Spearmen take far too long

Thexion wrote: According descriptions Orcs seem to be all around good attackers in illyriad Best in spear, second in ranged, second in infantry,  third in cavalry but almost as good as elves only elven t1 is 2 points better than orc T1. T2 cavalry is the same with elves.

I always thought of orcs as being warlike but not necessarily effective fighters.  They're brutes, with their strength in physical stature and numbers.  I would expect a single skilled human warrior to beat a single orc.  It is the horde that makes them formidable.

However I do agree that thinking of orcs as a defensive race is strange.  Dwarves should have the strong spearmen, and orcs the infantry specialization.  I know that still doesn't make much sense at a low level, because we think of dwarves as axemen/warriors and not spear-bearers.  But at a more abastract level, they do make better defenders than attackers since they cannot run quickly but are solidly built and can more easily take cover.


Edited by HonoredMule - 20 Mar 2011 at 00:37

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

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

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.

Edited by col0005 - 19 Mar 2011 at 05:48