Close combat tactical diversity

[O&G'sRule]

Originally Posted by Emud

Very true, but NOT what i meant with my post.

Charging is NOT always the best thing.

But a particular unit is ALWAYS performing better IN COMBAT when charging.

Therefore I put close combat in the topic. Not manouvering or deploying or other types of tactics.


At last someone who sees a purpouse with such a unit thanks for the input. And yea, I should learn to cool down a little. And to formulate things better. But if I'm gonna occupy something its going to be the low ground.

So basically you want more defense orientated weapons? I get the impression (if all the 8th ed stuff is true) that 8th ed will probably give you what you want, with one side being the attacker and one the defender instead of pitched battles, therefore defensive rules would be needed. Obviously the rumours of seige based rules might be unfounded, but they might not

[R Man]

Quote

Im harping about you continue to say I ignore context. You obviously dont understand anything of what I'm trying to say. That does not mean I am wrong. It just mean you dont understand it.

Actually it was you who misunderstood and continue to misunderstand context. Going back to the beginning the main point you came here to make was that few units get benefits from defending. This was, for the most part, true. But what a lot of people pointed out was that charging wasn't always the great boon it appears to be, and that being charged wasn't always a bad thing, depending on the context. The argument was against you premise, rather than your mathematics.

Quote

When you talk about tactics in the "right" context you have made several remarks about stastistical and non statistical bonuses when charging, and how they ]"can" be inversely related to the units performance. You have been talking about units too "strong" to attack head on. In this you DO an evaluation of the unit. You talk against yourself.

I mentioned several possible idea, issues and scenario's, not one specific unit, or even one specific principle. There is no 'the unit'. Its a series of complications that you failed to account for on any theoretical level.

Quote

Now, since I am going to do what I like anyway. And since you'll never believe I'll succed, or accomplish anything with it. Lets just leave it at that. Continuing this argument would only be childish.

BTW, Im pretty surprised about the "recistance" against power measuring by analysis that I've met in this thread. I thought it was common knowledge that these analyses were often used in the gaming world to create balance. For example in computer gaming, where situations can be far more complex, and certainly more dynamic, due to not being turn based for example. Im also baffeled about remarks about me having to proove I can do it to be taken seriously. I dont need to proove anything to anyone. I'm confident I can do it. It would have been pretty much easier for people that dont understand how these thing are done to ask how? Instead of - It wont work!

But as someone said earlier, the changes I brought up would result in a completley different game. Maby that is where the "recistance" comes from. I dont know. Since this thread was not appriciated very much anyways, lets just let it drop like a stone.

They are not resisting the idea of analysis. They are resisting because you have not given any information, and blankly refused when asked to do so. You say you don't need to prove anything, so we have to take you on faith? We can't read your though process, or understand what specifically you are looking for, so we can't judge. And if you don't need to prove anything, than why did you come here in the first place?

What you have done is failed to communicate an idea effectively. You don't even need a real example, a hypothetical one would do. You could also discuss issues and problems, even if its just to acknowledge their existence. And explain how you think the game would change. Remember, we only have partial knowledge of your intent, so if there is any misunderstandings our interpenetration will be based off of that, not what you were actually intending.

So go back to the begining, explain your idea, logic and maths clearly, using examples and acknowledge issues and effects, and you'll get a better response.

[theunwantedbeing]

Originally Posted by R Man

So go back to the begining, explain your idea, logic and maths clearly, using examples and acknowledge issues and effects, and you'll get a better response.

Seconded.
We're not idiots.

[ChaosVC]

Its a dice game... anything ********* thing can happen...

[Ward.]

Originally Posted by rtunian

@ ward. about chess...
in what way does white's privilege to go first impact the fact that both sides are made of the same 16 pieces arranged in mirror fashion?

It doesn't, although I originally pointed it out in jest you tried to put words in my mouth.

It does mean they aren't equal though, one side will always have a direct advantage over the other.

[Condottiere]

Originally Posted by rtunian

@emud about price...
price of units/stats/special rules is not uniform across every army, though. for instance, a ws3 s3 t3 a1 i2 might cost 5 points per in one army, but might cost 8 points per in another army. how will you justify cost differences like this? people have already tried to find a consistent formula for the price of stats, and from what i've read, the consensus is that these stats and rules are priced relative to the own army, and not to other armies.

There's no consistent formula that can be used. I suspect that points are just adjusted by inflating or deflating the prices for certain units that players are to be discouraged from using or encouraged to buy.

[rtunian]

Originally Posted by Ward.

It doesn't, although I originally pointed it out in jest you tried to put words in my mouth.

It does mean they aren't equal though, one side will always have a direct advantage over the other.

ward the pieces are equal. that's what i said. the forces. the models. 8 pawns = 8 pawns. 2 knights = 2 knights. if black went first instead of white, then black would have the same 54-58% chance to win that white had when white went first. if you want to suggest that white's pieces are better than black's, then of course you may posit whatever ridiculousness you wish, but that doesn't forbid me from disagreeing.

ps. if you want people to know you're joking, try being funny. if you are incapable of that, the right smiley should do the trick in a pinch

[Ward.]

Originally Posted by rtunian

ward the pieces are equal. that's what i said. the forces. the models. 8 pawns = 8 pawns. 2 knights = 2 knights. if black went first instead of white, then black would have the same 54-58% chance to win that white had when white went first. if you want to suggest that white's pieces are better than black's, then of course you may posit whatever ridiculousness you wish, but that doesn't forbid me from disagreeing.

They are better then black, by sheer stint of having a white paint job the peices as a whole are superior due to having the option to move first.
This is a fundamental principal of the game at certain competitive levels and is why the person playing white is supposed to be randomised.

Originally Posted by rtunian

ps. if you want people to know you're joking, try being funny. if you are incapable of that, the right smiley should do the trick in a pinch

I wasn't joking though, I was pointing an interesting side note that not a lot of people are aware of.
The jest (not humour) was in the way I phrased it as a rebuttal to your example.

[rtunian]

dictionary time!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jest

edit:
"the white player has an advantage" is not even close to the same meaning as "the white pawn is better than the black pawn". more importantly, this is irrelevant to the thread, so if you'd like to continue, feel free to pm me

[Emud]

Originally Posted by R Man

Actually it was you who misunderstood and continue to misunderstand context. Going back to the beginning the main point you came here to make was that few units get benefits from defending. This was, for the most part, true. But what a lot of people pointed out was that charging wasn't always the great boon it appears to be, and that being charged wasn't always a bad thing, depending on the context. The argument was against you premise, rather than your mathematics.

Exactly: charging is not always the a great boon it appears to be, and that being charged is't always a bad thing, depending on the context.

Thats why I said, in reply to your FIRST post:

Originally Posted by Emud

Charging is NOT always the best thing.

What about this do you not understand? Should I rephrase?

Charging is NOT always the best thing. It depends on the context.

Originally Posted by R Man

They are not resisting the idea of analysis. They are resisting because you have not given any information, and blankly refused when asked to do so. You say you don't need to prove anything, so we have to take you on faith? We can't read your though process, or understand what specifically you are looking for, so we can't judge. And if you don't need to prove anything, than why did you come here in the first place?

So before I state that it its possible to do an analysis, I actually have to proove first that it is? I have already explained why i did not do it here. It is a lot to explain and it would turn the thread into something completley different than what I was originally asking about. For one thing it will turn the thread from general fantasy into the games development section. Ill try to explaining later in the post, anyways. But please understand WHY I did not do it. Because it IS relevant.

I have never resisted to explain, had you actually asked I could have explained in another thread or in a PM. What I was getting were people saying it does not work, for various invalid reasons (like me not keeping it to the correct context).

I am sure though that most people know that it is possible to do an analysis. Whether I can do it or not should really not matter.

Originally Posted by R Man

What you have done is failed to communicate an idea effectively. You don't even need a real example, a hypothetical one would do. You could also discuss issues and problems, even if its just to acknowledge their existence. And explain how you think the game would change. Remember, we only have partial knowledge of your intent, so if there is any misunderstandings our interpenetration will be based off of that, not what you were actually intending.

So go back to the begining, explain your idea, logic and maths clearly, using examples and acknowledge issues and effects, and you'll get a better response.

I have actually done that in the post. Now Ill give it a try again, even though the discussion will probably morph into something very bad. Please note though that you need some knowledge in math. I simply cannot "inform" you about this. It would really not even be possible in a thread like this (it will turn ito a great wall of thex only by trying to explain this quite simple analysis). It also requires you to know how to interpret and analyze statistical data, not only to calculate it.

I started creating the program because I know the price setting in WH is not done correctly. GW makes several mistakes. Many have very litte effect on balance, but some have bigger impact.

The main issue is that increasing a certain stat will have non linear effects, depending on the other stats.

Example: Additional weapons upgrade often cost the same, although the benefit from it is clearly much greater if the unit has higher strength. The effect is greater, but the price is the same, leading to an imbalance.

Another eror the've done is to set prices per unit on upgrades that clearly give each individual model increased performance.

This is very bad, since it makes that upgrades price floating compared to unit performance.

Example: Lets give my goblins toughness 4 instead of 3. I give this as a fixed unit bonus, instead of an upgrade per individual. Buying many models will mean the price per model goes down, and suddenly what Ive got is extra cheap orcs (well almost if you look to how well they perform).

This way of price-setting per unit instead of per model does not always lead to imbalances, but often it can (Murphys law as you said). Thats why its wrong. Price setting per model cannot go wrong in that sense.

As I've said, these effects are often marginal, but sometimes they are not. Especially with characters. Buing item A might mean item B becomes underpriced compared to the effects (and therefore overpowered)

People have tried to come up with formulas for this. And quite frankly, I think that will not work, because it is not rational to do it in that way. In THAT case it is very hard to keep it to the context, and to forsee the outcome of special cases. And even harder to include it into the pricing formula.

But there are another way of doing it, which is what i try.

This is based on the assumtion that you can measure a units performance.

By performance I mean, to begin with, ONLY statistically calculated combat result in the first round of combat. The unit can either charge or be charged. Now you probably think , BUT you are not keeping to context! Units can perform differently in different situations. TRUE! But what I do is only to set up a special definition of how GOOD or BAD th unit are in close combat ONLY. This is how you actually do stuff when analyzing. You break it down into smaller parts. Then you evaluate the smaller parts, by themseleves, and later together to get the whole context.

Think of it like this. When you charge another unit, you do it because of some purpouse. When you do it you know on beforehand how good/bad your unit are (by judgement). For example are they likely to win, hold, or loose? How they perform in the task you've set them out to do is a different kind of performnance, but your initial estimation of how good/bad they are is what I mean by performance.

Example: I have the chance to charge khorne nights in the back with snotlings. I want to charge because I want to win. Snotlings wont perform good in combat, so in context they will perform bad.
On the other hand if I want to charge becuase I want to sacrify, or since snotlings are stubborn, maby hold (the chance is small, but compared to price it could be worth it). Probably the snotlings will perform good in context.

Performance in context differs very much, but statisical performance IN battle does not.

This still matters much. Because of another assumtion I make. Namely that unit performance in battle MUST be related to its price.

This might not be obvious to some, but try and think of the effects if this were not true. An extreme example would be if those snotlings above were priced the same but actually had the upper hand against the knights. This clearly leads to imbalances.

Furthermore, much of the sacrifial tactics are derived from this assumption. A units close combat performance gives you what to expect from that unit. But the payoff is price. Performing good IN combat means nothing if you are never in combat, or if your investement in points dont yield back at least an equal amout of points (or rather victory points).


So , back to the beginning. I have two assumtions:
Units perfomance (still in combat) can be measured.
Units performance must correspond to its price.

Then you calculate one specific unit when charging, against all others, and so get a combat score for all of those combinations. If you add All those scores toghether and divide by the total number of units you will get the mean value of how that unit performs. The division part is not strictly nessecary, but good to do to get the score back to a comparable combat result. This is the mean combat result against all other units, for that particular unit you are testing.

Sure, certain units perform better in certain situations, but at the moment we are looking at only one, rather general situation. More about this later.

Then we can calculate a mean combat result for every unit, and so get a long list, which can be sorted from worst to best.

What information does this list contain? Well, actually not very much in a tactical viewpoint. However, the important thing, is that from the assumption that unit price should correspond to perfomance, we get the conclusion that this list, if ordered from worst to best performance, should also be ordered from cheapest to most costly.

Here we can make another assumtion. Namely that GW has done pricing right for the most part. If thats true, the long performance list will mostly be priced correctly. Therefore, using the units in the list as samples, with a price, and a power-performance as variables, we can actually calculate a pricing formula using regression analysis.

The IMPORTANT thing to note here is that this pricing formula does NOT directly set price from stats. It instead uses statistical performance to set the price.

Example: Take a unit A with identical stats abilities and all to a special dwarf unit B. The only difference will be that dwarfs hate greenskins, while unit B does not. This will make unit A and B get almost exactly the same score in all cases except for greenskins, and so unit B will place a little higher in that performance list. When deciding price form the regression, this difference might be enough to motivate a higher price in unit B.

What is good to know is that even the smallest effect of abilites is taken into consideration in this way. However, tactically, in a large context, it does not mean the particular unit will always perform better than those lower ranked. And certainly not performing as the score indicate depending on other tactics involved.

Example: If the context is that unit B, who hates greenskins, actually fights greenskins, then of course, unit B will perfom better than its score indicates. But this does not mean that the price of unit B is not right, in an even larger context (fighting ANY army).

Furthermore, as a pricing formula this is NOT set by variables (stats, equipment and abilites), but rather the combined effect of them. This means the actual price and the price range is very easily corrected. This makes this method EXCELLENT for adjusting prices for tactical purpouses (tactical purpouses here means in the largest possible context).

Example 1: We want to increase the total power of close combat, compared to ranged or magic. We have a pricing span from the regression. Prices are easily tweaked by lowering max and min values of the pricing span. In effect making close combat units cheaper (and therefore more price worthy), while still maintaining ther indivitual power relationships

Example 2: We want to make the more powerful units less valuable by making them more expensive, maby to discourage death starts or something. We can adjust the curve from the regression from being strictly linear (if that is what is is), to an exponetial curve, making more power cost exponentially more.

In all, it is NOT a pricing formula, strictly speaking. It is a way to consistantly set prices in a uniform way across every army.




Now to the trickier parts.

I have so far only been takling about a score derived from probability when one unit charges another. Even though this contains lots of information (as i have tried to explain above), it is a rather limited comparision. We cannot expect every type of unit to fit into that list that is generated from that score, simply because it has other tactical uses.

Example: Cavalry, having great mobility, are mostly used to charge with (when they get into a fight). There are other cases, but lets just for the moment focus on the tactical charge value. This means for example, cavalry can often pick whom to charge, more often so than infantery at least. This clearly falls outside of the performance score I described previously.

But wait! Actually choosing whom to charge is a tactical desicion. Having a greater chance to get the charge in is something that affects the performance IN battle statistically. It is important to separate these two. Actual performance value, and tactical value. The performance value can be calculated, and WILL give cavalry better scores that equally strong infatery.

As I described above, the tactical value is something set by the game designers. If we wanted a game dominated by cavalry or infatery, we would make the price cheaper/more expensive for the extra tactical value of cavalry. This would be done as described before by an non linear curve.

So BOTH tactical values are controllable in the analysis. Both the added tactical value of deciding whom to charge, and the extra combat value of having a greater chance of actually getting the charge in.

How to calculate that chance? Well I do it by an approximation formula, just to get a result. The formula might not be exact, but as an approximation I would say its better than nothing. I am aware of this problem, but i do not feel it is a great problem, because it's "more right than wrong", and it a fast and easy way to get started. If someone is bothered by this, there is an VERY easy way to correct it, and that is actually gathering statistical data. In that way you will get a CORRECT formula.

The actual formula I use is simple. I start with an rough estimation, saying that a if a unit has greater movement it will have greater chances of getting the charge in. If the movement is equal the units obviously have equal chances, so the starting condition is 50%. One difference I say is 75% Two is 87,5% and so on.

Hey you might think. What about tarpitting, subsequent fights and charging in the side? How to get that into the charge chance formula? Simply, I dont. Because that is another thing I measure in another score. Its important to break things down to smaller peices when analyzing. The power of hammer and anvil tactics for example, lies not in the unit charging in the flank, because that charge is given to it "for free" by the unit holding the enemy so it can be charged.

So what does this give?
Well since i now have a formula for calculating charge chance based on movement, I use that for wheighting the combat score I talked about earlier. This is done by (charge chance) * (combat score) - (chance to be charged) * (score if opponent charges)

This total list of unit comparisions given in this way is more accurate than the list i described first. And on a whole, ther is no big errors, since the chargechance estimation is roughly correct.

So far, I have only been talking about units and not taken ranks into consideration. This can easily be done by comparing equally priced units. If using the same price for both units, we get a differance in number of models, and if that differance makes up for an additional rank, then we just add a combat result of 1 to the rankbonus.

While doing this we quickly see that there is no point in calculating a score for flanking, or rear attacking, since that bonus will not change in any way depending on unit. (well actually some units may have special bonuses for that, but those cases are so special it is no real point in having them in the analysis. It could be done though).

There is also the power score of actually recieveing a charge. Spear units obviously excel at this, but their power performance must still be measured to give a correct pricing. This is done by simple only calculating the score when the opponent charges.

Now, instead of one list we have 4.

Combat score
Hold score
Combat score - when ranked
Hold score -when ranked

What is the difference when comparing ranked, and non ranked? Maby not obvious, but Combat score defines combat performance without regards to ranks. Importat for example when analyzing cases always using full ranks, or when negating ranks.

What i do with these lists, is to indicate for each unit which list it performs best in.

From that I make another assumption. For the price to be balanced it needs to be set by the category in which a unit performs best in. That may sound strange, because units that are good in several categorys obviously have a greater tactical value. The reason for the assumption is that if that increased tactical vaule makes the unit price higher, it will make that particular unit overpriced compared to units that are designed to complete a single task. And overpriced will from an optimization perspective equal not being used.

My thoughts on how to handle it is to use the special, and rare choices for those types of units, because thats what it's about. It have a special tactical value.

There are more to it than this though. For example how to calculate a score for subsequesent combat. You calculate the chance the unit has to loose by one for example, and multiply the chance the unit has to succeed a Ld test by loosing by one. Then lastly you add the chances togeter for succeding Ld tests depending on different combat outcome.

Actual calculating of chances are done ONCE only, by letting the computer generate lookuptables.


Now I have made several examples on how to calculate the scores. The actual math are not something I have to explain I hope, since it can be found several times around on these forums, in case someone dont take my word for that it is possible. Its all basic probability theory.

As for pricing, I have only talked about close combat so far. There are other prices added to that. Magic and ranged powerfor example.

Lastly there is an option to add a "special" extra price because of "unmeasurable" tactical benefits. For example skarsniks deployment rules cannot be measured in an easy way, and a quick and easy way to commpensate for it might be to just add an extra price to the model.


Now, this is just a small explanation of how i do it. There are so many other things involved, I just cannot bring up every aspect of it.


EDIT: Oh, I just want to add that I am not flawless in any way. It is very possible I dont include everyting that should be included in my calculations. Just saying that while I might be doing it wrong, it is still possible to do. If ther is a tactical context Im forgetting about, it will be possible to define it mathematically in some way.


The main point was that a performance analysis is very much doable. And measuring how a unit performs statistically IN combat is totally relevant when taling about the unit performs in the larger context.

Not the opposite as some say, that statistical preformance IN battle does NOT matter, because of it varies with context. What is varying with the context is what you want the unit to do, an therefore the unit might not perform as you excpect. However the performance IN battle, is always the same, and that knowledge should be used to give the unit an appropriate task.

EDIT: Now I have given an explanation, mainly to proove I dont "blankly refuse"'to do so. And, perhaps, to undo some of the upset feelings. Cant we just say that while some people think this analysis will lead to something good, others think it will not.

I would be happy to let the thread die now.

[theunwantedbeing]

So the end result is supposed to be what exactly?

End result being when your programm thingy is fully finished.

Currently, all it appears to be doing is be able to generate a bunch of numbers that arent really any use, far less use than simply learning how warhammer works and simply guessing at whether something is going to be worth doing or not.

[Emud]

Originally Posted by theunwantedbeing

So the end result is supposed to be what exactly?

End result being when your programm thingy is fully finished.

Currently, all it appears to be doing is be able to generate a bunch of numbers that arent really any use, far less use than simply learning how warhammer works and simply guessing at whether something is going to be worth doing or not.

Ther is no single result. Its not a machine that spits out one number.

Its a tool used for analyzing. Yes it produces data. After that its up to the prson using it to interpret the data. Yes you can learn this probably equally good by just playing warhammer. But in the large context it is very hard to say what effect for example what impact hatred against 2 armies only should have price wise.

As I said, earlier in the thread when asked about it, i use it for creating my own house rules. And seeing what impact new abilities have. And for pricing new units. And for repricing old units in a more balanced way (actually the program does the repricing, no need to go over it all manually). And for seeing if for example cavalry gets a dominant role in close combat, game mechganics wise. And maby for creating whole new balanced armies.

If you dont see the use of it it does not mean its not useful.

[theunwantedbeing]

I'll have to see some of your house rules you developed from using that tool then.
That'll give a good indication of how effective it actually is.

Your hatred example.
Regular unit of dwarf warriors generates a whopping 6 st3 ws4 attacks.
Vs orcs thats doing 6x.5x.33x.5 wounds. = .5 not a lot.
With hatred
Vs orcs thats doing 6x.75x.33.x.5 wounds = 0.75, again not a lot.

So in general the effect is so utterly marginal that no additional cost is warranted as its only vs a single army. Despite the effect actually being a 50% increase in ability over that single example, it sounds huge but in reality its not.
Plus there is the "must persue" part of the hatred rule meaning that extra combat ability comes with the drawback of those much faster greenskins being able to draw your dwarves to them.
This effect is absurdly difficult to calculate but its simple enough to assume that it mitigates the bonus you may have in combat.

I'm assuming this is in keeping with your own analysis?

[Emud]

Originally Posted by theunwantedbeing

I'll have to see some of your house rules you developed from using that tool then.
That'll give a good indication of how effective it actually is.

Your hatred example.
Regular unit of dwarf warriors generates a whopping 6 st3 ws4 attacks.
Vs orcs thats doing 6x.5x.33x.5 wounds. = .5 not a lot.
With hatred
Vs orcs thats doing 6x.75x.33.x.5 wounds = 0.75, again not a lot.

So in general the effect is so utterly marginal that no additional cost is warranted as its only vs a single army. Despite the effect actually being a 50% increase in ability over that single example, it sounds huge but in reality its not.
Plus there is the "must persue" part of the hatred rule meaning that extra combat ability comes with the drawback of those much faster greenskins being able to draw your dwarves to them.
This effect is absurdly difficult to calculate but its simple enough to assume that it mitigates the bonus you may have in combat.

I'm assuming this is in keeping with your own analysis?

Yes it is. I used dwarves to make a point aboit even the smallest effect gets into the calculation. Normal sense says the effect is to small to have any effect yes.

However I also say the effects are not linear. A powerful dwarf lord having hatred is not the same thing.

(I dont actually caclulatte characters yet, but since they are units, its still possible)

Haterd pursue is one of those things i mention as not calculable (althoug it would get into the statistics if you actually measured how many times a unit get a charge in, or get charged, so there still IS ways of doing it). Frenzy must charge is another (same with freny, actual statistics would give correct charge chance formula). I would never try to guess at a correction of the charge formula because of this though, since it would be totally random guessing at best.

However that does not mean the combat result calulation is wrong. It simply means pricing for those "special" effects have to go in a separate category, based on evaluation on impact on the game. Like the thing i mentioned about skarsnik deployment. This estimation migh be off, but its not worse than how it is currently done is it? Only by estimation, no calculation.

You'll have to wait pretty long for the rules. I have to finish the programming tool first. But I get your point. There is no saying if I succed with what I do before putting it to a real test. However my point has from the very beginning been that it is possible to do an analysis (and that it is relevat).

[theunwantedbeing]

Considering your using statistics, when doing it accurately you often have to just ignore any anomalous results (like a powerful combat dwarf lord getting hatred vs one army). So long as you have a reasonable reason to ignore it.

Resonable reason in that case is simply "he's not the normal occurance as normally a dwarf lord is tooled up for defence rather than combat, so hatred doesnt really help him that much".

I agree that effects arent linear.
Lots of people often try to make up rules by giving everything a set value, and they then dont end up with reasonable rules as it just plain doesnt work that way.

One way of figuring out the balance is to generate a model, then stick it in a unit and test the entire unit cost against other units it is likely to face. These units dont need to be of the same value as that rarely ever happens in game so its a pointless comparison.
Then you work out how easily you can fit that unit into a list, with multiples of that unit and how it interacts with other things.

Cost is then adjusted from there untill you hit a nice round figure per model.
This then reasonably generates a cost per model in a balanced manner.

[Emud]

I dont quite follow. Maby we just think differently. Or maby i should just relax and have a beer.

Anyways, I dont ignore anything in my analysis, because IF that dwarf lord has good fighting capabilities, then he should pay for it. At least that's how i see it.

I also dont like to make assumptions about what units a special unit are likely to face. In my reasoning that has more to do with if the commander uses a sound tactic or not, and that kind of psychology is not measurable at all.

[theunwantedbeing]

Notice that I havent "ignored" anything in my own analysis.
Dwarf lord, 4 attacks with a great weapon.
3+ to hit, 2+ to kill basically. So 2.22 wounds normally, add in hatred and this goes upto 2.96, a mere third additional lethalness, and generally speaking 1 extra wound caused in that first combat round.

You could easily make him have 6 attacks at the same strength.
So he goes from doing 3.33 wounds to 4.44 wounds, an increase of 1.3rd again, but nothing too massive.

Still not a large enough difference to be worth considering into the cost of a model within an army where there are 12 other potential armies to face off against that this bonus does not help against.

So it isnt ignored as such, its taken into account and treated as not worth considering for the points cost.
Much like say...the ballistic skill of a model who never has any access to a weapon that will use said ballistic skill.

[R Man]

Quote

Exactly: charging is not always the a great boon it appears to be, and that being charged is't always a bad thing, depending on the context.

Thats why I said, in reply to your FIRST post:


What about this do you not understand? Should I rephrase?

Charging is NOT always the best thing. It depends on the context.

So if you accept this, then why do you need to change things to make this so?

Quote

So before I state that it its possible to do an analysis, I actually have to proove first that it is? I have already explained why i did not do it here. It is a lot to explain and it would turn the thread into something completley different than what I was originally asking about. For one thing it will turn the thread from general fantasy into the games development section. Ill try to explaining later in the post, anyways. But please understand WHY I did not do it. Because it IS relevant.

I have never resisted to explain, had you actually asked I could have explained in another thread or in a PM. What I was getting were people saying it does not work, for various invalid reasons (like me not keeping it to the correct context).

I am sure though that most people know that it is possible to do an analysis. Whether I can do it or not should really not matter.

No, the point was that you claimed to know a way to work this out (even attacking others for lacking maths prowess) and then when asked (initially not by me) rebuffed the question. And you don’t even need to throw some complex maths, just state what you would like to do, using a unit as an example. It doesn’t even have to be accurate, just show what you were trying/intending to do. And it does not work because you have not only told us nothing about your process (don’t say you have because you haven’t) and then you proceed to act rude and condescending to those who ask questions.

Quote

I have actually done that in the post. Now Ill give it a try again, even though the discussion will probably morph into something very bad. Please note though that you need some knowledge in math. I simply cannot "inform" you about this. It would really not even be possible in a thread like this (it will turn ito a great wall of thex only by trying to explain this quite simple analysis). It also requires you to know how to interpret and analyze statistical data, not only to calculate it.

Excellent. A clear explanation makes things go a lot smoother. Due to its size though, I will only respond to some of it.

Quote

The main issue is that increasing a certain stat will have non linear effects, depending on the other stats.

Example: Additional weapons upgrade often cost the same, although the benefit from it is clearly much greater if the unit has higher strength. The effect is greater, but the price is the same, leading to an imbalance.

Another eror the've done is to set prices per unit on upgrades that clearly give each individual model increased performance.

This is very bad, since it makes that upgrades price floating compared to unit performance.

Example: Lets give my goblins toughness 4 instead of 3. I give this as a fixed unit bonus, instead of an upgrade per individual. Buying many models will mean the price per model goes down, and suddenly what Ive got is extra cheap orcs (well almost if you look to how well they perform).

Wait wait wait! GW almost never gives fixed bonuses. They almost always use per model bonuses. The exceptions seem to be magic banners, and maybe Chaos Marks (but I haven’t seen the new WOC book).

Quote

This way of price-setting per unit instead of per model does not always lead to imbalances, but often it can (Murphys law as you said). Thats why its wrong. Price setting per model cannot go wrong in that sense.

Except it can. In most cases players end up paying for points they will never use. In a unit of 25, maybe 10 of them will ever get to use the weapon that you paid for.

Quote

Here we can make another assumtion. Namely that GW has done pricing right for the most part. If thats true, the long performance list will mostly be priced correctly. Therefore, using the units in the list as samples, with a price, and a power-performance as variables, we can actually calculate a pricing formula using regression analysis.

Linear or Hierarchical regression (or a different type all together)? And what are you regressing? (i.e: What are your measures)

Quote

How to calculate that chance? Well I do it by an approximation formula, just to get a result. The formula might not be exact, but as an approximation I would say its better than nothing. I am aware of this problem, but i do not feel it is a great problem, because it's "more right than wrong", and it a fast and easy way to get started. If someone is bothered by this, there is an VERY easy way to correct it, and that is actually gathering statistical data. In that way you will get a CORRECT formula.

Wait a moment. This sounds a little bit like ‘good enough’ which is what formulas are usually brought in to combat in the first place. Good judgement should be enough, but you would have a WORKABLE formula, which could then be tweaked. I know it’s a nitpick and I’m not attacking the basic idea, just noting the distinction.

Quote

Hey you might think. What about tarpitting, subsequent fights and charging in the side? How to get that into the charge chance formula? Simply, I dont. Because that is another thing I measure in another score. Its important to break things down to smaller peices when analyzing. The power of hammer and anvil tactics for example, lies not in the unit charging in the flank, because that charge is given to it "for free" by the unit holding the enemy so it can be charged.

Not necessarily, this could also be considered a function of movement. Units with greater move have more flexibility in this than other units.

Quote

This total list of unit comparisions given in this way is more accurate than the list i described first. And on a whole, ther is no big errors, since the chargechance estimation is roughly correct.

You have tested it right? To be sure of your formula you must put it to the test.

Quote

From that I make another assumption. For the price to be balanced it needs to be set by the category in which a unit performs best in. That may sound strange, because units that are good in several categorys obviously have a greater tactical value. The reason for the assumption is that if that increased tactical vaule makes the unit price higher, it will make that particular unit overpriced compared to units that are designed to complete a single task. And overpriced will from an optimization perspective equal not being used.

I understand, though I would have phrased it differently. I would say that a unit may be good in several area’s just not at the same time.

Quote

The main point was that a performance analysis is very much doable. And measuring how a unit performs statistically IN combat is totally relevant when taling about the unit performs in the larger context.

Well that’s fair enough. But how does this actually perform. I know you want to weaken ranged troops and magic, but what about march blocking. Now have you weighted defence as greater than attack? Looking at big infantry units now ones that rely on offence seem to loose out to those with good defences, unless their attacks are high. I know you ignored fear for the purposes of your rules but it’s still a powerful factor in battle, so how do you account for it? Or would you rather change it? Or would you account for this by increasing points cost of fear causes, but if so, by how much?

Quote

Not the opposite as some say, that statistical preformance IN battle does NOT matter, because of it varies with context. What is varying with the context is what you want the unit to do, an therefore the unit might not perform as you excpect. However the performance IN battle, is always the same, and that knowledge should be used to give the unit an appropriate task.

Then how do you calculate threat? Sure, its not easy, but you have to account for it in some way. Artillery derives most of its power from threat rather than direct damage. Of course, your not dealing with the artillery, but infantry will be on the receiving end.

There are still questions to be answered. Are you using any units as a baseline? What are the other changes you intend to make. Where it the finished result, i.e: a unit that has actually been run through. Show us the difference.

Quote

EDIT: Now I have given an explanation, mainly to proove I dont "blankly refuse"'to do so. And, perhaps, to undo some of the upset feelings. Cant we just say that while some people think this analysis will lead to something good, others think it will not.

I would be happy to let the thread die now.

That is a better way to do it. Even if someone doesn’t agree, we at least know what you are actually trying to do.