Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Troop Balance

  1. #1

    Troop Balance

    Hi All,
    I'm curious if anyone has looked at the troop balance issue in BR. An Anuirean knight costs 6 GB while a group of base irregulars costs 0.5 GB. So it would make sense that 1 knight should defeat 12 irregulars about 50% of the time but my simulations show the knight never wins.
    Am I missing something?
    If not, does anyone have any ideas on how we can fix this issue?

    Thanks,
    geovoidl

    "The more I read, the more I meditate; and the more I acquire, the more certain I am that I know nothing." - Voltaire

  2. #2
    I don't see the correlation of GB price to how many A can defeat of B. In practice a unit of irregulars at .5GB means they are mustered as is, no armor, no training, and are green. This unit is in serious trouble from a unit of knights

    Green Irregular: +2 melee +0 missile, 2 hits, move 1, +2 morale save, 10 Defense

    vs.

    the listed typical Knight: +6 Melee (+10 with charge), no missile, 16 defense, 3 move, 3 hits, +6 morale.

    The unit of knights goes in the charge phase, thus first when battle opens. The knights only miss their charge of the irregulars on a natural 1 (if you use that rule, I do.) That charge does 2 hits, on a non-crit....bye bye irregulars. The only chance the irregulars have is to use their +0 missile to do a last chance strike. Which is 80% likely to miss. The irregulars don't qualify for stationary missile in the first round because they are out of range.

    Even against multiple irregulars the knights are ok. The first unit is destroyed, the next unit has to move to the knight, and can only attack if it was adjacent to begin with and the knights didnt move in their next movement phase. With a +2 attack the irregulars need a 14 or better to hit, thats what a 30% chance to hit? Even if the knights then decide not to press the melee, they can evasively withdraw all day long and set up their next charge. Not utilizing a knights supreme mobility is a sin. Move 3 vs Move 1 is just a slaughter. Heck the knights could even dismount and be considered Heavy Infantry+ I'm sure. That gives them +2 melee vs irregulars and such. Lots of knights fought dismounted in such a way historicaly.

    Unless I'm misinterpreting the mechanics of combat. Knights should have no problem against irregulars.
    Last edited by Whammydill; 09-01-2007 at 10:16 PM.

  3. #3
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Chelmsford, Essex, England
    Posts
    2,305
    Downloads
    25
    Uploads
    0
    You also need to consider what happens when space is constrained on the battlefield - if only 1-2 units can fight beside the ford, within the fort etc then the elite units really shine. By contrast of course the cheap units can be used in a number of locations to keep order while the elite unit can only be in one.

    Elite troops also shine if you limit the number of troops that a general can lead based on their leadership skill or suchlike; or if troops need to act on their own - the knights will act effectively without need for frequent commands while the irregulars are unlikely to know what to do or where they will be needed.

    I would always suggest having a mix of units in an army, enough cheap irregulars and the like to deal with policing matters, give the appearance of strength to deter aggression, a number of standard units to deal with more serious issues and a solid core of elite units to do the real carnage in battle, break fortifications, show off to other nobles and so on.

  4. #4
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    I think that its sound to assume some relationship between cost and value. What is the point of listing and devisiong ratings for troops so poor in value that no one would ever raise them? That being said, many troops will be of more value under certain circumstances than others. So no clear relationship between cost and value can be established without a pretty good set of operational decisions established.

  5. #5
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Chelmsford, Essex, England
    Posts
    2,305
    Downloads
    25
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    I think that its sound to assume some relationship between cost and value. What is the point of listing and devisiong ratings for troops so poor in value that no one would ever raise them? That being said, many troops will be of more value under certain circumstances than others. So no clear relationship between cost and value can be established without a pretty good set of operational decisions established.
    In a role context this also makes sense. Armies cost a lot of money, any rational noble will want the maximum bang for their buck and will employ the best army (for their needs and in their understanding) for the gold they can spend.

    So if two similarly effective troops have differing costs they will raise the cheap one and the other will become obsolete. Allowing for regional variations, fear of arming the peasants, availability of peasants/knights, immutable traditions, church law, etc of course.

    It's not just gamers who powergame, it happens in real life too...

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    883
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    kgauck schrieb:
    > This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
    > You can view the entire thread at:
    > http://www.birthright.net/forums/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=3978
    > kgauck wrote:
    > I think that its sound to assume some relationship between cost and value. What is the point of listing and devisiong ratings for troops so poor in value that no one would ever raise them? That being said, many troops will be of more value under certain circumstances than others. So no clear relationship between cost and value can be established without a pretty good set of operational decisions established.
    >
    One point of having stats for poor troops is that the good troops may
    not be available to everyone.
    Speaking in 2E terms:
    A regent with only undeveloped low-level provinces may not be able to
    muster knights.
    A guilder without any law holdings may not be able to muster even elite
    infantery.
    A regent who already had mustered the maximum of troops (=province
    level) may have to call the levy even if they are the worst of units.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    124
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    -- Michael Romes <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE> wrote:
    > > I think that its sound to assume some relationship between cost and value. What is the point of listing and devisiong ratings for troops so poor in value that no one would ever raise them? That being said, many troops will be of more value under certain circumstances than others. So no clear relationship between cost and value can be established without a pretty good set of operational decisions established.
    > >
    > One point of having stats for poor troops is that the good troops may not be available to everyone. Speaking in 2E terms: A regent with only undeveloped low-level provinces may not be able to muster knights. A guilder without any law holdings may not be able to muster even elite infantry. A regent who already had mustered the maximum of troops (=province level) may have to call the levy even if they are
    the worst of units.

    It was my understanding that the maximum number of units that can be mustered at a time was equal to the province level, even if some of those units were Levy units. I didn`t think you could muster your normal number (say three in a level 3 province) and then muster Levy also (an additional 3 Levy units in the same example province).

    Did I miss something...or did I not understand correctly what was being said?
    Last edited by Thelandrin; 09-07-2007 at 10:18 AM. Reason: Advertising etc.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Balance issues
    By Thelandrin in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 05-15-2007, 04:19 PM
  2. Wow TGA unit balance sure is horrible
    By Question in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-09-2005, 04:25 AM
  3. Size of a battle unit (i.e., abstract troop size)
    By irdeggman in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-23-2005, 06:50 PM
  4. Balance Issues
    By Yair in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-09-2003, 09:56 PM
  5. Spellcasters and the Balance of Power
    By ConjurerDragon in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 08-13-2002, 02:48 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.