| Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
|
Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 01:17 |
Ok, I'll just shut up until I have more time to pay proper attention to the numbers.
|
 |
col0005
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 238
|
Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 01:24 |
|
Hey that time I wasn't Challenging you (apart from the leather bit), if you've observed differently to what the game suggest, through combat report statistics, I'll have to take you word for it.
|
 |
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
|
Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 02:32 |
No worries, I understood you. I'm just owning up to my repeated factual discrepancies on the numeric front.  I tend to be too lazy to (re)analyze such things with proper rigor these days.
|
 |
Kumomoto
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
|
Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 15:05 |
col0005 wrote:
Ummmm not sure how you do maths but it seems that overall the stats seems relatively equal
2 Kobold Cohort = 18At 26Cv 24Sp 12Ar 24Sw 21.5 Average def
1 Sentinel =20 At 16Cv 23Sp 24Ar 23Sw 21.5 Average def
Now I understand that Cavlery attack will often account for a greater attack percentage and archers are hindered in forests so the lower attack value for spears is fair enough however we are still left with spearmen taking twice as long to produce and are more expensive to produce (2 spearmen to one archer)
Oh and yes i have been rolled a few times by HM but sometimes HM also appears to mis-interpret or neglect to fully address what has been said, I still see little advantage for orcs over elves for larger players while I can see great advantages for the elves. |
Col-- You're missing by far the largest point here. Two Cohorts will always be better in 3 out of 5 areas of combat than one Sentinel (the two exceptions being attack and defense against bows). And for a defensive troop type, by far the most important areas of combat are defense against Cavalry and defense against Swordsmen, both of which are better in two Cohorts than one Sentinel. (and that is not calculating any combat mechanism advantages for having two troops over one troop, which I cannot calculate, not knowing the ins and outs of the combat resolution algorithms).
People simply don't attack with spears and bows for obvious reasons. Therefore, if you want a true comparison of the value of the Cohort to the Sentinel, you need to average the Def. vs. Cav. + Def. vs. Sword for 2 Cohorts vs. the same for one Sentinel. And what you find is that that average is 25 for the Orcs vs. 19.5 for the Elves. The Orcs have a 28% advantage.
Edited by Kumomoto - 18 Mar 2011 at 18:04
|
 |
col0005
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 238
|
Posted: 19 Mar 2011 at 05:18 |
True. however the question is how often will you be able to have 2 cohorts to one sentinel. In events like the month long tournament most of the squares were captured and re-captured which means that armies were entirely destroyed. Therefore after this point the orc will always be at a major disadvantage as it will take twice as long to replenish the troops, add to this a much slower travel time and i'd say that the elven advantage far outweighs the orc advantage. Plus if a mistake is made and archers end up trying to capture the square the low defence of spearmen against archers will really come into play.
Finally i'd also like to point out again that archers are CHEAP if sov makes it so that equiping your troops becomes a problem then that would suggest that elven players would attack with archers becuase they are very fast, fast to produce and cost very little to produce.
The questin is what do you generally find more important; upkeep value, production time, or resource cost.
Edited by col0005 - 19 Mar 2011 at 05:28
|
 |
col0005
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 238
|
Posted: 19 Mar 2011 at 05:33 |
Actually if you base attack value on production time sentinels actually beat all basic infantry apart from dwarves: 10/8.33=1.2 1.2*20 = 24 attack value so i'm not sure i believe that attacking with archers isn't worth it.
Oh and GM's, if your still interested in this thread would it be possible give a yeah or nay to if actual numbers make a difference or if total power is the only factor
Edited by col0005 - 19 Mar 2011 at 05:48
|
 |
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
|
Posted: 19 Mar 2011 at 15:32 |
|
If you base attack value on production time, you shouldn't be using basic units at all. Cohorts are the only T1 units worth building by a player with access to all the T2 units. Sentinels beating Cohorts on attack isn't very noteworthy when both units lose to better choices in each respective race.
|
 |
GM Stormcrow
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Location: Illyria
Status: Offline
Points: 3820
|
Posted: 19 Mar 2011 at 16:11 |
col0005 wrote:
Oh and GM's, if your still interested in this thread would it be possible give a yeah or nay to if actual numbers make a difference or if total power is the only factor |
I'm not 100% sure I actually understand this question. Any chance you could illustrate it with 2 scenarios and ask me to confirm which one is the case? Depending on what the question precisely is, I might be able to answer it :) Regards, SC
|
 |
col0005
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 238
|
Posted: 19 Mar 2011 at 22:30 |
Sorry SC, I was refering to Kumomoto's post. I was asking if numbers make a difference. Ie would
50 swordsmen of attack 25 perform better than
25 swordsmen of attack 50
HM basing attack value on production time works for T2 as well
11.666/10=1.16666 1.166666*32=37.3 which again beats all infantry but dwarves, so if you loose a square in a tournament then the best unit to re-capture is caverly, then dwarvern infantry, then elven archers. Then infantry of other races.
Given that the T2 cav require 4 livestock where as trueshots only requre 1 i'd say this is extreamly good value and so players are likely to get attacked by archers
Furthermore Orc spearmen have a defence of 11 against archers but 33 against cav, 18 against swords; therefore if a defence is primarily spearmen then archers would probbabbly be by far the best option to attack with.
|
 |
GM Stormcrow
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Location: Illyria
Status: Offline
Points: 3820
|
Posted: 19 Mar 2011 at 22:47 |
col0005 wrote:
Sorry SC, I was refering to Kumomoto's post. I was asking if numbers make a difference. Ie would
50 swordsmen of attack 25 perform better than
25 swordsmen of attack 50
HM basing attack value on production time works for T2 as well
11.666/10=1.16666 1.166666*32=37.3 which again beats all infantry but dwarves, so if you loose a square in a tournament then the best unit to re-capture is caverly, then dwarvern infantry, then elven archers. Then infantry of other races.
Given that the T2 cav require 4 livestock where as trueshots only requre 1 i'd say this is extreamly good value and so players are likely to get attacked by archers
Furthermore Orc spearmen have a defence of 11 against archers but 33 against cav, 18 against swords; therefore if a defence is primarily spearmen then archers would probbabbly be by far the best option to attack with. |
Ah OK, I get what you're asking. From a combat resolution perspective, given the same unit type, commander, terrain etc: 1. 50 units of attack strength 25 perform identically to 2. 25 units of attack strength 50 However, the casualty resolution algorithm does have small variances based on troop numbers. These are especially obvious at the "small-number"/percentage-end, largely due to rounding. For example (assuming identical situations): 1. 10 troops of strength 15 who take 50% casualties will have lost 5 troops (as 50% of 10 is 5) 2. 3 troops of strength 50 (same strength) who take 50% casualties will have lost 2 troops (as 50% of 3 is 1.5, but you can't lose half a troop; you would lose 2, and so would actually take 66.6% casualties). There are, in certain circumstances, some other benefits to having more units than less, even if the strengths are identical - such as running into a killing rune. Regards, SC
Edited by GM Stormcrow - 19 Mar 2011 at 22:48
|
 |