Slitherine

So I didn't want to bring this up so soon after heavy weapon huscarls got a buff like 2 patches ago. But after seeing the numbers, yeah they definitely need another buff.

I basically lined up offensive spear versions and dane axe versions of huscarls against some of the hardest hitting opponents on the early medieval battlefield and took screenshots of the POA and win percentages.

Against the ubiquitous superior armored lancers (huscarls receiving the charge):

Spear - 26%win/70%draw/5%lose on impact
72%win/28%draw/0%lose in melee

Axe - 13%win/74%draw/13%lose on impact
40%win/59%draw/1%lose in melee

It is substantially safer for superior lancers to stand in front of axe huscarls as opposed to spear huscarls since they can alway charge in for the bounce back if they are about to be shot up or trapped in melee. And getting trapped in melee with axe huscarls is no longer instant death for the lancers like with spear huscarls.

Against Byzantine Klibanophoroi (huscarls receiving the charge):

Spear - 13%win/74%draw/13%lose on impact
7%win/69%draw/24%lose in melee

Axe - 5%win/64%draw/31%lose on impact
10%win/76%draw/14%lose in melee

Both spear and axe versions of huscarls is probably going to get its ass kicked by Klibanophoroi. Only difference is that spears are more likely to lose it in melee, while axes more likely to lose it on impact.

Against veteran Dalami foot:

Spear - 1%win/51%draw/48%lose on impact
38%win/59%draw/3%lose in melee

Axe - 2%win/49%draw/50%lose on impact
22%win/71%draw/7%lose in melee

Spear huscarls have a noticeably higher chance of winning the melee IF they survive impact compared to axe huscarls.

Finally spear huscarls vs axe huscarls(from perspective of the spears):

13%win/74%draw/14%lose on impact
11%win/73%draw/16%lose in melee

Axe huscarls have a 10 PoA advantage translating to a 5% higher chance to win melee.


Screenshots to follow for those people who want to look at the POA numbers in detail...

Screenshots detailing POA numbers:

I was just doing some number crunching so I knew what to expect in my league battle when my superior and average dailami foot go up against my opponents heavy-weapon huscarls. I was counting on the huscarls getting a +50 POA in melee due to armour... your screenshot shows a +25??

I just thought I had armour POA's down to a science and I was sure that armoured gets +50 against uprotected, lightly protected, and protected.

Edit: Never mind - I apparently just can't seem to keep it straight - fully armoured gets +50... not armoured.

But given I was thinking a lot about the huscarl-vet dailami foot matchup (albiet the highly superior variety), I feel like it lines up all right. I'll explain my reasoning so please point out any assumptions that may not be correct.

I figured the huscarls are likely testing at -1 for cohesion if they lose impact (0 if a general is adding their bonus). That makes about a quarter failing their tests. If we assume all that get dirupted lose (which isn't really true as rallies do happen... but close enough) that makes for 1/8 losing to the dailami due to impact. The rest I figure are probably winning 85-90% if left one-on-one for an extended time. This is in part due to the fact the huscarls should be almost twice as good at passing CT's.

My evaluation told me the dailami's might get a win or two but were very much disadvantaged, although they should be able to hold them for a reasonable amount of time. Considering the points for each, seems pretty understandable to me.

Yeah, switching to axe huscarls is still pretty pointless. I guess the only reason would be if you really don't like your infantry following up on pushbacks.

Huscarls must test at -2 during the Impact phase (close combat damage, lost by wide margin, lost vs Impact, Heavy Foot) and assuming they are fresh, they will lose and fail a CT 21.5% of the time. Afterwards, should Huscarls lose in melee combat they will test at -1.

Dailami won't lose on Impact unless a lottery roll happens but will test at -2 against HW Huscarls during extended melee (it is closer to 26-27% at 35 PoA from my experience) meaning they will lose and fail a CT ~11.5% of the time per melee. Against Spear Huscarls they will lose and fail a CT ~ 16% of the time.

Assuming that Huscarls survive Impact, Dailami eat up 5 or 6 melee rounds before failing a CT 50% of the time against HWs; as opposed to 4 melee rounds before failing a CT 50% of the time vs Spears. At the same time, Spears will themselves will be forced to take a CT from a bad luck loss against Dailami over the equivlant period ~12% of the time while HWs will be forced to take a bad luck CT ~30% (!) of the time.

The point Pompey is trying to make is that since Spear and HW Huscarls cost the same at 72 points, HWs are inferior a lot of the time on a pound for pound basis. So you should always take the Spear option. Off and Def Spear, in general, are much better in point efficiency vs HW.

Nosy_Rat wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 6:39 pm Yeah, switching to axe huscarls is still pretty pointless. I guess the only reason would be if you really don't like your infantry following up on pushbacks.

This actually might have been valid in some scenarios before they drastically reduced pushback frequency. But right now it is a non-issue.

Speaking from my experience using Vikings this season, I wouldn't say the lack of pushback is a non-issue, but it is nevertheless very clear that I made a mistake choosing the Axe Huscarl list. Still, even the 72pt Spear variety are a worse use of points than 60pt Veteran Dailami, or the 54(!) pt Veteran Muslim Spearmen.

But overall I agree there is really no reason to use HW troops other than the cheap unprotected varieties.

So I have this idea floating around in my head that Heavy Weapons should either apply a flat -25 penalty to its opponents' armor POA, or halve its opponents' armor POA, regardless of the axe welder's armor level. This way heavy weapons would be equally valid on armored and naked guys alike. Unfortunately this would instantly change the balance for all of the various naked guys with axes out there (falxmen, irish foot, etc), which are a lot more common than axe huscarls. Anybody got any ideas for buffing axe huscarls other than just tacking on even more POA bonuses?

pompeytheflatulent wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 7:16 pm So I have this idea floating around in my head that Heavy Weapons should either apply a flat -25 penalty to its opponents' armor POA, or halve its opponents' armor POA, regardless of the axe welder's armor level. This way heavy weapons would be equally valid on armored and naked guys alike. Unfortunately this would instantly change the balance for all of the various naked guys with axes out there (falxmen, irish foot, etc), which are a lot more common than axe huscarls. Anybody got any ideas for buffing axe huscarls other than just tacking on even more POA bonuses?

Again, this is based on neither historical nor FoG2 experience, but I still throw out the idea:

how about a +1 cohesion test modifier benefit for Heavy Weapon during melee in cases when their armour level is the same or higher than that of the enemy unit causing the cohesion test? That would then benefit the more heavily armoured Huscarls but not the naked HW guys.

EDIT: And it could be justified on the basis that their armour allows them to feel more comfortable and safe than their less protected enemies.

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 6:39 pm Huscarls must test at -2 during the Impact phase (close combat damage, lost by wide margin, lost vs Impact, Heavy Foot) and assuming they are fresh, they will lose and fail a CT 21.5% of the time. Afterwards, should Huscarls lose in melee combat they will test at -1.

I have been unsure of when this modifier "lost by a wide margin" comes into play and I was being conservative when evaluating my Dailami foot's chances. Can you count on this for impact and melee combat wins... like all the time?

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 6:39 pm Assuming that Huscarls survive Impact, Dailami eat up 5 or 6 melee rounds before failing a CT 50% of the time against HWs; as opposed to 4 melee rounds before failing a CT 50% of the time vs Spears. At the same time, Spears will themselves will be forced to take a CT from a bad luck loss against Dailami over the equivlant period ~12% of the time while HWs will be forced to take a bad luck CT ~30% (!) of the time.

I didn't crunch the number for the spear huscarls, but that 30% for the HW's must include impact combat, correct? Otherwise I am calculating something like 8, 9% chance they get disrupted in 5-6 rounds of melee. That's about 7% combat loss chance multiplied by 27% chance of CT fail (-1 modifiers), equaling about a 2% chance of losing and CT failing per combat. Please let me know if any of my numbers seem off.

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 6:39 pm The point Pompey is trying to make is that since Spear and HW Huscarls cost the same at 72 points, HWs are inferior a lot of the time on a pound for pound basis. So you should always take the Spear option. Off and Def Spear, in general, are much better in point efficiency vs HW.

Yeah... I missed the forest for the trees here. I agree for sure. I have never been able to figure out what armoured HW foot are for... The unprotected ones at least make some sense for certain situations.

DanZanzibar wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:05 am

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 6:39 pm Huscarls must test at -2 during the Impact phase (close combat damage, lost by wide margin, lost vs Impact, Heavy Foot) and assuming they are fresh, they will lose and fail a CT 21.5% of the time. Afterwards, should Huscarls lose in melee combat they will test at -1.

I have been unsure of when this modifier "lost by a wide margin" comes into play and I was being conservative when evaluating my Dailami foot's chances. Can you count on this for impact and melee combat wins... like all the time?

You can count on this to kick anytime formed units attack each other and the winner is steady in combat. I won't say it will always happen in this circumstance but its pretty darn close to always as in I have never seen it not happen. It won't kick in from what I have seen if something like an LH charges the flank of an infantry unit and wins. There are not enough kills for that to kick in from my experience.

DanZanzibar wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:05 am

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 6:39 pm Assuming that Huscarls survive Impact, Dailami eat up 5 or 6 melee rounds before failing a CT 50% of the time against HWs; as opposed to 4 melee rounds before failing a CT 50% of the time vs Spears. At the same time, Spears will themselves will be forced to take a CT from a bad luck loss against Dailami over the equivlant period ~12% of the time while HWs will be forced to take a bad luck CT ~30% (!) of the time.

I didn't crunch the number for the spear huscarls, but that 30% for the HW's must include impact combat, correct? Otherwise I am calculating something like 8, 9% chance they get disrupted in 5-6 rounds of melee. That's about 7% combat loss chance multiplied by 27% chance of CT fail (-1 modifiers), equaling about a 2% chance of losing and CT failing per combat. Please let me know if any of my numbers seem off.

This is assuming Huscarls survive Impact intact as in either not losing the coin flip on impact or losing the Impact but passing the CT. Taking a CT isn't the same as getting disrupted. Your math is fine.

NB, if the Dailami manage to win the coin flip and beat the Huscarls on Impact but the Huscarls pass the CT, the subsequent numbers will skew slightly more in favour towards the Dailami since Unit Strength modifiers will alter the Win/Draw/Loss percentages.

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 6:39 pm Yeah... I missed the forest for the trees here. I agree for sure. I have never been able to figure out what armoured HW foot are for... The unprotected ones at least make some sense for certain situations.

That was the crux of the original argument that we had been making prior to the HW change. How can a unit ability literally be useless in armored vs armored engagements yet extremely beneficial in unarmoured vs armoured situations? My proposal at the time was to simply have HW strip armour bonus directly off the opponent prior to calculating armour PoA advantage but RBS disagreed and implemented something else instead. I believe it to be far from what the solution should be but maybe it has something to do with the Medieval DLCs.

You can find our previous discussion here
viewtopic.php?f=477&t=94921&hilit=angular&start=40

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:48 am You can count on this to kick anytime formed units attack each other and the winner is steady in combat. I won't say it will always happen in this circumstance but its pretty darn close to always as in I have never seen it not happen. It won't kick in from what I have seen if something like an LH charges the flank of an infantry unit and wins. There are not enough kills for that to kick in from my experience.

Thanks, that's helpful to hear. It's vaguely enough described that I had no real idea but also didn't feel like do experiments to figure it out.

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:48 am

DanZanzibar wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:05 am

I didn't crunch the number for the spear huscarls, but that 30% for the HW's must include impact combat, correct? Otherwise I am calculating something like 8, 9% chance they get disrupted in 5-6 rounds of melee. That's about 7% combat loss chance multiplied by 27% chance of CT fail (-1 modifiers), equaling about a 2% chance of losing and CT failing per combat. Please let me know if any of my numbers seem off.

This is assuming Huscarls survive Impact intact as in either not losing the coin flip on impact or losing the Impact but passing the CT. Taking a CT isn't the same as getting disrupted. Your math is fine.

NB, if the Dailami manage to win the coin flip and beat the Huscarls on Impact but the Huscarls pass the CT, the subsequent numbers will skew slightly more in favour towards the Dailami since Unit Strength modifiers will alter the Win/Draw/Loss percentages.

Sorry Mike, but this going to get pedantic pretty quick... I'm just worried I'm missing something. Let me spell out it out really explicitly:

You say 30% chance the axe huscarls get a bad luck disruption... but there's only a 2% chance per melee the dailami inflict a combat loss plus a CT fail. Also there's about a 22% chance they inflict a impact loss plus CT fail. So aren't we talking about impact plus the 5-6 melee rounds as opposed to assuming the impact was passed?

By the way, I don't think I mistakenly equated a cohesion test with a cohesion test fail here... but I've been known to make mistakes before

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:48 am NB, if the Dailami manage to win the coin flip and beat the Huscarls on Impact but the Huscarls pass the CT, the subsequent numbers will skew slightly more in favour towards the Dailami since Unit Strength modifiers will alter the Win/Draw/Loss percentages.

Yeah I get this... though I tend to gloss over this as statistically less significant when trying to evaluate my chances with one troop over another. I do really like your "half life" way of evaluating how soon a unit is likely to win. I may make a table or two based on that idea!

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:48 am That was the crux of the original argument that we had been making prior to the HW change. How can a unit ability literally be useless in armored vs armored engagements yet extremely beneficial in unarmoured vs armoured situations? My proposal at the time was to simply have HW strip armour bonus directly off the opponent prior to calculating armour PoA advantage but RBS disagreed and implemented something else instead. I believe it to be far from what the solution should be but maybe it has something to do with the Medieval DLCs.

I actually figured the HW must work that work right up until I ever played a game with one in it. Seems like a sensible way to accommodate it... so if RBS doesn't like it I can see why you might think it has something to do with future plans.

Even though I've almost never actually played games with HW involved, I have thought a bit about how you would implement them. It seems to me they are kind of meant to be a melee-winner. I can't see how to make them fit better by using POA's - maybe it should be a casualty thing? Just thinking aloud here...

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:48 am ... You can count on this to kick anytime formed units attack each other and the winner is steady in combat...

Listening in... Didn't understand: What do you mean by formed?

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:48 am That was the crux of the original argument that we had been making prior to the HW change. How can a unit ability literally be useless in armored vs armored engagements yet extremely beneficial in unarmoured vs armoured situations? My proposal at the time was to simply have HW strip armour bonus directly off the opponent prior to calculating armour PoA advantage but RBS disagreed and implemented something else instead. I believe it to be far from what the solution should be but maybe it has something to do with the Medieval DLCs.

You can find our previous discussion here
viewtopic.php?f=477&t=94921&hilit=angular&start=40

Skimming through the previous thread, it would appear that this ground has been well tread before. And the only change to come out of last time was a token +10 POA on the axe huscarls? I better re-title this thread to something more appropriate then.

kronenblatt wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:49 am

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:48 am ... You can count on this to kick anytime formed units attack each other and the winner is steady in combat...

Listening in... Didn't understand: What do you mean by formed?

Non Lights. Basically any and all 480+ man infantry units and 240 Mounted. I haven't looked extensively into Chariots and Elephants. You would have to run some tests with combat logging on to be sure.

DanZanzibar wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:40 am Sorry Mike, but this going to get pedantic pretty quick... I'm just worried I'm missing something. Let me spell out it out really explicitly:

You say 30% chance the axe huscarls get a bad luck disruption... but there's only a 2% chance per melee the dailami inflict a combat loss plus a CT fail. Also there's about a 22% chance they inflict a impact loss plus CT fail. So aren't we talking about impact plus the 5-6 melee rounds as opposed to assuming the impact was passed?

By the way, I don't think I mistakenly equated a cohesion test with a cohesion test fail here... but I've been known to make mistakes before

I said bad luck CT, which means they have a chance of passing and not being disrupted. You arrive at that by solving for the percentage of time that the HW Huscarl doesn't lose a single round of melee combat over the duration of 5 rounds (1-0.07)^5 ~ 70%. That means 30% of the time the HW Huscarls lose at least one combat round.

I left at testing for CT because you would have to work out the binomial distribution for the actual disruption chance since you can lose combat more than once and I am too lazy to work that out.

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 3:40 pm I said bad luck CT, which means they have a chance of passing and not being disrupted. You arrive at that by solving for the percentage of time that the HW Huscarl doesn't lose a single round of melee combat over the duration of 5 rounds (1-0.07)^5 ~ 70%. That means 30% of the time the HW Huscarls lose at least one combat round.

I left at testing for CT because you would have to work out the binomial distribution for the actual disruption chance since you can lose combat more than once and I am too lazy to work that out.

Ok I got what you were driving at. So I'd say if you had a one-on-one fight in a vacuum, the huscarls would probably be about 2:1. Given that they require so much time to win out though, and the dailami will do their work much, much faster, I'd have to give the impact foot the advantage in a 5 on 5 fight.The huscarls basically have to hope they all survive impact and that's a lot to ask.

Yeah let's leave binomial distributions out of it. So I was recently doing some math proofs for fun (yes - probably the coolest thing you heard all week) and had to remind myself how that factorial expansion works again... not the funnest part of doing math proofs. If we're crunching numbers I'd rather just guess.