broader usefulness. Pike are going to have to deploy in a deep formation to be effective, the legions have no such restriction and so have more tactical options. Also the legions are DRAMATICALLY better in terrain. They can be disordered in rough terrain and still fight respectably while a pike block disordered would get butchered by the legions.

[diego66ro]

Also the legions are DRAMATICALLY better in terrain. They can be disordered in rough terrain and still fight respectably while a pike block disordered would get butchered by the legions.

Sorry flameberge I disagree .
Pikes don't loose their POA until FRG or SEV DISORDER, so if rough terrain only DISORDER the bases, pikes and legionaries loose 1 dice per 3.
Me too appreciate Terry's percentage, but a BG of 8 poor Pike cost only 32 pt, against 56 pt of legionary, so I can combat with 2 BG of Pk (64 pt) against 1BG of legionary:

P1P1P2P2
P1P1P2P2
P1P1P2P2
P1P1P2P2
....L1L1...
....L1L1...


In IMPACT phase, they will have same dice and same POA, but in melee, +POA for pikes and double dices for them.

I think that pikes are too strong for their cost.

Diego

[Bladerunner]

Diego

That is a very good point

[hammy]

Diego

That is a very good point

It may be a good point but it is wrong.

If you move out of open terrain then pike lose their 4th rank POA (it only counts in open terrain) and the pike re no longer steady so the pike are down a POA and the legions are up a POA as swordsman now counts.

If you can face off one BG of legionaries with two BG of pike such that the pike have an overlap on each side then the legions are in trouble. If the legions hit one of the pike formations with the other in overlap on one side I am still fairly sure that the legions should win.

Remember that at imapct the legions have a significant advantage, Terrys figures assumed a general with the pike and the legions. If you don't have generals with either side the pike will be disrupted over 40% of the time at impact. In fact they will be fragged more than 10% of the time.

If you feel that poor quality pikes are really too good for their points cost then try using them on a regular basis. May I suggest Later Ptolomaic or Phyyric, both of which can have 32 bases of poor pike. If you are evern in Manchester I will gladly take on either of these armies with Republicn Roman.

[nikgaukroger]

Pikes don't loose their POA until FRG or SEV DISORDER, so if rough terrain only DISORDER the bases, pikes and legionaries loose 1 dice per 3.

That is the basic if in 3 ranks PoA, however, their 4th rank PoA only applies in good going IIRC so they lose that. Also, if fighting legionarii, the pikes no longer count steady and so the legionarii swordsmen will count which it wouldn't in the open. Thus if the legionarii are Armoured they will be at a + PoA so the pikes need 5+ to hit and if Superior are re-rolling 1s. This will go the legionarii's way fairly quickly.

I think that pikes are too strong for their cost.

Having used them a few times now in competition, and faced them a few times as well (see the AAR section for a couple of games), I can quite happily say they are not too strong for their cost.

[lawrenceg]

Pikes don't loose their POA until FRG or SEV DISORDER, so if rough terrain only DISORDER the bases, pikes and legionaries loose 1 dice per 3.

That is the basic if in 3 ranks PoA, however, their 4th rank PoA only applies in good going IIRC so they lose that. Also, if fighting legionarii, the pikes no longer count steady and so the legionarii swordsmen will count which it wouldn't in the open. Thus if the legionarii are Armoured they will be at a + PoA so the pikes need 5+ to hit and if Superior are re-rolling 1s. This will go the legionarii's way fairly quickly.

Nik is right about the POA

According to my calculations, for 1 round of melee:

The legion will lose the melee 24% of the time;
The pike with 1 dice against it will lose 27% of the time;
The pike with 2 dice against it will lose 53% of the time.

Of course, if they fight in the open then the pikes have the advantage. That might give you a clues as to what tactics to use and what to avoid with your legionaries.