Post by crazycaptain560 on May 24, 2016 16:59:12 GMT
I believe this has been discussed about before, but I feel that I have quite a simple solution. This is inspired by FOG (Gasp! The game that almost made Ancients and Medievals unattractive to me!)
Poor Stands - Re-roll a score of 6. Ordinary Stands - Same as Usual Elite Stands - Re-roll a score of 1.
I think it is easier to handle than any modifiers or conditions, and still gives stands a chance to not completely fail due to their experience. I have thought of this as the only real House Rule to my Big Battle ideas. I know it will upset balance quite a bit
If I am not making sense... I don't have enough Caffeine
I think i saw something very similar but with poor units re-rolling a 5 and elite units re-rolling a 2 - on the grounds that this approach allowed them to experience and keep very good (6 for poor) or very bad (1 for elite) luck!
Post by crazycaptain560 on May 24, 2016 21:21:08 GMT
Awesome! Yeah the re-roll value can be changed to more accommodate the unit. For general purposes I was afraid of too much of a boost for really only 2 additional options. Now adding very poor, poor, average, experienced, and elite would make for some proper details for certain units.
The re-roll concept just keeps all of this simple! I hated trying to understand the DBM modifiers...
That is a period I have been thinking about building up next. Do you know of any books useful to wargamers on that subject? Next summer I want to take my casual reading back to the medieval and ancient eras with large books on specific conflicts.
In order to see what effect the different methods actually have on combat, I’ve been doing some number crunching.
Here are the six different ideas mentioned so far... The ‘+ or -1’ method, where a simple 1 is either added to or taken from the combat die roll (just shown for comparison). The ‘2 dice’ method, where a pair of dice are thrown, but only the highest or lowest dice score is counted.
The 'becomes' method, where a superior roll of '1' becomes a '6', and an inferior roll of '6' becomes a '1'. The ‘can’t roll’ method, where superior troops cannot have a die score of ‘1’ and inferior cannot have a die score of ‘6’.
A variation of the 'can't roll' method, where superior cannot have a die score of ‘2’ and inferior cannot have a die score of ‘5’. And the ‘weighted 12D’ method, where superior troops throw a 12 sided dice marked 1,1,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,5,6,6, and inferior troops throw a different 12 sided dice marked 1,1,2,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,6,6.
The results are all based on a combat factor of 3 vs. 3, as this is roughly the ‘average’ (Ax, Wb, single Pk, Bd in bad going, Bd against mounted, Cv, Cm, Kn against foot, 2 ranks of LH, etc), but remember that some recoils are ‘quick kills’ against certain troops, as are some equal scores.
Reading these charts Assume it is your bound and you have the attacking troops. The normal vs. normal line is there for reference.
Attacking Troops:Defending Troops: Attacker AttackerEqual Defender Defender Doubled Recoiled Score Recoiled Doubled Normal troops (no adjustment) vs. Normal troops (no adjustment) = 6% 36% 17% 36% 6%
Superior troops (+1 to dice) vs. Normal troops (no adjustment) = 0% 28% 14% 47% 11% Superior troops (best of 2 dice) vs. Normal troops (no adjustment) = 1% 25% 17% 49% 9%
Superior troops ('1' becomes '6') vs. Normal troops (no adjustment) = 0% 28% 17% 47% 8% Superior troops (can’t roll a '1') vs. Normal troops (no adjustment) = 0% 33% 17% 43% 7%
Superior troops (can't roll a '2') vs. Normal troops (no adjustment) = 7% 30% 17% 40% 7% Superior troops (+weighted 12D) vs. Normal troops (no adjustment) = 6% 32% 17% 39% 7%
Inferior troops (-1 to dice) vs. Normal troops (no adjustment) = 17% 42% 14% 25% 3% Inferior troops (worst of 2 dice) vs. Normal troops (no adjustment) = 5% 53% 17% 24% 2%
Inferior troops ('6' becomes '1') vs. Normal troops (no adjustment) = 11% 44% 17% 25% 3% Inferior troops (can’t roll a '6') vs. Normal troops (no adjustment) = 7% 43% 17% 30% 3%
Inferior troops (can't roll a '5') vs. Normal troops (no adjustment) = 7% 40% 17% 33% 3% Inferior troops (-weighted 12D) vs. Normal troops (no adjustment) = 6% 40% 17% 33% 4%
Superior troops (+1 to dice) vs. Inferior troops (-1 to dice) = 0% 17% 11% 47% 25% Superior troops (best of 2 dice) vs. Inferior troops (worst of 2 dice) = ½% 12% 11% 60% 17%
Superior troops ('1' becomes '6') vs. Inferior troops ('6' becomes '1') = 0% 17% 11% 56% 17% Superior troops (can’t roll a '1') vs. Inferior troops (can’t roll a '6') = 0% 24% 16% 52% 8%*
Superior troops (can't roll a '2') vs. Inferior troops (can't roll a '5') = 4% 28% 16% 44% 8% Superior troops (+weighted 12D) vs. Inferior troops (-weighted 12D) = 4% 30% 15% 44% 7%
Conclusions + or -1 method: this has the most effect and is far too powerful (and is only shown for comparison). 2 dice method: this is not quite as powerful, but still causes a fairly large shift (especially superior vs. inferior).
Becomes method: this causes a shift that is almost as powerful as the '2 dice' method...it has nice effects, but is counter intuitive. Can’t roll 1/6 method: this has a milder effect, but is still a bit more than the 'can't roll 2/5' variation or the 'weighted 12D' method.
Can't roll 2/5 variation: this is nearly identical to the 'weighted 12D' method (if you don't have any 12 sided dice, use this instead). Weighted 12D: this has the smallest effect, and is only slightly more than unadjusted normal vs. normal combat. *(Note that the large difference between the superior vs. inferior ‘2 dice’ method and the ‘can’t roll’ method is due to the re-rolling of dice...instead of 36 dice possibilities, there are only 25 possibilities with 11 chances of one player or the other needing to re-roll)
Personally, I prefer the ‘can’t roll 1/6’ method (although the 'becomes' method is very tempting):- It has a mild but noticeable effect, and is not too powerful. It doesn’t happen often (your superior/inferior troops could fight a whole battle without ever needing to re-roll, whereas the ‘2 dice’ and the ‘weighted 12D’ methods have to be used in every combat involving these troops).
Thanks Joe, although perhaps you should have said “Stevie is awesome...but then he already knew that”
On a slightly separate issue, how should this superior/inferior adjustment be used?
In an historical refight the players will know the experience, or lack of it, of each element in the battle. But what about using experience in ordinary games? Having superior troops (by whatever method is chosen) is obviously an advantage, so how do we limit their use? Well, here is one proposal...
Armies may have up to 2 superior elements, but for each superior there must be a corresponding inferior element. An exception to this 2 superior element limit is the I/52b Spartan Army of 668-449 BC, who may have up to 6 superior Spartiates and 6 inferior reluctant perioikoi/Peloponnesian elements if they wish. (The number of full Spartans declined over the centuries, from some 8,000 in 480 BC according to Herodotus, to 1,000 at the battle of Leuktra in 330 BC, and down to only 700 by 250 BC, which is not enough for even a single element, although this last figure was boosted somewhat by hiring veteran mercenaries)
I would leave it up to players to decide if they want to use superior-inferior troops, and which element is which.
Usually it is not necessary to have a superior general, as he is already elite due to his bodyguard which gives him +1. Here are some historical examples:-
II/5a Spartans (448-276 BC): 2 x superior Spartiates (Sp), 1 x inferior cavalry (Cv), 1 x inferior psiloi (Ps) II/12 Alexander (359-319 BC): 1 x superior hypaspists (4Ax), 1 x inferior Greeks (Sp) II/16d Eumenes (320-316 BC): 2 x superior argyraspids (4Pk), 2 x inferior archers or slingers (Ps) II/19b Seleucid (279-205 BC): 1 x superior General (3Kn), 1 x superior agema xystophoroi (3Kn), 2 x inferior Asiatics (Ps) II/20b Ptolemaic (274-167 BC): 2 x superior Macedonian phalangites (4Pk), 1 x inferior African (El), 1 x inferior psiloi (Ps) II/32a Hannibal (275-202 BC): 2 x superior veterans (Sp), 2 x inferior Gauls or Spanish (4Wb/4Ax) II/33 Polybian Rome (275-105 BC): 2 x superior triarii (Sp), 2 x inferior leves (Ps) or cavalry (Cv), one of which is the General II/11 Gauls (400-50 BC): 2 x superior Gaesati (3Wb) or cavalry (Cv), 2 x inferior warriors (4Wb) II/49 Caesar (105-25 BC): 2 x superior legionaries of the 10th Legion (4Bd), 2 x inferior newly raised legionaries (4Bd) II/65a Goths at Adrianople (378 AD): 2 x superior Greuthingi (3Kn), 1 x inferior Alans (LH), 1 x inferior archers (Ps) ...and so on.
I like the possibilities offered when DBA is used as a "toolbox"; you can change the model to suit your preference. To truly understand the changes, you do need to perform an analysis such as the beautiful chart supplied by Stevie (thank you Stevie). I do like the simple +1/-1 method as it recalls the DBM way to distinguish 3Wb from 4Wb. I would also like to change the "can't roll" method to re-roll a 6 for poor troops and re-roll a 1 for elite troops; If the re-roll is the same result, keep it - only because I prefer some chance for poor troops to succeed and elite troops to fail.
This thread has provided much to think about - thank you all.
Well, I’m afraid you can’t have it both ways terrydactyl. If you want less experienced troops to have a chance of doubling their opponent, then the +1/- 1 method is definitely not the way to go (it is much too powerful, and causes the greatest shift).
As for ‘can’t roll’ or ‘re-roll once’, it makes very little difference, as the odds of throwing two ‘1’s (or two ‘6’s) in quick succession is only 1 chance in 36, or 2.8%.
I tend to think of quality scaling the troop scale. So a larger body of poor quality troops is represented by a single stand, while a smaller number of good troops is also represented by a single stand, likely with fewer ranks.
On occasion that doesn't represent sufficient granularity. In this situation I would represent poor quality solid foot by rating them as fast for combat. As is the case for camp followers who sally. Then for very poor quality foot you have horde.