Troop Grading Factor Mods

[imported_JamesLDIII]

I like the idea of troop grading but agree that rolling two dice skews the results too much.

OTOH, I don't like the DBM grading as written because sometimes the grade comes into effect when results are higher, sometimes when
rolls are lower, and sometimes when results are equal.

Having followed the earlier Troop Grading Thread, what if the DBM system is simplified to more or less the following:

when the dice are rolled, but before any factors are taken into account (combat factor, tactical factor, etc.) adjust the dice in the following manner:

(I) Troops -1 when roll lower, (S) troops +1 when roll lower
or
(I) Troops -1 when roll higher, (S) troops +1 when roll higher.

In the first case of adjusting when one side rolls less, the I or S troops still get the same number of doublings when they roll higher,
but are either doubled more (I) or less (S) when losing.

In the second case of adjusting when one side rolls higher, the I or S troops are killed in the same ratio as before, but I troops double
other troops less and S troops double other troops more.

So die modifiers to rolling less affect the S or I element, while die modifiers to rolling more affect the S or I element's opponent.

I did some number crunching (but I'm a history major so don't hold my feet to close to the fire). Ps(O) vs Ps(O) result in a double
for either element in 4 out of 36 possibilities. When a Ps(O) element fights a Ps(S) element, under the +1 for rolling higher, the
Ps(S) element still dies in 4 out of 36 possibilities, but doubles the Ps(O) element in 6 out of 36 possibilities. In the +1 when
rolling lower system, the Ps(S) doubles the Ps(O) element 4 times, but is doubled only once.

Which system would ya'll prefer? S and I troops suffering greater or fewer casualties, or inflicting greater or fewer casualties?

JD

[imported_adsarf]

Originally posted by jldiii:


(I) Troops -1 when roll lower, (S) troops +1 when roll lower
or
(I) Troops -1 when roll higher, (S) troops +1 when roll higher.
Just to be difficult, how about

(I) troops -1 when rolling higher, (S) troops +1 when rolling lower.

That way (I) troops struggle to kill stuff, but aren't too brittle either. (S) troops become hard to kill, but aren't incrdible killing machines. The S troops with +1 if winning are particularly vicious for high-factor troops like Blades, but almost useless to Knights or Warband who have lowish factors + quick kills. The (I) troops with -1 if rolling lower are very very brittle - low factor (I) troops such as Warband, Auxilia, Psiloi, LH, Cav in particular.

[Ares]

Originally posted by adsarf:
(I) troops -1 when rolling higher, (S) troops +1 when rolling lower. Were I inclined to such a thing (which I'm not especially), this is the way I would do it, for the reasons adsarf stated. I would be more likely to do it in Big Battle (should I ever get the chance!) than in regular DBA.

Eric

[Garulfo]

Originally posted by adsarf:
[...]
(I) troops -1 when rolling higher, (S) troops +1 when rolling lower.
There just a little problem with that...

If, for example, BD(I) meet PS(S) and the first
beat them with 1 (+5) against 3 (+2) then BD gets -1 AND PS gets +1 ... so you change the result and Bd are losing the fight.
Actually it means that (I) against (S) have to beat by 2 if they don't want to lose and by 3 to not suffer a stand !!!
Is it really what you've expected ?

[Garulfo]

Originally posted by jldiii:
[...]
(I) Troops -1 when roll lower, (S) troops +1 when roll lower
or
(I) Troops -1 when roll higher, (S) troops +1 when roll higher.
I prefer the first one. Since it simulates the moral of a troop: elite troops usually gets benefit from a better tactical durability. Like para, or mountain troops in modern combat, or Napoleon's Garde or Belisarius' cavalry or roman legionnaries.
Even gallic body guard were considered more tougher because they can have stood more longer and not because they are more agressive.
On the other hand, poor troops (like peasants or roman levee) were easy to afraid or to deroute.

But this is only my humble and modest opinion tongue.gif

[ March 31, 2004, 21:54: Message edited by: Garulfo ]

[imported_adsarf]

Originally posted by Garulfo:
There just a little problem with that...

If, for example, BD(I) meet PS(S) and the first
beat them with 1 (+5) against 3 (+2) then BD gets -1 AND PS gets +1 ... so you change the result and Bd are losing the fight.
Actually it means that (I) against (S) have to beat by 2 if they don't want to lose and by 3 to not suffer a stand !!!
Is it really what you've expected ? Look at your example again. Who *rolled* lower?

Andrew

[imported_JamesLDIII]

Thanks for the responses. I have swung back and forth on which to do. The prime reason I didn't go with higher and lower is because DBM already has many different cases, and I wanted grading factors to be easy to remember, ie implemented in the same way.
I thought only using the +/- half the time instead of all the time limits the amount of effect, and keeping both types with the same circumstance (lower or higher, not both) means that only one side will ever get to apply the modifier.

Anyone else like to chip in on their views?

JD

P.S. I think the idea of taking an i troop type for every s troop type is a good one, but I am planning to use this more with my heretical variants and simplified DBA lists from DBM. So if DBM says the Asiatic Greeks are I spears and the spartans are S spears, that's how I'll grade them.

[Garulfo]

Originally posted by adsarf:
Look at your example again. Who *rolled* lower?
Andrew Sorry :rolleyes:

:D "roll" ?? Ok I've read something else tongue.gif
But this does not tackle the problem.
So if EL(I) rolls a 1 and LH(S) rolls 3,
EL(I) final result would be 5+1-1 and LH(S)
final result would be 2+3+1.
Don't you think it is too much difference.
PS(I) against PS(S) with a 2-against-3 rolls
would be destroyed whatever they would not be with a simple modifier.

I think that cumulating +1 for the higher ans -1 for the lower is to much.

[Dhingis Khan]

So use I -1 when score is lower, S +1 when score is lower.
That way poor troops have a tendency to cut and run, good troops will hang in against tough opponents.

[Garulfo]

Originally posted by Dhingis Khan:
So use I -1 when score is lower, S +1 when score is lower.
That way poor troops have a tendency to cut and run, good troops will hang in against tough opponents. I'm absolutly agree. THis is what I said sooner. :D

[hammurabi70]

The original rules had dp points and the better troops could get a +1.

I think the sort of tinkering with the rules you envisage is a rather large adjustment, which may be fine for DBM but strikes me as inappropriate for DBA. What you want to include for scenarios or campaigns is another matter.

[imported_JamesLDIII]

Originally posted by hammurabi70:
The original rules had dp points and the better troops could get a +1.

I think the sort of tinkering with the rules you envisage is a rather large adjustment, which may be fine for DBM but strikes me as inappropriate for DBA. What you want to include for scenarios or campaigns is another matter. I remember the dp and +1 rule. A +1 applied across the board is more significant than a -1 or +1 only applied when rolling less (or more). In the first instance all 36 possibilities are effected, the second in only 15 of 36 possibilities.

So the +/1 one isn't any more unbalancing than the dp system was before. Of course the dp system was optional as well.

As far as DBA vs DBM is concerned, there is certainly more effect in DBA, even in BBDBA. The effect is no more than any other tactical factor, however. I would argue this is true for the two games as a whole also. In any game of chance, the more rolls that are made, the more norming toward average results will occur. In DBA a string of 3 or 4 1's on combat rolls will pretty much end the game in defeat. It will disadvange one in DBM, but not to the same extent (maybe one command is demoralized instead of an entire loss).

The best question in my mind is does an (S) element(s) unbalance the game enough that the 12 elements per army is no longer reasonable and a point system has to be emplaced? Since all rule variants are only for tournament/home/friendly play, this is a reasonable question. (Proposing such a change for DBA 3.0 is probably out. :( ) I can imagine playing two Early Hoplite Greek armies against one another. The Spartan army contains half (S) spears, and the Italiot or Other army has all (I) spears. That may not be such a fun game straight up (even if it is more "realistic"), but in the context of a campaign or tournament the effects would add flavor, especially when the Spartan player learns he can't replace any losses of (S) spears.

I am working on a Peloponnesian War campaign, so I wanted to have more differenced between the various hoplite armies. I could play Hoplomachia instead, but that takes more time and planning than DBA. So I am left with devising a variant that allows troop grading without distorting the game mechanics too much. I think the +/- 1 for rolling lower or higher is simple, reasonable, and not too unbalancing.

Thanks for the reply,

[imported_adsarf]

Originally posted by Garulfo:
I think that cumulating +1 for the higher ans -1 for the lower is to much. Surely the whole point of doing this at all is to bring in big differences between troops who fight well and troops who fight in the same style, but badly? You want your Spear (S) Spartans to be virtually certain of beating your Spear (o) Athenians or Thebans, still less any Spear (i) they may happen to wander in to. The historical record seems to bear out the idea that quality differences were more important than tactical/equipment differences.

[hammurabi70]

Originally posted by adsarf:
Surely the whole point of doing this at all is to bring in big differences between troops who fight well and troops who fight in the same style, but badly? You want your Spear (S) Spartans to be virtually certain of beating your Spear (o) Athenians or Thebans, still less any Spear (i) they may happen to wander in to. The historical record seems to bear out the idea that quality differences were more important than tactical/equipment differences. [/QB]Yes but I suggest the problem is that DBA is not really in the market for these sort of changes. Of course Spartans are always going to win if you want to be historical unless or until you bring in some fancy special rules to mark the change in helenistic warfare. DBx is primarily technology based; it is its greatest weakness that training and morale are not factored into the rules. It is OK for a campaign or scenario but not the sort of thing to bring in wholesale.

Originally posted by jldiii:

I remember the dp and +1 rule. A +1 applied across the board is more significant than a -1 or +1 only applied when rolling less (or more). In the first instance all 36 possibilities are effected, the second in only 15 of 36 possibilities.

So the +/1 one isn't any more unbalancing than the dp system was before. Of course the dp system was optional as well.

As far as DBA vs DBM is concerned, there is certainly more effect in DBA, even in BBDBA. The effect is no more than any other tactical factor, however. I would argue this is true for the two games as a whole also. In any game of chance, the more rolls that are made, the more norming toward average results will occur. In DBA a string of 3 or 4 1's on combat rolls will pretty much end the game in defeat. It will disadvange one in DBM, but not to the same extent (maybe one command is demoralized instead of an entire loss).

The best question in my mind is does an (S) element(s) unbalance the game enough that the 12 elements per army is no longer reasonable and a point system has to be emplaced? Since all rule variants are only for tournament/home/friendly play, this is a reasonable question. (Proposing such a change for DBA 3.0 is probably out. :( ) I can imagine playing two Early Hoplite Greek armies against one another. The Spartan army contains half (S) spears, and the Italiot or Other army has all (I) spears. That may not be such a fun game straight up (even if it is more "realistic"), but in the context of a campaign or tournament the effects would add flavor, especially when the Spartan player learns he can't replace any losses of (S) spears.

I am working on a Peloponnesian War campaign, so I wanted to have more differenced between the various hoplite armies. I could play Hoplomachia instead, but that takes more time and planning than DBA. So I am left with devising a variant that allows troop grading without distorting the game mechanics too much. I think the +/- 1 for rolling lower or higher is simple, reasonable, and not too unbalancing.
I think that it was just a +1 in specific circumstances such as with Spartans v other Greeks; I do not recall it being an across the board feature unless we are confusing terms. It is a problem that Spartan spear counts the same as Saxon levy spear. I do agree this sort of variant is OK for specific circumstances, such as you propose, but I cannot agree to having it in the main body of the rules. The other good point about the dp system was it allowed for soft(ish!) issues such as privation to be factored in.

I agree that DBA is heavy on dice luck with a few key roles potentially being decisive, which is why some I know detest it. However, if you are going to do a campaign then other factors will come into play but you can be sure that the +1 is worth something on the battlefield. The problems my campaigns have run into are that players now manouevre rather than fight. Historic yes, satisfying? If you tilt the odds in favour of the Spartans how will you encourage the others to fight them. Of course hstorically they either avoided them or used an alternative solution - light infantry.

[Pthomas]

My thoughts would be that +1 for S when rolling lower is fine and -1 for I rolling higher is also fine.

Now, since I would not want to prove who is an (s) or (I) element in all the armies in the book, I would recommend the following:

Any army could take superior or inferior elements. an army that takes a (S) element must remove an 2 ordinary elements (play with eleven) or add two (I) elements to replace the (O) element. So a regular 12 element army could be 10 (O) and 1 (S) or 9(O), 1 (S), 2(I). Folks that just want masses of crap troops can have 2(I) elements for every (O) that they remove.

The most extreme case being 24 (I), so you may want to limit it to 1-2 elements being changed.
That being the case here are the possible options:

12(O)
10(O), 1(S)
8(O), 2(S) [break @ 3]
11(O), 2(I)
10(O), 4(I) [break @ 5]
9(O), 1(S), 2(I)

Pthomas

[imported_JamesLDIII]

Originally posted by Pthomas:
My thoughts would be that +1 for S when rolling lower is fine and -1 for I rolling higher is also fine.

Now, since I would not want to prove who is an (s) or (I) element in all the armies in the book, I would recommend the following:

Any army could take superior or inferior elements. an army that takes a (S) element must remove an 2 ordinary elements (play with eleven) or add two (I) elements to replace the (O) element. So a regular 12 element army could be 10 (O) and 1 (S) or 9(O), 1 (S), 2(I). Folks that just want masses of crap troops can have 2(I) elements for every (O) that they remove.

The most extreme case being 24 (I), so you may want to limit it to 1-2 elements being changed.
That being the case here are the possible options:

12(O)
10(O), 1(S)
8(O), 2(S) [break @ 3]
11(O), 2(I)
10(O), 4(I) [break @ 5]
9(O), 1(S), 2(I)

Pthomas Hmm, so you want (S) troops to be harder to kill, and (I) troops to have a hard time killing other troops? That is probably better than I troops -1 lower and S troops +1 higher in terms of balance, though you will still have a 2 point swing. Is this the effect you intended?

1 (S) = 2 (O) = 4 (I) troops? So you could have an army with 6 S elements? I think I'll have to break out some figures and test 6 (S) Sp vs 24 (I) Sp...

[imported_JamesLDIII]

I primarily intend to use grading factors for campaigns or in a DBA point value system. So everyone can see what the point system might look like, here are the values I am tentatively using. For grading, I will +1 for S troops value and -1 for I troops value. I have my own formula I have tried out for troop values (not the one for below) and a point increase in the Combat Factor of a unit results in about a 2.5 point increase in value of the unit. Only allowing a factor change for half or less of the die rolls I decide would result in half that value change, so I round to 1 point. My personal formula values are in parentheses for comparison:

El -- 14 (13)
Kn -- 11 (10)
Cv -- 9 (9)
Cm -- 8 (9)
Lh -- 8 (10)
Sc -- 9 (10)
WWg -- 10 (11)
Art -- 7 (6)
Sp -- 7 (8)
Pk -- 6 (7)
Bd -- 8 (8)
Ax -- 6 (8)
Wb -- 6 (8)
Bw -- 5 (7)
Hd -- 3 (5)
Ps -- 4 (6)
CF -- 2 (2)

[imported_JamesLDIII]

If grading units based on DBM, here is an example of a DBA Army List with grading factors.

I/52a Argive

1x4Sp(O) Gen, 9x4Sp(O), 1x2Ps(O)archer/slinger, 1x2Ps(I)javelin

I/52b Spartan

1x4Sp(S) Gen, 5x4Sp(S), 5x4Sp(O), 1x4Sp(O) or 1x7Hd(O)

I/52c Thessalian

1x3Cv(O) or 1x2Lh(O) Gen, 3x2Lh(O), 4x4Sp(O), 3x2Ps(I), 1x2Ps(O)

I/52d Theban

1x4Sp(O) Gen, 1x3Cv(I), 9x4Sp(O), 1x2Ps(I)

I/52f Athenian

1x4Sp(O) Gen, 1x3Cv(O) or 1x2Lh(O) or 1x4Sp(O), 7x4Sp(O), 1x3Ax(O) or 1x4SP(O), 1x2Ps(O) or 1x4Bw(I), 1x2Ps(I)

I/52g Asiatic Greek

1x3Cv(O) Gen, 1x3Cv(O), 9x4Sp(I), 1x2Ps(I)

I/52h Phokian or Aitolian

1x4Sp(O) Gen, 3x4SP(O), 7x2Ps(I), 1x2Ps(O)

I/52i Italiot or Siciliot

1x3Cv(O) Gen, 1x3Cv(O) or 1x2Lh(O), 8x4Sp(I), 1x2Ps(I), 1x2Ps(O)

[Pthomas]

Yes, the extremes scared me, so that is why in mid thought I limited (S) and (I) to just adjustments of 1 or 2 element instead of the whole army.

Originally posted by jldiii:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pthomas:
My thoughts would be that +1 for S when rolling lower is fine and -1 for I rolling higher is also fine.

Now, since I would not want to prove who is an (s) or (I) element in all the armies in the book, I would recommend the following:

Any army could take superior or inferior elements. an army that takes a (S) element must remove an 2 ordinary elements (play with eleven) or add two (I) elements to replace the (O) element. So a regular 12 element army could be 10 (O) and 1 (S) or 9(O), 1 (S), 2(I). Folks that just want masses of crap troops can have 2(I) elements for every (O) that they remove.

The most extreme case being 24 (I), so you may want to limit it to 1-2 elements being changed.
That being the case here are the possible options:

12(O)
10(O), 1(S)
8(O), 2(S) [break @ 3]
11(O), 2(I)
10(O), 4(I) [break @ 5]
9(O), 1(S), 2(I)

Pthomas Hmm, so you want (S) troops to be harder to kill, and (I) troops to have a hard time killing other troops? That is probably better than I troops -1 lower and S troops +1 higher in terms of balance, though you will still have a 2 point swing. Is this the effect you intended?

1 (S) = 2 (O) = 4 (I) troops? So you could have an army with 6 S elements? I think I'll have to break out some figures and test 6 (S) Sp vs 24 (I) Sp... </font>[/QUOTE]

[ April 09, 2004, 10:57: Message edited by: Pthomas ]